Does it behoove the B/R...?

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

Besides an obscure J/R reference, I'm not sure you'd find anyone to agree with this.

This is disappointing. I have an old copy (1995) that I treasured back then. It seemed to have Bible-like status on these forums (Remember McGriff's? ). Granted the MLBUM obviously has the authority to back it up but is J/R really in this much disfavor now?

It was interesting that the prior cited Baseball Reference website has virtually my exact play. I agree with the majority of posters in this thread however. I think it was appropriate to have titled the thread as I did. The conclusion I draw is that the batter is not compelled or obligated to continue to first after a third out is made elsewhere. It's irrelevant. It will not benefit ("behoove") the offense in any way.

Instead of that lame ad hominem attack of the Baseball-Reference website, how about quoting it and then citing the rule that refutes it? I don't think you need to go further than OBR 7.10(d). It concerns appeals, and my play has clearly been proven not to have an appeal.

SAUmp wrote this as I was typing above.

Originally Posted by SAump

OP, close play at 1st. Instead of abandoning his effort to run to 1st, B/R runs vigorously past 1st base. Everyone in the stadium knows the batter was thrown out at 1st base, F5 to F3. However, the 1st base ump refuses to make a safe or an out call after seeing his partner make the proper call at 3rd base.

Is there any rule in existence to support no call at first base?

Yes, thank you. I was going to write something similarly. 5.07 works for me. Your play works nicely supposing F5 thought there was only 1 out. He tags out R2 after R3 scored and throws to first beating the B/R. I'd just smile, make no call and say there were two outs boys (and count the run on the time-play).

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Lapopez

This is disappointing. I have an old copy (1995) that I treasured back then. It seemed to have Bible-like status on these forums (Remember McGriff's? ). Granted the MLBUM obviously has the authority to back it up but is J/R really in this much disfavor now?

Let's put it this way. This year, Carl Childress updated his Baseball Rules Differences manual and eliminated all J/R references in favor of Wendelstedt.

The rules do not address this completely IMO so I am quite comfortable in going with Wendelstedt's interpretation, especially since it is the one I favor.

It's a borderline TWP anyways so I'm not going to lose much sleep over it I don't think.

[professor]

Apparently many of you don't believe there is life after the 3rd out and therefore would never consider an appeal once the 3rd out is recorded. Let me change the scenario just a little. Bases loaded, 2 outs. B/R gets a hit, r3 and r2 score, r1 is thrown out advancing to 3rd for 3rd out. B/R ended up on 2nd but missed touching 1st. F3 calls for ball and appeals. Under 7.10d this appeal should be upheld thus becoming the 3rd out, superceding prior 3rd out an negating both scored runs. NOW...for interpretation and application of the rule, is there a difference between a B/R running but missing 1st base and not running at all?? The net result is in neither case did the B/R touch 1st. Makes a case for running and touching 1st even after 3 outs...right!!

[Rich]

Originally Posted by professor

Apparently many of you don't believe there is life after the 3rd out and therefore would never consider an appeal once the 3rd out is recorded. Let me change the scenario just a little. Bases loaded, 2 outs. B/R gets a hit, r3 and r2 score, r1 is thrown out advancing to 3rd for 3rd out. B/R ended up on 2nd but missed touching 1st. F3 calls for ball and appeals. Under 7.10d this appeal should be upheld thus becoming the 3rd out, superceding prior 3rd out an negating both scored runs. NOW...for interpretation and application of the rule, is there a difference between a B/R running but missing 1st base and not running at all?? The net result is in neither case did the B/R touch 1st. Makes a case for running and touching 1st even after 3 outs...right!!

Apples and kumquats. Try again.

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

Apples and kumquats. Try again.

Wow, that's really helpful.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by professor

Apparently many of you don't believe there is life after the 3rd out and therefore would never consider an appeal once the 3rd out is recorded. Let me change the scenario just a little. Bases loaded, 2 outs. B/R gets a hit, r3 and r2 score, r1 is thrown out advancing to 3rd for 3rd out. B/R ended up on 2nd but missed touching 1st. F3 calls for ball and appeals. Under 7.10d this appeal should be upheld thus becoming the 3rd out, superceding prior 3rd out an negating both scored runs. NOW...for interpretation and application of the rule, is there a difference between a B/R running but missing 1st base and not running at all?? The net result is in neither case did the B/R touch 1st. Makes a case for running and touching 1st even after 3 outs...right!!

That's obviously a different case, and clearly falls under the missed base appeal rule and procedure. The OP does not involve a missed base, and thus cannot be appealed for an advantageous 4th out.

Merely repeating a question that has been answered and/or changing the case to something irrelevant is neither new nor pertinent and fails to advance the discussion. In fact, it's characteristic of trolls. Is that what you are?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Lapopez

Wow, that's really helpful.

