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.

[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.

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by jicecone

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.

No, we don't await that. Now that's what I call feeding a troll. Can you make your request in your own thread without gumming up this one?