Runner must touch base?

[MD Longhorn]

Is this really unclear?

"We wanted all runners to touch their bases," Black said Saturday. "But we were told that only the runner [on third] has to touch home and the batter has to touch first."

It was at that point that Black informed the crew chief Tim Welke that he was playing the game under protest.

The protest didn't have much merit, though, as baseball rule 4.09 (b) states that "... the umpire shall not declare the game ended until the runner forced to advance from third base has touched home base and the batter-runner has touched first base."

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Is this really unclear?

"We wanted all runners to touch their bases," Black said Saturday. "But we were told that only the runner [on third] has to touch home and the batter has to touch first."

It was at that point that Black informed the crew chief Tim Welke that he was playing the game under protest.

The protest didn't have much merit, though, as baseball rule 4.09 (b) states that "... the umpire shall not declare the game ended until the runner forced to advance from third base has touched home base and the batter-runner has touched first base."

Black thinks he's a genius. He has lost every time he protests. Padres are a friggin joke already this season. I've already stop caring or watching.

[SAump]

Given the last successful protest took place in 1986, no current manager would qualify as having very much success.

Say that R2 had been called out for abandonment before or after R3 reaches home, does the run score? Yes, because each runner was awarded one base immediately after the ball was caught and ball four was called. Base running was merely a formality the rulebook requires from each participant. R3 touched home, R2 touched second and BR touched first. Ballgame, score run.

Anyone notice R2 failed to touch 3B? Yes, which is why the Padres protested. Their protest, valid or not, would not wipe that run off the board. That third out was meaningless to either team. AZ wins, SD loses. The umpires knew that and signaled SAFE, knowing R2 failed to touch 3rd base.

Abandonment deals with game ending situations that require all runners to reach each base successfully. Without the JR interpretations, abandonment only applies to game ending two out, HR situations where the only decision is how many runs will score. It is doubtful now that abandonment has any real connotation here and it will simply disappear from the baseball lexicon over time.

This is not an appeal play. Are there any other abandonment situations left, that are not supported by a mere appeal by way of defensive tag or touch of base? The bold rulebook phrase no longer has any meaning.

[SanDiegoSteve]

And your point is?

[SAump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

And your point is?

Well what about a subsequent out that allows one to wipe off the run? My point is that abandonment is not recognized as a subsequent out in this case. Then abandonment never really existed to support any out on the base path. Simply a myth that never existed within the written rules of the game.