Runner must touch base?

[SAump]

Would the right word, abandonment, have changed the outcome?

Padres protest accepted, then withdrawn.

Padres withdraw protest over D-backs' walk-off | padres.com: News

Padres protested the runner must touch third base. Denied due to 4.09b. Not that I disagree with the 4.09b, nor allowing a run to score AFTER the third out was made after BOB awards.

But allowing the runner to run off the baseline and to apply no penalty on the runner when he should touch the next base, should matter. Someone on the Padres might call this a clear case of abandonment, before the run legally scored.

Clarification needed why the third out, inconsequential as it may be, was not granted.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by SAump

Would the right word, abandonment, have changed the outcome?

Padres protest accepted, then withdrawn.

Padres withdraw protest over D-backs' walk-off | padres.com: News

Padres protested the runner must touch third base. Denied due to 4.09b. Not that I disagree with the 4.09b, nor allowing a run to score AFTER the third out was made after BOB awards.

But allowing the runner to run off the baseline and to apply no penalty on the runner when he should touch the next base, should matter. Someone on the Padres might call this a clear case of abandonment, before the run legally scored.

Clarification needed why the third out, inconsequential as it may be, was not granted.

They must have withdrawn the protest because somebody told them they were wrong. The only two requirements are that the runner from 3rd touch home plate and the batter-runner touch first base. What R1 and R2 do is of NO consequence. They are not required to touch the next base. Please show me where 4.09 (b) mentions R1 or R2. Clear case of abandonment? Here we go again!

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by SAump

Montero had failed to touch the next base, once before. Coincidence?

All Top Plays | SD@ARI: Bass tags out Montero on a play at the plate - Video | padres.com: Multimedia

If R1 or R2 joined the celebration prior to the touch of home plate, would you rule that one of them may have been guilty of passing another runner on the baseline. Would that cancel the run?

I think you linked to the wrong video.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by SAump

But allowing the runner to run off the baseline and to apply no penalty on the runner when he should touch the next base, should matter.

This is the crux of your problem. You believe it should matter, but the rules do not support your belief. Rather than re-examine your belief, you look for whatever evidence can be read out of context or otherwise twisted to support that belief. There's a name for that.

[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.