How would you rule?

[Steve M]

Mike,
You said
"First play, you've got my attention. I would agree if there was a lull in the play. If this was all continuous, I would have to take a lot into consideration. I may take into consideration how the runner on 2B came to be tagged. If it was obvious the runner was still involved in the play and got caught. ..."

Part of this depends on how we picture the original post. I pictured this with a bit of a lull. Like you said, if it is all continuous, then I've got something different.
In my picture, the defense noticed the missed 1B - havng played 1B, I'd have noticed when I played (that was part of my job). But, still in my picture, the defense knows that unless they get another out before they appeal the missed 1B, it's pointless. We ain't gonna wait all day on "pointless".

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Steve M

Mike,
You said
"First play, you've got my attention. I would agree if there was a lull in the play. If this was all continuous, I would have to take a lot into consideration. I may take into consideration how the runner on 2B came to be tagged. If it was obvious the runner was still involved in the play and got caught. ..."

Part of this depends on how we picture the original post. I pictured this with a bit of a lull. Like you said, if it is all continuous, then I've got something different.
In my picture, the defense noticed the missed 1B - havng played 1B, I'd have noticed when I played (that was part of my job). But, still in my picture, the defense knows that unless they get another out before they appeal the missed 1B, it's pointless. We ain't gonna wait all day on "pointless".

I understood your post which is why I changed my opinion. However, I think this post may be giving the player a bit too much credit.

[greymule]

I wasn't aware that ASA distinguished between continuous and relaxed action.

For example, I posted this play years ago and was willing to accept the answer:

Bases loaded, 2 out. Batter rolls an infield single toward 3B, and everybody moves up a base. As F5 picks up the ball, and without time out, the runner who ran to 2B then runs halfway back to 1B to pick up his hat. F5 throws to 2B and gets the out on the force the runner reinstated by retreating toward his last occupied base.

The answer was that the third out force play would nullify the run, because in ASA this is all one continuous play until the ball becomes dead. The proferred advice was that the umpire, when he sees what might happen, should call time out in the spirit of preventive umpiring.

The following play seems to me similar in principle to Play A in the original post:

Tie score, bottom 7th, no outs. Abel on 3B, Baker on 2B, Charles on 1B, Daniels gets an apparent single to left. Abel scores, Baker runs to 3B and then runs directly into the dugout to celebrate. Charles runs to 2B and then runs directly into the dugout to celebrate. Then Daniels stops a few feet in front of 1B, turns around, and runs into the dugout to celebrate. The defense, still on the field, appeals that Daniels never touched 1B. (Or maybe you wouldn't even need an appeal. Make it that Daniels rounded 1B but missed it.)

I have Baker and Charles out for entering the bench area, and the subsequent third out on Daniels nullifies Abel's run.

The point is that as long as there's a possibility of an inning-ending appeal out that nullifies a run, the runners are still in jeopardy.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by greymule

I wasn't aware that ASA distinguished between continuous and relaxed action.

It doesn't, that's one of those things us veteran umpires pick up in the training. You know, clinics and such.

[Mountaineer]

I agree with Steve - Ballgame! Once that run scores what happens to Baker is moot. If they appealed Charles missing first, I'd probably say that "you already tagged her for that." IMHO there's no way you nullify that run - I'm heading for the truck!

[greymule]

It doesn't, that's one of those things us veteran umpires pick up in the training. You know, clinics and such.

So ASA doesn't distinguish, but you learn at clinics and such that it does—or that it doesn't?

If they appealed Charles missing first, I'd probably say that "you already tagged her for that."

And you'd be wrong.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by greymule

The fourth out to nullify a run can only be applied to a runner who has scored.

This is not true. Bases loaded, 2 out. BR hits a double to clear the bases but is out trying for 3B. BR is then called out on appeal for having missed 1B. The advantageous fourth out means that no runs score. All 3 runs are nullified.

Every code I know of permits the advantageous fourth (or even fifth) out.

(FP Only)R1 is on 3B and R2 is on 2B with two outs. B3 strikes out, but the ball gets by F2. R1 scores and R2 is out at the plate. B3 failed to run to 1B and F2, after tagging R2 throws to 1B for the fourth out. Does the runner score?

Ruling: R1's run is not nullified. A "fourth out" appeal to nullify must be on a runner who has scored. (5-5C).

[greymule]

A "fourth out" appeal to nullify must be on a runner who has scored. (5-5C).

5-5-C: No run shall be scored if a "fourth out" is the result of an appeal play of a base missed or left too soon on a runner who has scored.

When I read 5-5-C, my thought is, "True, but rather obvious." From those words, I would not interpret 5-5-C to mean that the fourth out nullification applies only to a runner who has scored. After all, 5-5-A is still in the book. But it turns out that 5-5-C means more than it says.

My case book says this:

5.5.7:

(FP Only): R1 is on 3B and R2 is on 2B with two outs. B3 strikes out, but the ball gets by F2. R1 scores and R2 is out at the plate. B3 failed to run to 1B and F2, after tagging R2, throws to 1B for the fourth out. Does the runner score?

Ruling: No run can score when the third out (last out) is made by the batter-runner before he reaches 1B, and, in this case, the fourth out replaces the third out. This would also be true if the last out was a force out at any base due to the batter becoming a batter-runner.

However, my case book is several years old, and 5-5-C was added to the 2003 rule book, without the usual explanation as to why. Rwest, your case play is apparently more recent, since it's the exact same play with a different ruling. So I guess you are right, and I now know one code that doesn't permit a fourth out to nullify a run except on the runner who scored. As well as one code that permits a BR to crash deliberately into F3 for the purpose of preventing a double play and cause her team to benefit from the infraction.

