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.....

Does it behove
 

First and foremost you must agree that the ball remains alive after the 3rd out is recorded. Therefore, it is compulsory (sic forced) for a B/R to reach 1st safely and all other forced runners to advance safely for a run to score with 2 outs. If after 3 outs, the defense appeals that a runner never reached a base safely (first), the B/R sould be declared out and no run scored. The fact that in 99.9% of cases like this, an appeal would never be made, does not negate the fact the the B/R is out if appealed for the 3rd out which supercedes the original 3rd out

There has to be a legitimate reason for superseding a third out -- a missed base appeal, for instance. There's no legitimate reason for a B/R to continue running after the third out was made on the bases. Besides an obscure J/R reference, I'm not sure you'd find anyone to agree with this.

Does it behove
 

Naysayers go to www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/fourthout.

As a buddy said...it's a lexicon thing or is it.

Does it behove
 

the posted url is wrong. It's Fourth out - BR Bullpen an _ underline is needed between fourth and out...sorry

Does it behove
 

Naysayers go to Fourth out - BR Bullpen. They said it better than I could...it's a lexicon thing.

I'm not sure what your point is but I could go and edit that entry right now to say "The Moon is Made of Cheese." That doesn't make it true. I will take Wendelstedt's interpretation over anonymous wikieditor at www.baseball-reference.com .

Does it behove
 

In his last book before committing suicide major league umpire Ron Luciano stated that in his entire career he never called a balk because he didn't understand the rule. If alive, he would probably add the fourth out rule. Enough said!!

Yes, I agree though probably not for the same reason.

You have to reach first before you can abandon.

And we're supposed to believe some anonympus poster at a site not developed by any known rules guru?

Luciano told a bunch of tall tales. That's what makes the stories funny. He also wrote that he once was hung over or somthing so he had the catchers call the game. Do you believe that one?

There are certain things an appeal can be made for... please show us the rule which asserts that THIS situation (touching first base while possessing the ball before BR reaches first base) could be considered an appeal. There is no such rule -- this is NOT an appeal.

The ball may remain live if it needs to for whatever reason. Making a play on a runner is not one of those reasons.

Follow your logic a bit further - consider a runner for a team whose dugout is on the first base side who began on first base who reaches 2nd base and is there when the 3rd (non-force) out is made. He sees the 3rd out made and begins running toward his dugout. If the ball is still live, then this runner is retreating toward first - thus reinstating the force play at second base - which defense could then get nullifying a run.

This is absurd on purpose... but it's no more absurd than the insistence that BR must continue to first after the 3rd out is made elsewhere.

BR.com is run by the wiki people. Often a good source for otherwise public information. Certainly not a good rule resource, as any real umpire would know. The fact that you're using this as the backing for your argument says volumes. You've been asked more than once what RULE you would use to enforce this incorrect opinion of yours. Say you ruled as you suggest, and I, the astute coach, protest - by what rule do you back your position?

There is a certain poster who shall go unnamed (SDS) claimed that the ball remained live between innings..............Always wondered why the PU put the ball in play before the first pitch of a half inning myself.

I don't think that word means what you think it does.

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.

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).

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. :D

It's a borderline TWP anyways so I'm not going to lose much sleep over it I don't think.

Does it behove
 

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.

Wow, that's really helpful. :rolleyes:

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?

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

Here actual wording from the Wendelstedt Manual:




§8.4.1.b Appealable Plays

Appeals may only be made for runners either missing bases, or not legally tagging up from a base. If a third out is made during a play in which a runner never advances to a base he is forced to advance to (or the batter-runner never reaches first base), the defense may not then appeal that runner. This is a base never reached, not one they missed or one they did not legally tag up from; it cannot be appealed.

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.

Yes, exactly ... you've just provided a perfect example of a fourth out APPEAL. Absofreakinglutely ... which is what we've been trying to explain to you. Yes - there is ABSOLUTELY a difference, and that difference is critical.

Wrong. All situations that end the same are not the same - net results being equivalent or similar is completely irrelevant.

Mike: might I suggest lowering your BP and not feeding trolls? :)

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

MTD, Sr.

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. :)

Wait, with 2 out, why might there be a play from F5, after tagging R2 out for the third out, to home?

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. :eek:

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?

