Does it behoove the B/R...?

Rich · #1 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 21, 2012, 10:17am

Quote:

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 · #2 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 21, 2012, 10:57am

Quote:

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

Apples and kumquats. Try again.

Wow, that's really helpful.

Rich · #3 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 21, 2012, 11:35am

Quote:

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. · #4 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 21, 2012, 01:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

Apples and kumquats.

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

MTD, Sr.

Lapopez · #5 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 21, 2012, 05:54pm

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.