stealing home

scyguy

R3 is stealing home with the pitcher in his windup. R3 is able to reach home before ball arrives. I have two questions: if batter has 2 strikes and there are two outs, if pitch is a strike, then run does not count, correct? How about if pitch hits batter, do we send runner back to third?

gordon30307

Strike 3 batter out run does not count Except if dropped third strike and BR is safe at first run counts. Ball hits batter ball is dead runner back to third batter to first. Exception if ball hits batter and it's strike three batter out inning over if it's the third out no runs scored. Less than two outs BR out and runner back to third.

scyguy

thank you, that is what I thought.

mcrowder

Rule reference on not allowing the run if the runner beats the pitch to the plate, but the pitch is strike 3?

scyguy

Fed rule 9-1-1a-e deals with when a run is not scored, but does not address third strike or HBP. I'm still looking.

bob jenkins

Originally posted by scyguy
Fed rule 9-1-1a-e deals with when a run is not scored, but does not address third strike or HBP. I'm still looking.

How much clearer does 9-1-1 Excp a need to be? "A run is not scored if ... the third out is made .. by the batter runner before he touches first base."

The OBR equivalent is 4.09(a) Excp. (1)

scyguy

thanks Bob for pointing out my stupidity, you are good at that. The rule states "A run is not scored if the runner ADVANCES to home plate ... The runner in question has already advanced, touched home before ball has reached plate. As I reread rule it does state ...advances to home plate during action... So, you are right "oh mighty one".
I stated in my post what my ruling would of been. I was clearly seeking confirmation. Is this not how umpires learn?? Thanks for the insult, I appreciate it. No wonder there is hesitiation in posting on this board.
But the beauty of it is that we can say "I have learned from the great Bob Jenkins, moderator of this board". Now I can only hope that the people I talk to know who you are.

mcrowder

Logically, I knew that was right, and would have called it right on the spot...

However, once I started thinking about it, I wondered why I thought that... and then looked it up - and couldn't find it. Thanks for the direction.

Kaliix

If you seriously consider what Bob said an insult, you should really not be posting on these boards. My God, you are like the text book definition of "thin-skinned" if what Bob said "insulted" you.

Geez, how about learning to read better... 🙄

Originally posted by scyguy
thanks Bob for pointing out my stupidity, you are good at that. The rule states "A run is not scored if the runner ADVANCES to home plate ... The runner in question has already advanced, touched home before ball has reached plate. As I reread rule it does state ...advances to home plate during action... So, you are right "oh mighty one".
I stated in my post what my ruling would of been. I was clearly seeking confirmation. Is this not how umpires learn?? Thanks for the insult, I appreciate it. No wonder there is hesitiation in posting on this board.
But the beauty of it is that we can say "I have learned from the great Bob Jenkins, moderator of this board". Now I can only hope that the people I talk to know who you are.

scyguy

I guess it was the way I was raised. A man ask a question--you answer it, period. I have been a teacher for 16 years and when one of my less-educated parents ask me a question, I show respect and answer appropriately. Insulting one another seems to be a driving force on this board. Do you ever wonder why? Is there a need for it?

Maybe it is in the way we look at the world. Anyway, my question was answered and I am thankful for that. Good day.

mcrowder

Maybe you're reading more tone into Bob's note than you need to. I didn't take it as insulting at all. I'm not even sure which part of it you feel is insulting.

scyguy

Lets look at two ways in which a question can be answered. "how much clearer does it need to be?" which is like saying "you idiot, can't you read?" or "the rule you stated does apply to your situation because it says ..."

Okay I may have overreacted to Bob's comments, but how much more effort does it take to be tackful? I don't want to overstate this, but it seems that we, as human beings, could be abit more respectful of one another. I am sure there are others on this board that feel the same as I do. The value of this board is immeasureable. The knowledge of people like Bob is undeniable. I need to learn from the Bob's of the world. But do I have to pay a price everytime I ask a question?

I have been accused of being thinskinned. If so, then that is okay. I still live in an utopian world where respect for one another is admired. Do I wear rose colored glasses? Probably, but I thank my wife and the Lord above for filling my precription.

Kaliix

You know what, I would take that whole he needs to be tactful speech alot more seriously if you didn't anwer him back in the condesceding and sarcastic manner in which you did.

Even if someone else answers you back in a manner which you perceive as rude, it doesn't justify you being rude back. You kinda kill your whole polite point with an impolite reply. Two wrongs don't make a right, eh?

Also, you already quoted the rule once and said it didn't address the situation that it actually did, had you read it more thoroughly. You were kinda asking for someone to point that out to you. It may have been an abrupt response, but it not like he called you names or anything.

The internet is not utopia, it is mostly anarchy.

scyguy

you are right I lost my cool. Let me just say that I've have many encounters with Bob and this is not the first time I recieved a blow.

You are right, I stated the rule and did not read it carefully. My mistake.

I appreciate your comments and I will try not to overreact in the future

I don't want to leave this board because it is very valuable to me. All I ask is that we try to be respectful of one another. Insulting someone does not make you a bigger person, it only makes you smaller.