Does it behoove the B/R...?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by professor

If a third out in an inning created a dead ball situation, there would be no fourth out situations. However since there are fourth out situatons, which are addressed in the baseball rules (7.10 (d), the ball is not dead, and subsequent plays may be made via appeal. This is a force out situation, and since appealed, and as we all know, no runs can be scored when a force out is the last out of an inning.

Nope. On many levels. PS - can't find the word 'situations' in the definition section of the rulebook, nor in the rule you've listed. I DO, however, see the word appeal in that rule ... and I do see that word in the definitions section. Hmm.....

[professor]

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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by professor

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.

[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.

[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.

[professor]

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!!

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by professor

Enough said!!

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

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by professor

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!!

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?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by professor

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 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.

[MD Longhorn]

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?

[Steven Tyler]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

unnamed(SDS)

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

[professor]

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