How would you rule?

[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".

[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.