d-backs/padres ending
 

Extra innings. Just ended a few seconds ago. Bases loaded two out, bottom of the 10th, tied. Batter walks. Runner on second base runs from second directly toward dugout instead of toward third. He's well on to the infield grass when the runner from third touches home.

Umpires caucus for a long time. It's unclear whether the runner tried to run back from the dugout to third. Announcers had no idea what the rule is. What is the rule?

(After consultation, they counted the run and ended the game.)

Edit: Watching post-game. Umps still in dugout discussing. Fans have left.

Very similar play to the one I brought up in a thread several weeks ago. Butch Wynegar took a bases loaded ball four that was a wild pitch. He did not go to first and joined in the celebration at the plate. The theory was that if the B/R makes the third out at first, a run cannot score.

Back then the ump said the wild pitch took precedence over the walk so the run stood.

This play was not a force out. The runner on third was entitled to home by the bases loaded walk. Could have been another Merkel Boner though.

I think I heard Bud Black protested the decision. It sounds like they appealed to third in which case it was a timing play and the run had crossed the plate by that time. I guess it could be argued that an out could be called for abandonment and when that out could have been called before the run scored.

Try reading 4.09(b) - all the way through.

Baseball is not my game, and your rules make my head hurt. The first parts of the rule seem relatively clear -- run counts unless the runner from third declines to run home or the BR does not promptly touch first. (Unless there is some fan interference.) Seems to cover the situation.

Then I get to stuff like this and it's where y'all lose me: "When a runner misses a base and a fielder holds the ball on a missed base, or on the base originally occupied by the runner if a fly ball is caught, and appeals for the umpire's decision, the runner is out when the umpire sustains the appeal; all runners may score if possible, except that with two out the runner is out at the moment he misses the bag, if an appeal is sustained as applied to the following runners."

As I read this, it relates to the timing of when the out at third occurs, which apparently can occur in some cases when the appeal is granted and in others when the base was missed, although the "as applied to the following runners" is as clear as mud to me. But as I understand it, it all is irrelevant if the runner from third touched home and the BR touched first. (Which seems consistent with how the crew chief handled it, because he seemed to go directly to the first base U.)

They said on the telecast that he did in fact protest, based on the explanation he was given, whatever that means. There did appear to be an appeal at third, though the appeal was well after the runner from third touched home. It is unclear to me from the rule quoted above when and whether the out can be declared earlier than the appeal in this situation, but if it matters, at the time the runner from third touched home, the runner from second had taken a direct line from second base toward the third base dug out, and was on the infield grass. I don't know whether this is enough to be declared out on an advance on a walk -- he clearly had not left the field or anything and easily could have taken a right hand turn and run toward third if he'd wanted to. The 3BU did not make any kind of mechanic to signal an out before the run scored.

An out for abandoment is NEVER a force play, by interpretation, in MLB (and MiLB, I think).

Some think the interp should be changed and/or the rule should be clarified.

Under OBR R3 needs to touch the plate and BR needs to touch 1B. R1 and R2 can do what they like. Sounds as if that's what happened.

Straight from 4.09b.

Also, where does it say that a runner must go straight to the next base. He is just making a creative baseline. No tag play is eminent, so he can make his own "baseline". Besides that, 4.09b says it doesn't matter. Case closed.

Any runner can be called out if they progress a resonable distance toward their dugout, obviously abandoning all efforts to run the bases. No need to wait for a fielder to try and attempt a tag.

Tim.

Exactly, just like on a walk-off hit. As soon as R3 touches home and the BR touches first, the game is over and R1 and R2 are of no consequence. Black had no grounds for protest, and frankly should have not grasped at straws just because his crappy team lost yet another game. Looked kind of silly.

Look at this way, the Padres folded early this year and got it over with.

Think 2007 & 2010.

JEA says on a walk off hit all the forced runners have to advance and touch the next base. This is not in the MLBUM or the rule though. I'm not sure where Evans came up with that but a lot of folks seem to e running with it.

Isn't that the Merkle play?

Yes it is the Merkle play. The rule is different for a walk-off walk or HBP. If the ball is hit, the "force is on" and being a forced third out would negate the run.