It's about as useful as the examples the "professor" is trying to give.

[Welpe]

Here actual wording from the Wendelstedt Manual:




§8.4.1.b Appealable Plays

Appeals may only be made for runners either missing bases, or not legally tagging up from a base. If a third out is made during a play in which a runner never advances to a base he is forced to advance to (or the batter-runner never reaches first base), the defense may not then appeal that runner. This is a base never reached, not one they missed or one they did not legally tag up from; it cannot be appealed.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by professor

Apparently many of you don't believe there is life after the 3rd out and therefore would never consider an appeal once the 3rd out is recorded.

It would BEHOOVE you to not put words in anyone's mouth. None of us here would refuse a fourth out appeal. What seems to not be getting through is that this exception allowing the defense to get a beneficial 4th out ONLY applies to appeal plays - the wording of this rule is not even remotely vague.

Let me change the scenario just a little. Bases loaded, 2 outs. B/R gets a hit, r3 and r2 score, r1 is thrown out advancing to 3rd for 3rd out. B/R ended up on 2nd but missed touching 1st. F3 calls for ball and appeals. Under 7.10d this appeal should be upheld thus becoming the 3rd out, superceding prior 3rd out an negating both scored runs.

Yes, exactly ... you've just provided a perfect example of a fourth out APPEAL.

NOW...for interpretation and application of the rule, is there a difference between a B/R running but missing 1st base and not running at all??

Absofreakinglutely ... which is what we've been trying to explain to you. Yes - there is ABSOLUTELY a difference, and that difference is critical.

The net result is in neither case did the B/R touch 1st. Makes a case for running and touching 1st even after 3 outs...right!!

Wrong. All situations that end the same are not the same - net results being equivalent or similar is completely irrelevant.

[mbyron]

Mike: might I suggest lowering your BP and not feeding trolls?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

Apples and kumquats.

That's cute, but us bald old geezer still like Apples to Oranges.

MTD, Sr.

[Lapopez]

I'm grateful that I have two stubborn umpire buddies who persist with the appealing-the-B/R position. I am also stubborn and my pride won't let me give up what I know to be true without convincing them. That's me. I am trying to be patient and give the benefit of the doubt to he who is being accused of being a troll. If you don't have the patience to contribute something helpful, out of respect for anyone who may come along wanting to learn and myself, why don't you refrain from gumming up the thread I started? I hope there is still some interest in this thread because I keep thinking about it (not doubting) and I have more to learn.

Prior to reading the "case closed" Wendelstedt quote above [Where can I get that resource?!], I sent a pm to Professor (he's not a troll) postulating the following. It is not something I had heard or read. I guess it was a "light bulb" moment when I thought of it. Now I'm not so sure.

OBR 7.10(d) covers the fourth out phenomena. The fourth out phenomena is only applicable in an appeal situation. There are two appeal situations that I can think of: missing a base and leaving a base too soon. Think about it this way: 7.10(d) provides that, due to subsequent appeals after a third out has been made, apparent fourth (or more!) outs may exist. But these appeals are ONLY on infractions (missing a base or leaving a base too soon) that occurred PRIOR to the third out. Think about any other example of a fourth out situation. The appeal was for an infraction that took place prior to the third out.

I edited a little to just include the crux. That "prior..." language was my brain-child. Does it pass all tests? I now think it doesn't. Wendelstedt really clears it up for me and will shortly let me put this to rest.

My latest epiphany is the following. No one really expounded on my question. It doesn't behoove the batter to continue to first after the third out is made elsewhere--on the contrary--it's better for him NOT to continue past first. Well, now after writing it, it doesn't seem as profound as when I first thought it: Coaches, tell your kids to keep running and make sure they touch the damn base.

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by SAump

IOW, OP, If play at plate follows (1 or 2 out) and a tag is made at home plate. The run has not scored and 2 or 3 are out. But who says F5 must make the second play at home instead of at first base?

Wait, with 2 out, why might there be a play from F5, after tagging R2 out for the third out, to home?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Let's put it this way. This year, Carl Childress updated his Baseball Rules Differences manual and eliminated all J/R references in favor of Wendelstedt.

Who cares about Childress' book? It's just a compilation of other peoples' work. The fact that he switched from J/R to Wendelstedt is nothing more than his opinion. That and $5 will get you a Starbucks.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Publius

Who cares about Childress' book? It's just a compilation of other peoples' work. The fact that he switched from J/R to Wendelstedt is nothing more than his opinion. That and $5 will get you a Starbucks.

Once again, the know it all, see it all wizard who values knowone but his own opinion pops up. How many compiliations have you completely? Please enlighten us. We await your great wisdom.