Wow, this created a load of responses in quick order, didn't it?

Okay, I'll come clean.

I am aware of the casebook play raised by WMB. Even though we are no longer suppose to cite interps by "Henry says", that is basically where I got this from a couple of years ago.

Purpose wasn't to cheat people of runs or make every player run out every play, though they should anyway.

It came down to giving the defense the option of which out to take.

...And the defense made a bad choice by taking R2 first. :cool:
mick

I agree mick, the defense already chose.

rhsc
Sth Carolina . Isnt that where hillbillies come from .
I know I am stereotyping but you probably think people from New Zealand run round in grass skirts and are all brown .

Debeau, I was quite pleased to read of your interest in our section of the country. While SC does have a few rolling hills, the majority of the state is more flat. It has a beautiful coastline that among other things, is known for some fabulous golf courses.

I believe rhsc is from a town called Rock Hill. I lived there are one point and never quite understood it's name. I never notice a 'rock hill' while I was there. It is near the towns of York, Lancaster and Chester, and just south of Charlotte, a hugh U.S. banking center.

I am especially found of Charlotte. Besides being a beautiful town, they have a wonderful Mensa chapter that I love to meet with. http://www.mensa.org/index0.php?page=10

I can't see nullifying the run, despite the "Henry says" above. I score the run. I have the rulebook on my side (the 3rd out was a timing play, and the runner scored ahead of the out; there cannot be a LIVE ball appeal when the ball is dead (which occurs after a 3rd out)). I have the casebook on my side. When on the field, or when confronting a possible protest (which any good coach would in this sitch), if you have the rulebook and casebook saying one thing, and some guy named Henry that no one else knows (or worse... I would have, "Well, um, I read on the internet where some guy named Mike said that some guy named Henry said ....") - I'm going to land on the side of the rulebook and casebook 100% of the time.

A couple of points, one touched on above:

1) You CANNOT have a live ball appeal during a dead ball period.
2) This ball is no longer live, as we have 3 outs.
3) You can't have a dead ball appeal in this sitch to get an advantageous 4th out, as the 4th out in question here doesn't fall into any of the categories mentioned in that rule.
4) Those of you saying that a force play (or a play on the batter at 1st base) is LIKE an appeal play are really stretching things.
5) If this play was more bang-bang, and not on account of laziness by the batter (which seems to be the motivation of some posters to nullify the run here), the BR might give up upon seeing the true 3rd out made between 2nd and 3rd.

Similar play (nearly identical except for the speed and motivation of the players): R1 on 3rd, R2 on 2nd. D3K, R1 a speedster comes home and barely scores. R2, less reactive is then thrown out at 3rd as BR is 3 steps from 1st. BR sees the out and goes to the dugout instead of 1st (why would he go to 1st, there are 3 outs). F5 then fires to 1st as F3 touches 1st.

Do you nullify the run here?

You shouldn't - the rules don't justify it. And they don't justify it in the original situation.

While true, the issue is moot, since this is not an appeal play. The BR did not miss 1st base; the BR was "put out" (assuming you recognize the out) before achieving 1st base.

Besides, if a player wants to use the valid live ball appeal mechanics to indicate a dead ball appeal, he certainly can. Doesn't need to, but he can.

Appeals have no place in this discussion. Because, as you say,
In fact, this is not a stretch. It is fiction.

This is purely an umpiring decision, not an appeal. Do you recognize the 4th out for the purposes of nullifying the run, or not?


Just a side note: IF you were going to recognize an out on BR in this situation, note that she was already "out" before the throw... "goes to the dugout instead of 1st..."

Henry Pollard is not just some guy named Henry. Nonetheless, before I would use his interp on this in a game, I would need something in writing (like his interp on calling the runner OUT for malicious USC, which is not in the rules, but is in a HP-authored case play).

Could someone, who thinks the run does NOT score, give me a small paragraph on how you would explain your ruling (of nullifying the run) to the offensive coach?



THanks.

I understand the interpretation, all right. I just would not use it unless something is added in writing (case or rule book) to back it up.

A ruling by a member of the NUS is not to be taken lightly, but he needs to put it in writing for those of us not in earshot of his interpretation.

Basically, it is this: A continuous defensive play that throws out the BR at 1B as a "fourth out" is recognized and the effects of 5-5-B-1 shall apply the same as for the third out.

As I said - needs to be put in writing if ASA wants this to be used and to stand up to protest.

I certainly didn't mean to minimize Mr. Pollard in the least. But you've alluded to my problem. To Coach John Doe or even league admin, Mr. Pollard is just some guy named Henry --- especially if I can't even say, "I got an interp from Henry Pollard"... I have to say, "I got an interpretation from some guy (not to disparage Mr. Rowe either... but the people I'd be talking with don't know him either) on the internet, who says he got it from Henry Pollard."

Like you say - an interpretation that seems to contradict the written rule AND a written caseplay needs to be in WRITING to hold any weight come protest time.

mcrowder,
I must believe there is a reason that "personal interpretation" is not in writing, particularly if such interpretation was made "a couple of years ago".
mick