SA, are you referring to OBR or Fed?

Publius, I respect the work Carl has put in over the years not only compiling these interpretations but also in keeping them current. I don't think it is a stretch to say that J/R had fallen out of favor lately. Add to the fact that the Wendelstedt school is but one of two where PBUC selects their candidates so I am quite comfortable in relying upon them for the latest interpretations.

Find a rule that allows for an appeal because a runner didn't reach a base, live or dead, 0, 1, 2, or 3 out.

Off Topic ... but this is EXCEEDINGLY mathematically challenged (unless MLB started playing games in 1988...)

Sounds about right of course I don't remember much about baseball prior to that year. :D

SA, BOO and illegal bats are covered in a different section. Out of context it looks incomplete but we weren't talking about illegal bats, BOO or even Tribbles.

Well... forgot to divide by 2... so ... 1960 or so.

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)].

Why are you bailing out the fielder who chose to make the wrong play?

I'm not bailing anyone out nor failing to bail anyone out - that's not our job. The rulebook tells us what to do here, and it's clear that only appeals are allowed after a 3rd out; it's equally clear to any umpire who's done this for more than 4 days that merely throwing a ball to 1st base before BR gets there is NOT an appeal play.

This is WAY easier than you're making it.

Leaving fair territory
 

Interesting. What does Wendelstedt manual say about the umpire's responsibility to call outs for abandonment and desertion?

Probably nothing. You'd look pretty foolish doing that when there are already three outs.

This thread has become too long for me to keep track of where it stands. But per NFHS Rules: No Fourth Out can be had in this situation.

R2-39 says: "Time at bat is the period beginning when a batter first enters the batter's box and continuing until he is put out or becomes a runner. A batter is not charged in the records with a time at bat when he makes a *sacrifice hit, is hit by a pitched ball, is awarded a base on balls, is replaced before being charged with two strikes, is replaced after being charged with two strikes and the *substitute does not strike out, or when he advances to first base because of obstruction by a fielder."

R2-S7-A3: "A batter-runner is a player who has finished a time at bat until he is put out or until playing action ends."

This means that the B/R was forced to run to 1B, his At-Bat ended with the 3rd out because the 3rd out also ends playing action for the inning; and since the inning ended before the B/R aquired 1B, no Base Running Infraction could have happened.

This is the same ruling the Wendelstedt gives for MLB Rules.

MTD, Sr.

His question has been answered affirmatively, you just don't seem to like the answer.

I'm sensing a new rising fast ball thread is in the works here.

How many times could it have happened? That would be my question.

The obvious play is on the batter runner at 1B, that's why we probably haven't seen it very often.

According to OBR, yes it has scored:

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? ;)

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

Are you purposely making a portmanteau?

I'm trying, Ringo.
 

Can someone clue me in if SAump is being serious?

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?

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

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.

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?

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?

"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.

If you weren't a troll that destroyed an otherwise useful thread, you'd know the answer to B is the same as the answer to the question I asked you.

There is no rule that allows an appeal in this case.

I thought this horse died on Friday.

This is absurd. Once the 3rd out of the inning is made, no other action by the offense matters. None. No other action by the defense matters except as described by the rulebook - which includes ONLY an appeal of a transgression done by the offense BEFORE that 3rd out was made.

After the 3rd out - whether batter-runner eventually reaches first base or not is entirely immaterial. No 4th out is available here EXCEPT on an appeal. In fact, SA, if your logic holds any water, then even if BR DOES continue to first after the 3rd out is made, it does not matter - the play was over and BR was not at 1st when the 3rd out was made.

THERE IS NO RULE that allows further play to be made regarding action that happens after the 3rd out --- to reiterate, the ONLY thing the defense can do is appeal regarding something that happened BEFORE that 3rd out was made.

Remember when I asked this, "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. Why do you find it appropriate to extrapolate the game ending criteria to three outs?"

You don't like Wendelstedt in conjunction with 7.10(d) and it is you who is trying to make up up the rule to allow this appeal. You don't like it and for whatever reason it's not logical to you (oh, I asked for your logic). Funny that Carl Childress was mentioned earlier. He used to say to people who didn't think the rules were fair and wouldn't accept them, "What's fair about four balls and only three strikes?"