Not true. Here is what 4.09b says and its absolutely clear.

As mbryon stated earlier what the runner from 1st and 2nd do is irrelevant. They do not have to advance to the next base. Only the batter and scoring runner.

Not clear at all. It is clear that with the bases loaded, a walk or HBP allows each runner to advance one base without liability of being put out. BUT the game is not over UNTIL R3 touches home and B/R touches first. A batted ball is different since no run can score when a force out is the third out at any base. You see the situation often.... Grounder to third on over to second, on to the tenth tie game. The game is not over because the runners were forced and R3 touched home and B/R
touched first. The little matter of the 5-4 force negated the run and forces are not timing plays. If the (next) base or the runner (R1 or R2) is tagged before the runner touches the base, it is a force out. If it is the third out, no runs score. In the OP where R2 abandoned his attempt to advance to third he could "theoretically" be put out on appeal, but the run counted and the game ended before the appeal could be made.


In Merkle's Boner there were runners on first and third and Merkle did not advance to and touch second after an apparent game winning hit. Would it make any sense that the situation would be any different just because the bases were loaded??

Another play covered by 4.09(b) would be catcher's interference. Same mechanics as a walk or HBP.

But, say it was an uncaught third strike. You could retire R1 or R2 if for some reason they did not touch the next base by a force out mechanic.

Or take this situation. Grounder to third toward short. R2 stops so as not to be tagged. F5's throw goes over head of F4 into RF. R2 thinks the winning run scored and exuberantly races to the plate to join the celebration without touching third. He can still be forced out at third to negate the apparent winning run.

I believe that it is possible for R1 or R2 to be forced at 2nd or 3rd before R3 and BR touch home and 1st, but not after the BR touches 1st. That removes the force, and it becomes a time play. Ergo, the run scores regardless of what happens to the other runners, provided R3 touches home and BR touches 1st before the putout is made on the other runners.

Since this is the only open thread right now...
 

...to Bob Jenkins RE: Last entry in recently closed thread...ROTFLMAO!!! Great post!:D

If the game is over (as the rule says) when the BR touches 1B and R3 touches home, how can you then force out a runner?

The B/R reaching first safely does not remove the force play for runners forced to advance: you frequently see short fly balls to RF drop in and R1 gets forced 9-6 at second because he had to play it half-way. Actually the thing that removes the force is retiring the B/R at first like on a hard grounder to F3 and then F6 has to tag R1 on a 3-U-6 DP.

Read 4.09(b) closely...it says the game is not over UNTIL.... Not WHEN. That rule is not meant to absolve the offense of being in jeopardy of force outs just because the bases are loaded. It says that B/R and R3 have to go through the motion of advancing to and touching the base. Just like a B/R has to touch all the bases after a HR and the pitcher (in OBR) has to throw the pitches for an IBB.

Rich, 4.09(b) says the game is not over UNTIL (not "when"). There is nothing in that wording that takes off the force. Say B/R hits a slow grounder to third and beats the throw to first. Meanwhile, R1 pulls a hamstring on his way to second and falls down incapacitated. He can still be forced at second for the third out to preserve the tie.

Why would 4.09(a) not ALWAYS apply?
(a) One run shall be scored each time a runner legally advances to and touches first, second, third and home base before three men are put out to end the inning. EXCEPTION: A run is not scored if the runner advances to home base during a play in which the third out is made (1) by the batter-runner before he touches first base; (2) by any runner being forced out; or (3) by a preceding runner who is declared out because he failed to touch one of the bases.

Do you not see the difference? This part of the rule paragraph (a) is for an inning ender not a game ender as (b) is for a game ender, thus the specific note that only the BR and R3 need to advance. You even cite your own answer. "The game is not over until R3 and the BR touch their bases. Thus excluding the other two runners from having to advance. If they wanted them included they would added them to that part of the rule. OBR is known for some vaguely written rules, but this one is not one of them. It is very specific and precise.

Your interpretation and reasoning is incorrect. It hinges on the word "until". Note also the "exception". The rule is not meant to say, there is an exception to the exception about force plays. Think about it, has ANY MLB umpire crew worked out a mechanic to TIME a 5-4 force in the bases loaded 2 out situation to see if R3 crosses the plate before the force is made at second? Never, never in 50 years of watching baseball has this ever been remotely considered.