But I cannot understand the reasoning behind the change, nor can I see how 5-5-C alone specifies that only a runner who has scored can be nullified on a fourth out. Apparently a fourth out used to "replace" a third out. Where does it say that it no longer does?

If this is true, and your case book play seems to prove that it is, I will then take issue with ASA's organization of Rule 5-5. Part C should not be equated with parts A and B; it is not a full addition to those parts. It should simply accompany the note under Part B, as a clarification:

"Note: An appeal can be made after the third out to nullify a run, but such appeal can only be on a runner who scored."

Under ASA rules, the play I gave in the previous post is wrong:

Bases loaded, 2 out. BR hits a double to clear the bases but is out trying for 3B. BR is then called out on appeal for having missed 1B. The advantageous fourth out means that no runs score. All 3 runs are nullified.

No, all three runs count. Apparently once there are 3 out, you can't appeal a runner who didn't score. (This was a MAJOR change to the rules. I'm surprised it did not engender more discussion.)

So if you're the defense, do not tag the BR at 3B, since you lose the right to appeal 1B for the fourth out. Wait till the play is over then appeal 1B.

The more I think about this, it's absolutely crazy.

[justmom]

[QUOTE=tcblue13]1. If Charles is tagged out between 1st and 2nd. Do you still have the option of the appeal for missing the base?
2. If yes, Is that in all rulsets? (please cite FED rule # or #'s)

My FED book is 2004...There is an appendix at the back of the book titled "Appeal Procedures and Guidelines". Methods (Paragraph 2a). An appeal may be made during a live ball by the fielder in possession of the ball touching the base missed or left too soon on a caught fly ball, or by tagging the runner committing the violation if she is still on the playing field (even if she is standing on another base). (I added the emphasis).

In tagging Charles, defense successfully made the appeal for the 2nd out, removing any force at 2B. So, tagging Baker off second would be a timing play for the third out. Run had already scored per OP, so run would count.

I would be interested to know if the FED book updates still have this wording in the back of the book?

[greymule]

If Charles is tagged out between 1st and 2nd. Do you still have the option of the appeal for missing the base?

Every code I know of allows the option of a fourth or even a fifth out on appeal if such an out is advantageous to the defense, even if that runner had been put out on another play. That is, except (since 2003) ASA, since Charles did not score.

Play: Abel on 3B, Baker on 2B, Charles on 1B, 2 out. Daniels gets a hit off the fence. Abel scores, Baker scores but missed home, Charles scores. Daniels missed 1B and is out at home for out #3. The defense appeals Baker's miss of home. Fourth out. Baker's run is nullified. Then the defense appeals Daniels' miss of 1B. Fifth out, no runs score. If course, the appeal on Baker is not necessary, since a fourth-out appeal on Daniels at 1B would nullify all runs anyway.

That's every code I know, except ASA since 2003.

On that play ASA would nullify Baker's run for missing home but not Charles's run, since the appeal on Daniels was on a runner who did not score. Now whether ASA still permits the appeal at 1B for the purposes of turning Daniels' triple into an out at 1B is another story.

Of course, there are many codes. I don't know them all.

[celebur]

One thing that I'm confused with is the appeal for the BR missing 1B. Is this considered a force out? Or just an appeal for a missed base and hence a timing play?

Speaking Softball Canada, additional outs may be made so long as they are to remove runs--it doesn't matter whether the runner being appealed actually scored or not. No runners may score if a preceding runner is the 3rd or later out, and no runners may score if the 3rd or later out is a force. So in the OP, the appeal for the BR missing first base would only nullify the run if the appeal is considered a force out. If not, it's a timing play, and since no succeeding runner scored, there is no point to the appeal. Game over.

Originally Posted by greymule

Play: Abel on 3B, Baker on 2B, Charles on 1B, 2 out. Daniels gets a hit off the fence. Abel scores, Baker scores but missed home, Charles scores. Daniels missed 1B and is out at home for out #3. The defense appeals Baker's miss of home. Fourth out.

Again speaking Softball Canada, this fourth out would negate both Baker's run AND Charles' run.

[blu_bawls]

Originally Posted by celebur

Or just an appeal for a missed base and hence a timing play?

It is an appeal play and not a force. When the runner passed the base the force was dropped and he/she can only be called out on appeal.

A runner is assumed to have touched a base once they have passed it. They would be called out for missing the base but runs scored prior to the appeal would not be nullified.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by blu_bawls

It is an appeal play and not a force. When the runner passed the base the force was dropped and he/she can only be called out on appeal.

A runner is assumed to have touched a base once they have passed it. They would be called out for missing the base but runs scored prior to the appeal would not be nullified.

What?? Where do you get that from? Speaking ASA;

Yes, a runner is assumed to have touched a base when passing it; that only means that an appeal must now be made, not that a force is dropped. The first baseman holding the ball cannot "accidently" get the runner out by belatedly stepping on the base or tagging the runner without an associated appeal. And, by definition, the batter-runner needing to touch first is not a force to begin with; read the definition of a force.

But, no run can score on a play where the third out is made by the batter-runner failing to reach first base safely; and that is what the appeal accomplishes. BR is out, and no run can score on the play, same as if it were a force out.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by blu_bawls

It is an appeal play and not a force. When the runner passed the base the force was dropped and he/she can only be called out on appeal.

A runner is assumed to have touched a base once they have passed it. They would be called out for missing the base but runs scored prior to the appeal would not be nullified.

blu_bawls, you are 99% wrong. The only reason for the 1% allowance here is the continuing "is the out on the BR at first an force?" Makes no difference. The appeal of a BR missing 1B IS NOT a timing play. If it is the 3rd out of the inning NO RUNS will score.

[blu_bawls]

OK. Thank you for your response.