Time Play

Manny A

I've never bought into that theory that runners should continue running after a third out is recorded. After all, OBR 5.07 is pretty clear, in my mind, of what happens:

"When three offensive players are legally put out, that team takes the field and the opposing team becomes the offensive team."

There is no requirement whatsoever specified in the rule that says other runners are required to continue running after "three offensive players are legally put out" to meet whatever obligation they had before that third out. It says that they simply take the field at that point, because all obligations to advance are done, finished, completed.

Obligations to continue advancing to bases after play essentially concludes are limited to when winning runs score. There is nothing in the rules requiring the same after three outs are recorded. So I have no idea why authoritative interpreters out there require runners to keep running after three outs when the rule clearly tells those runner they must now go play defense.

MD Longhorn

Dave Reed wrote
Bases loaded, ball to F6 who tags R2 after R3 scores.

Um ... you're aware that no run scores on this play either, right? No need for an advantageous 4th out - the THIRD out was a force already.

That aside, insisting that runners run after the 3rd out does not make sense (and never has). The inning is over after 3 outs. 4th out appeals apply to transgressions that occurred before that third out.

Rich Ives

Manny A wrote
I've never bought into that theory that runners should continue running after a third out is recorded. After all, OBR 5.07 is pretty clear, in my mind, of what happens:

"When three offensive players are legally put out, that team takes the field and the opposing team becomes the offensive team."

There is no requirement whatsoever specified in the rule that says other runners are required to continue running after "three offensive players are legally put out" to meet whatever obligation they had before that third out. It says that they simply take the field at that point, because all obligations to advance are done, finished, completed.

Obligations to continue advancing to bases after play essentially concludes are limited to when winning runs score. There is nothing in the rules requiring the same after three outs are recorded. So I have no idea why authoritative interpreters out there require runners to keep running after three outs when the rule clearly tells those runner they must now go play defense.

The inning isn't over until no appeals are possible. Otherwise no 4th out could ever be achieved.

Matt

Dave Reed wrote
And J/R agrees with the three official rulings: the advantageous 4th out applies to any force out or the B/R.

If you think this ruling doesn't make sense, ask yourself if Wendelstedt's alternate ruling (4th out is only effective if an appeal is upheld) makes sense. Bases loaded, ball to F6 who tags R2 after R3 scores. According to the Wendelstedt interp, if the B/R deserts, or R1 abandons before reaching 2nd, the run scores, and there is no advantageous 4th out. But if the B/R or R1 continues to advance, and misses the base, now a 4th out can supersede R2's out. IMO, this is the interp that doesn't make sense. Why is abandoning /deserting OK, but missing a base is not? Neither act is legal base running.

It doesn't make sense because it requires the offense to continue playing when there is no possibility of anything to gain and after the inning has concluded, by rule. Also, by rule, there is nothing that indicates a fourth out can be recognized on a non-appeal play.

Manny A

Rich Ives wrote
The inning isn't over until no appeals are possible. Otherwise no 4th out could ever be achieved.

Agree. But those fourth out appeals are on running violations before the third out is recorded. There shouldn't be any requirements for runners to continue running after the third out, per the wording of 5.07.

nopachunts

Matt wrote
It doesn't make sense because it requires the offense to continue playing when there is no possibility of anything to gain and after the inning has concluded, by rule. Also, by rule, there is nothing that indicates a fourth out can be recognized on a non-appeal play.

The onus is not on the offense to keep playing but on the defense to continue to play to get the advantageous fourth out. A good crew will continue to watch the defense until action is relaxed. The umpires can then rule if a proper appeal is made.

umpjim

nopachunts wrote
The onus is not on the offense to keep playing but on the defense to continue to play to get the advantageous fourth out. A good crew will continue to watch the defense until action is relaxed. The umpires can then rule if a proper appeal is made.

Wendelstedt says that the onus is on the defense to get the proper third out.

Matt

nopachunts wrote
The onus is not on the offense to keep playing but on the defense to continue to play to get the advantageous fourth out. A good crew will continue to watch the defense until action is relaxed. The umpires can then rule if a proper appeal is made.