OK...4.09(b)...."or any other play with the bases full which forces the runner on third to advance..." Fine, the batter hits a towering fly to the gap warning track deep. Is this "a play"? Yes. Does it force R3 to advance? Yes. Does R3 cross the plate and B/R reach first before the catch is made? Easily done, it was hit that deep. Then, according to rule 4.09(b) the run counts and the game is over. Well, we all know that is wrong because of the way the third out was made. It is the SAME thing if the third out is made by a force (at any base).

Your scenario doesnt fit the criteria in the slightest. I will try this one more time and then if you insist, you can just be wrong and be happy.

The rule states that if R3 and BR reach their base in a game ending scenario, the game is over at that time, period, and the progress of R1 and R2 has no bearing on the game that has just ended by R3 and BR reaching their advanced base.

You do see that you are the only one clinging to your philosophy? And your 5-4 mechanic, or whatever you are trying to propose is another fact that goes against your own reasoning because it does not happen. Bottom line is that once R3 scores, and BR reaches 1st base the game is over and the bell aint getting unrung.

OK, one last time here: R3 CANNOT "score" a run IF the third out is made by a force. Even if the force is a Merkle type boner. The game is not over until the run "scores". The run does not "score" until a third out force situation is resolved. If the third out is a force out no run can score. That is one of the most fundamental rules in baseball. Jeesh!

You are wrong, but as i said you may be happy and wrong - be my guest.;)

There you go, since you added this try getting around it. You cant. There was never a third out because as the rule states - the game is over, period. Be happy and wrong though. We still love ya. ;)

We'll see. I doubt you'll find many of the regulars here in your corner.

You're pulling my leg now. Probably have been all along.

Yes, I was wrong. Had my head up my butt while posting. Still doesn't apply to a walk off walk.

Exactly. Rule 4.09(b) is for plays like a bases loaded walk, HBP, catcher's interference where it simply says B/R has to touch first and R3 has to touch the plate for the run to count and the game to end. This rule can even be waived if fans rush the field and interfere. It doesn't matter what R1 and R2 do....although might be interesting of Tony Plush as R1 had a burning desire to go hug R2 and passed him in the baseline while rounding second.

Also, say Tony was the batter and he wanted to celebrate rather than going down to first. So the first base coach picks him up off the pile and directs him to first. Would it be an out for coach's assistance negating the run?

Yes, those years they didn't realize how crappy they were until near the end of the season.

I don't get what's so complicated about this.

When a runner is forced to advance, he must complete his advance. So, batted ball, uncaught third strike -- R1 and R2 (as well as the BR and R3) must advance or they are liable to be forced out. BB, HBP -- only the BR and R3 must advance.

Not EVERYTHING they like... For example - R2 cannot sprint to third and pass R3 before R3 reaches home. Other examples like this.

Good point, Mike. They also cannot murder the pitcher, and other examples like this. Thanks for helping to keep it real. :p

The OP wanted to know whether R1 and R2 had to touch their advance base in this case. They don't. Hope that is clearer than my original answer.

Well, another Hardy Boys mystery is solved. Bob will be right here shortly with the lock.:)

Yes, it would be an out, but not if another player picked him up and carried him to first. That would be legal.

Larry,
After re reading my posts and the rules, I see where I got myself caught up on the scenario being the case of it just not happening in modern day. Technically you are right and I was wrong in that yes if a forced runner R2 or R1 has not advanced to their base prior to a defensive player touching the runner or base the run would not count. My apologies on this one. Regardless of what I was getting myself caught up on you were right in this interpretation.
Jon

Just thinking out loud here... murder would be an ejection, I think... but I'm not sure we get an out for that. :)

Probably depends on whether it was the result of malicious contact by a runner. :cool:

Jon, thanks! I certainly agree with you that there is no basis to allow a protest for the actual OP. You were quite correct: rule 4.09(b) is very clear on that.

Larry

Padres withdraw protest over Saturday's walk-off loss to D-backs | MLB.com: News

The protest was withdrawn. Gibson said he was going to bring up advancing to the next base as a spring training drill next year. :-)