Does it behove
 

First and foremost you must agree that the ball remains alive after the 3rd out is recorded. Therefore, it is compulsory (sic forced) for a B/R to reach 1st safely and all other forced runners to advance safely for a run to score with 2 outs. If after 3 outs, the defense appeals that a runner never reached a base safely (first), the B/R sould be declared out and no run scored. The fact that in 99.9% of cases like this, an appeal would never be made, does not negate the fact the the B/R is out if appealed for the 3rd out which supercedes the original 3rd out

There has to be a legitimate reason for superseding a third out -- a missed base appeal, for instance. There's no legitimate reason for a B/R to continue running after the third out was made on the bases. Besides an obscure J/R reference, I'm not sure you'd find anyone to agree with this.

Does it behove
 

Naysayers go to www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/fourthout.

As a buddy said...it's a lexicon thing or is it.

Does it behove
 

the posted url is wrong. It's Fourth out - BR Bullpen an _ underline is needed between fourth and out...sorry

Does it behove
 

Naysayers go to Fourth out - BR Bullpen. They said it better than I could...it's a lexicon thing.

I'm not sure what your point is but I could go and edit that entry right now to say "The Moon is Made of Cheese." That doesn't make it true. I will take Wendelstedt's interpretation over anonymous wikieditor at www.baseball-reference.com .

Does it behove
 

In his last book before committing suicide major league umpire Ron Luciano stated that in his entire career he never called a balk because he didn't understand the rule. If alive, he would probably add the fourth out rule. Enough said!!

Yes, I agree though probably not for the same reason.

You have to reach first before you can abandon.

And we're supposed to believe some anonympus poster at a site not developed by any known rules guru?

Luciano told a bunch of tall tales. That's what makes the stories funny. He also wrote that he once was hung over or somthing so he had the catchers call the game. Do you believe that one?

There are certain things an appeal can be made for... please show us the rule which asserts that THIS situation (touching first base while possessing the ball before BR reaches first base) could be considered an appeal. There is no such rule -- this is NOT an appeal.

The ball may remain live if it needs to for whatever reason. Making a play on a runner is not one of those reasons.

Follow your logic a bit further - consider a runner for a team whose dugout is on the first base side who began on first base who reaches 2nd base and is there when the 3rd (non-force) out is made. He sees the 3rd out made and begins running toward his dugout. If the ball is still live, then this runner is retreating toward first - thus reinstating the force play at second base - which defense could then get nullifying a run.

This is absurd on purpose... but it's no more absurd than the insistence that BR must continue to first after the 3rd out is made elsewhere.

BR.com is run by the wiki people. Often a good source for otherwise public information. Certainly not a good rule resource, as any real umpire would know. The fact that you're using this as the backing for your argument says volumes. You've been asked more than once what RULE you would use to enforce this incorrect opinion of yours. Say you ruled as you suggest, and I, the astute coach, protest - by what rule do you back your position?

There is a certain poster who shall go unnamed (SDS) claimed that the ball remained live between innings..............Always wondered why the PU put the ball in play before the first pitch of a half inning myself.

I don't think that word means what you think it does.