If you go with the interpretation that fourth outs can be made on non-appeal plays, then that puts the onus on the offense to keep playing.

nopachunts

Matt wrote
If you go with the interpretation that fourth outs can be made on non-appeal plays, then that puts the onus on the offense to keep playing.

I will agree it is on both to keep playing. The situation in the OP would require the BR to accquire 1B before the defense can tag the BR or 1B for the run to count.

MD Longhorn

Manny A wrote
Agree. But those fourth out appeals are on running violations before the third out is recorded. There shouldn't be any requirements for runners to continue running after the third out, per the wording of 5.07.

This exactly.

Manny A

nopachunts wrote
The onus is not on the offense to keep playing but on the defense to continue to play to get the advantageous fourth out. A good crew will continue to watch the defense until action is relaxed. The umpires can then rule if a proper appeal is made.

So, in the OP play, F6 tags R2 going to third for the third non-force out, and R3 crossed home plate beforehand. But then F6 throws the ball to F3 to play on the BR who is still heading to first but slowing down because he saw the tag of R2.

How is that considered an advantageous fourth out appeal? The BR has done nothing wrong, to that point, to warrant an appeal. He hasn't missed first base. Heck, he's still on his way to the bag. Are you suggesting that a proper appeal can be made while a BR is still heading to the bag?

Or are we now expanding the recognition of advantageous fourth outs to include non-appealable situations where the runner is still on his way to a base after the third out?

umpjim

Manny A wrote
So, in the OP play, F6 tags R2 going to third for the third non-force out, and R3 crossed home plate beforehand. But then F6 throws the ball to F3 to play on the BR who is still heading to first but slowing down because he saw the tag of R2.

How is that considered an advantageous fourth out appeal? The BR has done nothing wrong, to that point, to warrant an appeal. He hasn't missed first base. Heck, he's still on his way to the bag. Are you suggesting that a proper appeal can be made while a BR is still heading to the bag?

Or are we now expanding the recognition of advantageous fourth outs to include non-appealable situations where the runner is still on his way to a base after the third out?

The BRD quoted three rules gurus in 2001 that said the BR can be played on for an advantageous fourth out. This can only happen with R2, R3. The ruling has stayed in the BRD to at least 2011. I don't know what the latest JR has.
The WUM does not agree and hopefully it will not occur in your or my games.

MD Longhorn

Manny A wrote
then F6 throws the ball to F3 to play on the BR who is still heading to first but slowing down because he saw the tag of R2.

How is that considered an advantageous fourth out appeal?

It's not an appeal. Those that think so need to go re-read the appeals section. Simply throwing out a runner who has not reached the base he's forced to is not an appeal.

An appeal must be made for some sort of transgression... missed base, leaving early on a caught ball, etc.

dash_riprock

Manny A wrote
Or are we now expanding the recognition of advantageous fourth outs to include non-appealable situations where the runner is still on his way to a base after the third out?

Bingo.

Manny A

dash_riprock wrote
Bingo.

Then rule 5.07 is fundamentally flawed and requires a cited Exception.

7.10(d) is also flawed in that it doesn't recognize fourth outs as routine outs. It only recognizes them as appeals for running infractions that occur before the third out is recorded.

umpjim

Manny A wrote
Then rule 5.07 is fundamentally flawed and requires a cited Exception.

7.10(d) is also flawed in that it doesn't recognize fourth outs as routine outs. It only recognizes them as appeals for running infractions that occur before the third out is recorded.

Neither is flawed if you agree with the WUM interp, which I'm now inclined to do, having been misled by the BRD interp these past few years which even the author found "non-intuitive."

Matt

umpjim wrote
The BRD quoted three rules gurus in 2001 that said the BR can be played on for an advantageous fourth out. This can only happen with R2, R3.

It could hypothetically happen any time there's two or more runners.

umpjim

Matt wrote
It could hypothetically happen any time there's two or more runners.

With two outs maybe R3, R1 stealing on the pitch. With one out bases loaded, DP ball to 2B and then somehow R2 gets tagged and BR hasn't made it to 1B. I think R2 and BR getting injured at the crack of the bat would work.

« Previous Page