Someone, please help me get SAump out of my head.

Whoa! That was my brain-child, pages ago :(, but nobody confirmed or denied it.

wobw.

SAump, you've been awfully busy deleting your posts. That's peculiar. :rolleyes:

Lapopez, I hope you weren't expecting logic from SAUmp anytime soon.

There, fixed it for you. ;)

No, they can't. He had not committed an infraction.

Go read the rules. BR is scored LOB.

You're aware that the word "appeal" has a specific meaning in baseball, and it doesn't just mean "to ask about". You "appeal" an infraction. I see no logic or rule support for "appealing the batter's status".

That said ... the batter's status at the moment the 3rd out was made is "not out" He has not been tagged and neither has 1st base.

Is there a protocol for requesting to a moderator that a thread be closed? Last night, before deleting it, he threatened to delete the whole thread (not that I think he could). This is ridiculous. He's referencing completely irrelevant rules and misquoting others. The thread has run its course.

OBR rule 8.05(j) states: If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when the pitcher, after coming to a legal pitching position, removes one hand from the ball other than in an actual pitch, or in throwing to a base.

OBR 4.09(a)(1) is what you meant to quote. However, there's one word you missed, and I'll highlight it for you: One run shall be scored each time a runner legally advances to and touches first, second, third and home base before three men are put out to end the inning. EXCEPTION: A run is not scored if the runner advances to home base during a play in which the third out is made by the batter-runner before he touches first base.

Your third out wasn't by the batter-runner, it was by R2.

He can't delete the whole thread, only you can do that since you started the thread. I told you not to expect logic.

Fed is 9-1-1 Exception a: A runner scores one run each time he legally advances to and touches first, second, third and then home plate before there are three outs to end the inning. EXCEPTION: A run is not scored if the runner advances to home plate during action in which the third out is made as follows: by the batter-runner before he touches first base

NCAA is 5-6-c-Exception 1: When a batter becomes a runner and touches all bases legally, the individual shall score one run for that team. Exception—A run is not scored if a runner touches home plate while the third out is made on: The batter or proper batter-runner before the player touches first base

You'll notice all three rule books specifically state the third out is made BY or ON the batter-runner before he reaches first base.

Would a professional interpretation situation make you realize how quickly your boat is sinking?

8-5-j: A runner is out when the individual fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags the runner or the base after the runner has been forced to advance because the batter became a runner.

For some reason, they let him keep posting his drivel. Those of us who have been here a while know he's a dip****, while the newbies who actually want to learn get confused by his verbal diarrhea.

The amount that he posts is directly proportional to the irrelevance of this board, which is a shame.

You think this is bad, wait until you hear SAump's take on the Kennedy assassination.

Something to do about a "magic" rising fastball............:confused:

I hope not. This forum has become better reading without an egoist moderator playing emperor concerning when a thread has "run its course." A thread has run its course when everybody stops commenting on it.

Many people gain greater understanding (not just knowledge) by parsing what's wrong than they do by blindly accepting what's right.

That may be so, but my ignore list gets bigger by the day.

I remember that; and no it doesn't. http://forum.officiating.com/basebal...score-run.html

This Interp. Needed Scorection?
 

Which came first, the winning run or the last out? See OBR 4.11.

The defense wins if the offense fails to score. After reading 4.11a, the OP half-inning ended the game the moment the defense obtained the legal third out.

The offense wins if it scores before three are successfully put out. After reading 4.11b, the OP half-inning ended the game the moment the offense scored a legal run.

This is another situation when calling it both ways ( run and out) is impossible. After reading 4.11c, it is impossible to score the winning run and obtain the third out at exactly the same time. Only one may occur.

But if you continue to make up the rules, I got nothing else to say, but toodles.

Do you actually believe your dribble or just trolling? Either way, no matter how you think the rules you cite contribute to your arguement, you have a poor understanding of the applicable rules, their intent, and how they are to be used concerning the spirit of the game.

No, the thread has not "run its course" yet. There are still more people who haven't piled on top of you yet.:D

I rarely post, but I just don't get how some people won't believe they are wrong. I have not seen any evidence you can appeal this play. The appeal play in 7.10 specifies what can be appealed, and this is not listed there.
But some people are too stubborn to believe anything once they make up their mind.

Pat