How would you rule?

[tcblue13]

Originally Posted by greymule

Along the lines of the play discussed in "Here is one that caused a stir this weekend," how would you rule on the following plays?:

Play A

Girls' FP, tie score, one out, bottom of 7th. Abel on 2B, Baker on 1B. Charles lines a hit to left. F7 fields the ball on one hop and throws home. Abel stops on 3B, Baker on 2B. Charles, however, rounds—and misses—1B and stops halfway between 1B and 2B to draw a play. Instead of returning the ball to the circle, F2 throws to F3, who tags Charles for out number 2 as Abel scores the apparent winning run. However, F3 noticed Charles's miss of 1B and, with the offense celebrating, tags Baker off 2B and then runs back to 1B to appeal Charles's miss for the advantageous fourth out. The appeal at 1B is upheld. Would you rule the inning over and nullify the run? (I would.)

Play B

Same play, except that after Charles is tagged out and Abel scores, Baker remains at 2B and does not budge. F3 stands near 2B waiting to tag Baker when she leaves the bag. The offensive coach, having figured out what is going on, orders Baker to keep her foot on 2B.

Where do we go from here?

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)

Once she has passed the base, she is considered to have reached that base. Once she is tagged out between 1B and 2B all forces are off. This was the 2nd out. R1 scores. R2 abandons 2B having advanced safely on the initial force because she believes the game is over. She is tagged by F3 for the 3rd out.

I know I reiterated the play my own way but dang. Can one player make 2 outs (2nd and 4th)? My gut says game over Home team wins by 1 run.
In Play B is the appeal at 1B still made? Would that mean that Charles merely made the 2nd out twice ?
Now it's game over home team wins?

New Sitch
Tied Game in 6th
2 Outs
R1 on 3B, R2 on 1B
Batter hits safely to RF
R1 lopes home
R2 misses 2B and attempts to score.
The throw from F9 is on the money at the plate and R2 is tagged for the 3rd out.

3. Even though she is tagged out at the plate can she be appealed for missing 2B and nullify the run? I think yes here so I guess the same principle is at work in Play A.

It just seems to me that the tag out in Play A of Charles would remove the appeal.
I would appreciate detailed explanations so I can get this.
Thanks

[mcrowder]

Charles's out is in effect nullified by the appeal. Charles can't be put out twice in any of the various corollaries mentioned - but his out can change from being the 2nd out to being the 3rd out, and in the case of the OP, it matters.

[CecilOne]

And some people think checked swings and OBS are hard to sell.

[tcblue13]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

And some people think checked swings and OBS are hard to sell.

D A N G

[rwest]

Originally Posted by tcblue13

New Sitch
Tied Game in 6th
2 Outs
R1 on 3B, R2 on 1B
Batter hits safely to RF
R1 lopes home
R2 misses 2B and attempts to score.
The throw from F9 is on the money at the plate and R2 is tagged for the 3rd out.

3. Even though she is tagged out at the plate can she be appealed for missing 2B and nullify the run? I think yes here so I guess the same principle is at work in Play A.

It just seems to me that the tag out in Play A of Charles would remove the appeal.
I would appreciate detailed explanations so I can get this.
Thanks

The fourth out to nullify a run can only be applied to a runner who has scored. So in your situation and in Play A, it would not nullify the run. However, if we are saying that it is valid to appeal a player missing a base that has already been put out and that the appeal is a force out, then I guess the run would not score. However, the rulebook says that no runs score if the 3rd out is a force out. Its says nothing about the 4th out being a force out. WHEW! Say that 3 times fast! We need clarification!

[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.

[Steve M]

Play A
As soon as Baker hits 2B, the game is over from my perspective. The winning run has scored. Those who were forced to advance, did advance 1 base or more. Since there was only 1 out at TOP, it does not matter what happens to Charles. So I'm calling Time and not allowing the extra stuff to happen.
Now, if there are 2 outs at the TOP, play it out and I would accept the appeal on Charles missing 1B.

Play B
After it's obvious that play is over and the defense is just grasping at straws byt hoping Baker leaves 2B, Time called. Once I've called Time, nothing else matters. We've got all the time in the world to figure that out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Steve M

Play A
As soon as Baker hits 2B, the game is over from my perspective. The winning run has scored. Those who were forced to advance, did advance 1 base or more. Since there was only 1 out at TOP, it does not matter what happens to Charles. So I'm calling Time and not allowing the extra stuff to happen.
Now, if there are 2 outs at the TOP, play it out and I would accept the appeal on Charles missing 1B.

Play B
After it's obvious that play is over and the defense is just grasping at straws byt hoping Baker leaves 2B, Time called. Once I've called Time, nothing else matters. We've got all the time in the world to figure that out.

If it doesn't matter, why do you need to call time?

Second play isn't even a discussion.

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. What was the timing of this as compared to the run scoring. IOW, HTBT and you just cannot dismiss the possibility of anything on this play depending on how it developed.

However, after rereading the OP, I would have to change the way I saw the play and agree with Steve on this particular play.

[greymule]

As soon as Baker hits 2B, the game is over from my perspective.

Baker hit 2B well before Charles was tagged for the second out, and well before Abel scored.

In my opinion, Play A is not over as long as Charles's miss is a possible inning-ending fourth out.

In Play B, I guess I'd say the play is over when the actions stops and Baker is obviously refusing to leave the safety of 2B. So if the defense proceeded to appeal 1B, it would take a hit away from Charles, but it would not affect the outcome of the game.

I'm not sure I could justify the gratutious calling of time with a play possible.

[mcrowder]

I think you'd be warranted, if Baker was simply standing on the bag, in making a gratuitous call of "Ballgame!"

[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".

[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.