Does it behoove the B/R...?

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by SAump

I would love to discuss this but it is time for me to disappear from this thread.

I agree with you. But how often would a batter fail to touch 1st base after putting a ground ball in play? That is the crux of my argument.

The BR is suppose to run to first and touch it, safe or out. Someone says he doesn't have to do it. He can give up after the 3rd out is made.

I say it is F5 who doesn't have to throw to 1B after applying the tag. The run would score if he did not make the throw. But he made the throw and the BR failed to legally obtain 1B. What is the ruling then?

Now if there were a case play available such as one posted on this thread, I would love to continue that argument. But all I read is about rule 7.10d. Nothing else here. 7.10d does not apply to a batter who fails to touch 1B. It is not a missed base situation. It is not a failure to tag up situation. It is not an appeal play on a runner. Wha wha wha.

It is something else, such as BOO or illegal bat, such as a failure on the BR to reach 1st base safely. Therefore, by rule, the run does not count. Which one? I leave that to someone else. All I know is it is not 7.10d.

I hope you aren't in that much of a hurry to leave the thread. If you would be so inclined to participate further...

I am admittedly having trouble following your argument. I apologize if I am misstating it. You provided examples that show the defense can appeal infractions by the batter after three outs (BOO and illegal bat). You've shown that the rules provide that, for a game ending situation in which the home team takes the lead in their final at bat, the batter (and other forced runners their advance--Merkle) must touch first base. What I don't understand is WHY do you want the batter to continue to first base after three outs? Why do you find it appropriate to extrapolate the game ending criteria to three outs? Not that I want to discourage the defense from appealing after three outs an infraction that occurred prior to three outs, why do you want to encourage play, by the offense and defense, after three outs?

You didn't like 5.07?

[Lapopez]

That was productive. You didn't answer a single question except the one I asked in jest.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by SAump

Ex. R3 scores before R2 is tagged.
Please scorrect me if am am misrepresenting anything.

Are you purposely making a portmanteau?

[Lapopez]

No one besides me seems interested in humoring you and now I'm really finding this a waste of time.

Instead of being vague and full of rhetoric with your argument for the last three pages, would you please tell me what specifically, in the entire rule 6, it is that you feel the Wendelstedt interpretation contradicts and would keep the B/R in jeopardy for not touching first base after three outs have been made?

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by SAump

Yes I did. I really was annoyed at seeing everyone pile it on top of the professor.

First you said you enjoyed it. You must have edited that out. Where's the Gilligan's Island argument. Why do you keep editing?

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by Lapopez

First you said you enjoyed it. You must have edited that out. Where's the Gilligan's Island argument. Why do you keep editing?

Originally Posted by SAump

Ba, cuz I can.

Yes, you wrote that. Very well, are you arguing for the sake of arguing as well? So, which part of rule 6 is it that you want to draw our attention to?

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by SAump

Boo, what was I saying? First base must be touched!
Didn't you comment or accept BR status after 3rd out can not be an appeal play? Explain.

So I have to humor you but you won't humor me? Which part of rule 6 again? For crying out loud. Fine. I'm in the middle of a long email to Professor. I'll cut and paste and get back to you. I already said, I can't follow your logic, but I'm trying. Maybe you could help me out, or are you the troll, just trying to get a rise and being vague and not answering one freaking direct question you are asked?

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by SAump

Time out. Read through pages 5 and 6 here. Do you have any opinion or educated response other than are you serious and ringo and humor me. You should have been tossed yesterday along with that bucket used to bail out the offense in the OP.

Strange choice of words. We are now on page 7. I'm losen interest here. Start about 6.4 until you get to the end of 6.9. Someone already stated we were not talking about boo, bats, and tribbles. Cross them out. What did I say, the runner must touch 1st base or is at risk of being called out on a valid appeal. Rule six is very black and white. It's not an wiki opinion. I didn't write the previous explanation and abruptly determine it was creative fiction.

"Ringo" was a quote from Pulp Fiction and I used that because as Sam Jackson was saying, I have actually been "trying" to understand your view. It wasn't meant to be derogatory toward you.

You're losing interest? That was rich.

We're only on page 3 in my browser, but I'll keep trying Ringo, and I'll get back to you.

Never mind, I just perused 6.04 to 6.09. Really, all that, that's your argument? I'm done with you.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by SAump

[edit]When runs score

No run may score on an inning-ending play in which the third out is a force out or on the batter before he reaches first base. Put in other words, force outs count before runs are scored. It is common that a runner reaches home plate a moment before the third out is made by force out. Such a case is routine; the runner doesn't score but is counted as left on base. It is also common that the third out might come on a non-force tag out after another runner reaches home plate. By extension of these two rules, the "fourth out" covers the case where the third out is not a force out, but a subsequent out is. Since the force out counts before the run scores, it must also count before the third out.

Except once the third out is recorded on the tag on the non-force play, I'm heading to the outfield because the inning is over. There is no possible advantageous fourth out -- which can only be by appeal of a missed base at this point to wipe out a run.

Just cause someone got bored and creative one day around the office and came up with a ridiculous ruling doesn't make it any less ridiculous.