Does it behoove the B/R...?

[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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Lapopez

Wow, that's really helpful.

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

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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?

[cbfoulds]

Originally Posted by SAump

You would not allow an appeal because you say the half inning has ended. Hmmm. A rule was made to define the end of a game. One does not exist to
define the end of an half inning.

Books not with me, and not something I'd need to have memorised, but I'm thinking you are wrong here.

If memory serves, there IS a Rule which specifies that the pitcher's warm-up time begins [and thus the prior half-inning ends] upon the recording of the final out of the half-inning; and there may also be one that specifies that appeals may be made only until all of the D has left the field at the end of the half-inning [or words generally to such effect(s)].

[LilLeaguer]

Originally Posted by cbfoulds

Books not with me, and not something I'd need to have memorised, but I'm thinking you are wrong here.

If memory serves, there IS a Rule which specifies that the pitcher's warm-up time begins [and thus the prior half-inning ends] upon the recording of the final out of the half-inning; and there may also be one that specifies that appeals may be made only until all of the D has left the field at the end of the half-inning [or words generally to such effect(s)].

Rule 7.10 If the violation occurs during a play which ends a half-inning, the appeal must be made before the defensive team leaves the field. … For the purpose of this rule, the defensive team has “left the field” when the pitcher and all infielders have left fair territory on their way to the bench or clubhouse.