How would you rule?
 

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?

If they can't get a nullifying out, game over.

Okay, runners on 1B & 2B, 1 out. Hit to left. Runners advance one base and now-R3 is tagged out along with R2. On a live ball fourth-out appeal (which is actually only the 3rd out), the result of the appeal is that the BR never safely advanced to 1B, no runs score.

I don't go anywhere, ask the player with the ball.

The part that has me a little confused is that they are apparently getting two outs on the same player, Charles.

Charles is the hitter and is tagged out while standing between 1B and 2B for the second out. Baker is then tagged between 2B and 3B for the third out and now they are appealing Charles, who has already been put out, for missing 1B. Wouldn't the tagging of Charles take care of the missed 1B? I would think that the tagging of Charles would be the live-ball appeal for the missed base. Am I wrong in thinking that?

Similar situation, Charles hits ball to the outfield gap with one out, he misses first on his way to second and is then thrown out at 2B for the second out of the inning. The defense can now appeal Charles missing first base for the third out of the inning? Or is this now allowed as it would not be an advantagous 4th out?

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:confused: ?
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

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.

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

:D D A N G :D

I think I am going home cause the game is over. Tie game bottom of seventh, charles is tagged for the second out, Abel scored giving the home team the lead, Baker advanced from first to second and isn't forced to go to third, seems to me the game is over.

4th out to nullify run
 

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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

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.

[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?

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.

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.


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

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.

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.

OK. Thank you for your response.

Thanks for the patient feedback to my confusion!

I have searched our ruleset (Softball Canada) more carefully and found the following confirmation under the rule for scoring of runs:

I had always missed the phrase "including on an appeal play" in sub-article 2, and checking the total of 10 types of appeals (11 in slo-pitch), none of them could have anything to do with a force EXCEPT appealing a runner for missing a base. So such an appeal CAN be a force. . .though an appeal on the BR for missing 1B is technically not a force and is covered in sub-article 1.

Thanks again for helping me learn something that I had completely overlooked before.

Rule 8
Sec.9 THE RUNNER IS OUT
EFFECT – Sec.9g-j
(…)
4. Additional out appeals may be made after the third out as long as they are made properly and are made to remove a run, or made to reinstate the correct batting order.

This is (part) of the rule in ISF Rulebook.
According to my opinion it is formulated well as long as it leave a wide range of possibilities...

Referring to the OP... well, I still have BR out and a tie => go to extra-inning...
Did I misunderstand something? :confused:

Thanks