The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Obscure Rule (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/94301-obscure-rule.html)

alanjbarnett Fri Mar 08, 2013 06:55pm

Obscure Rule
 
I have a interesting rule question. There is a runner on 1st and 3rd, one out. The runners are off with the pitch, and the batter hits a line drive which is caught by the second baseman diving towards center field. The 2nd baseman throws to 1st to double off the runner going to second, but before the first baseman catches the ball, the runner from 3rd crosses the plate. Will the home plate umpire allow that run to score until the fielding team appeals the play? As I understand the rule, if the batter hit a fly ball in the same situation, the fielding team would be forced to appeal.

So the real question is, when will an umpire simply make the call, and when will they require the team to appeal a play.

Thanks in advance.

Forest Ump Fri Mar 08, 2013 07:05pm

Nothing obscure here. This is simply a time play. The defense made an appeal when they threw to first. The third out was not a force out. Remember I said time play earlier. Therefore the run scores because it occured before the out. The umpire will indicate at the end of playing action that one run scores.

BTW, A line drive caught and a fly ball caught are exactly the same as any caught ball.

maven Fri Mar 08, 2013 07:24pm

Forest is correct. When the defense attempts to "double off" a runner, that IS an appeal play. An appeal play is a time play: if the run scores before the out occurs, then it counts.

The rule reference (pro rules) is 4.09.

dash_riprock Fri Mar 08, 2013 07:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by maven (Post 883827)
An appeal play is a time play.

In this case it is, but not always.

maven Fri Mar 08, 2013 09:36pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dash_riprock (Post 883829)
In this case it is, but not always.

If you had posted the OP, I would have added the word 'retouch' to be perfectly correct.

But then, you wouldn't have posted the OP. ;)

Rich Ives Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:41pm

I think the original question was will R3 be allowed to score unless there is an appeal at 3B for R3's failure to retouch.

The answer is yes.

An appeal is required.

The umpire cannot just make the call - ever.

bob jenkins Sat Mar 09, 2013 07:47am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Ives (Post 883854)
I think the original question was will R3 be allowed to score unless there is an appeal at 3B for R3's failure to retouch.

The answer is yes.

An appeal is required.

The umpire cannot just make the call - ever.

Unless it's FED rules and the play is in South (?) Carolina where they still have the old "THe umpire will call an out for baserunning infractions" rule.

Forest Ump Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:46am

Adding to what Rich said; They could appeal again for a 4th out appeal, that R3 left early. That would remove the run if the appeal were upheld.

Rich Ives Sat Mar 09, 2013 11:44am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forest Ump (Post 883885)
Adding to what Rich said; They could appeal again for a 4th out appeal, that R3 left early. That would remove the run if the appeal were upheld.

"Again"? They didn't appeal R3 at all.

But yes - they should have additionally appealed R3 to kill the run.

RPatrino Sat Mar 09, 2013 01:59pm

Rich, they 'appealed' the runner at first leaving early. The implied appeal being the throw back to first after the catch of the line-drive.

rbmartin Sat Mar 09, 2013 02:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by maven (Post 883827)
when the defense attempts to "double off" a runner, that is an appeal play.

+1

Rich Ives Sat Mar 09, 2013 05:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPatrino (Post 883907)
Rich, they 'appealed' the runner at first leaving early. The implied appeal being the throw back to first after the catch of the line-drive.

I know that. That's not my issue.

They couldn't/didn't "again" appeal the runner at third because he wasn't appealed in the first place.

maven Sat Mar 09, 2013 06:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Ives (Post 883922)
I know that. That's not my issue.

They couldn't/didn't "again" appeal the runner at third because he wasn't appealed in the first place.

Ridiculous quibble, and wrong to boot. Forest wrote, "They could appeal again for a 4th out appeal," not "They could appeal R3 again for a 4th out appeal."

Having already appealed R1, the defense would be appealing again if they also appealed R3 for an advantageous 4th out.

Forest Ump Sat Mar 09, 2013 06:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Ives (Post 883922)
I know that. That's not my issue.

They couldn't/didn't "again" appeal the runner at third because he wasn't appealed in the first place.

What are you drinking Rich? They appealed once at 1st and I said they could appeal again , as in a second appeal, at 3rd. Sounds pretty straight forward IMO.

Rich Ives Sun Mar 10, 2013 11:23am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forest Ump (Post 883930)
What are you drinking Rich? They appealed once at 1st and I said they could appeal again , as in a second appeal, at 3rd. Sounds pretty straight forward IMO.

We had different English teachers.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:23pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1