Does it behoove the B/R...?
 

I remember this topic about 10 years ago but I don't remember the consensus.

R2, R3, two outs. Ground ball to F5. R3 crosses home. F5 tags out R2. B/R discontinues to first. Can the defense appeal at first for a "fourth" out? In other words, does it behoove the offense for the B/R to continue to first after the third out?

Appeal what?

No, but it behooves the defense to throw the B/R out at 1st instead of tagging R2.

Yes, but what I am asking is if the defense is entitled to, and would it be upheld if *after* tagging R2, appealed that the B/R never touched first base.

I don't think so. It's not a missed base. But it's an interesting question.

There is such a thing as a fourth out appeal, but I do not believe it applies here... you can't rule this a missed base - BR didn't miss it - he never got there. The 4th out appeal is just that - an appeal. Throwing the runner out at 1st is not an appeal.

Exactly right. A 4th out appeal must be a proper appeal: a retouch or missed base appeal. The BR is under no obligation to touch 1B after the 3rd out has been recorded, so this is not a missed base. No appeal should be upheld here.

I believe J/R used to say this was a valid appeal. Per the BRD, it is in Fed. The official Wendelstedt interpretation is that it is not.

In Fed I'd likely not grant the appeal since the interpretation the BRD citation is based upon is rather obscure and defies logic.

basis for fourth out
 

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.

The play on a batter/runner is never a force, by definition. Who's forcing him to run to first base?

Welpe, using your reasoning, half of the Fed book would be thrown away.

Not that there's a problem with that.

Now you're talking. :D

It's the same reasoning I'd use to ignore their ridiculous accidental appeal case play.

The FED book isn't terrible. It has differences, but as long as those are well known, who cares? We deal with differences in every sport. The FED/NCAA football rules are drastically different, for example.

In our neck of the woods, however, everyone thinks that a balk is a dead ball immediately, no matter if we're working a FED, NCAA, or OBR game. I once had a partner in an NCAA game try to tell me that a balk was an immediate dead ball and since he was an old, crusty vet, the coaches believed him. I was the plate guy, however, and didn't budge and later the umpire sheepishly told me he was wrong.

Certainly not a missed base. You have to advance past a base to miss it. Wouldn't this actually be abandonment.

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.....