Can same runner be put out twice?
 

This nearly happened in a game tonight. Here's the situation:

Two out. Runners at first and third. Batter connects for an extra-base hit but misses first base. Both runners ahead of him score, but he is thrown out at third base trying to stretch his hit into a triple. This is the third out of the inning. I know the defensive team is permitted to make an appeal for a fourth out to nullify a run, but can they do it on a runner who has already been put out at another base? My opinion would be to allow the appeal in order to nullify the two runs that scored.

My personal opinion is that the fourth out, perhaps better worded as "the more advantageous third out", should be allowed in the case you stated.

I have seen in the past over of "the other board" (a.k.a. baseball) some long winded bombast stating there were official BB interps ruling this could not be done. Their opinion was that once the defense has put a player out, they have "chosen" the method on recording the out on that player and it cannot be undone by then "requesting" a different out on the retired player.

I do not know of any softball organization to offer an official interpretation/case play on the subject.

Speaking ASA

Apparently, up until two years ago, the answer would have been yes. However, the interpretation has changed since then and a fourth out appeal is only applicable to a runner who has scored (5.5.C)

Interesting. One would think that the offensive team should not be "rewarded" for a runner missing a base. This interpretation seems to penalize the defensive team for making a good play to put out the runner at third base.

Current J/R baseball interp is that you can indeed "appeal against a player already out", IOW, pick the more advantageous out of 2 against the same runner.

I agree. I do not care for the ruling in it's present state.

Me, either. We discussed this awhile back... I really would like to hear the story behind the change. Something bizarre must have happend at a national championship tournament... that'd be my guess, anyway. But I think the fix is worse than whatever the problem was.

Silliness
 

So on the OP play, the only way to wipe the 2 previous runs from scoring would be to intentionally not put him/her out on the bases.

What's the intent of that rule as it currently stands?

It seems to me that the 5-5.B NOTE would allow an appeal for a more advantageous third out, saying "NOTE: An appeal can be made after the third out in order to nullify a run." That would seem to indicate, to me, that an alternate third out which is more advantageous can be made by appeal. It seems to me that the intent of 5-5.C is to amplify that by making clear that the run cannot score if a runner who appears to have scored is appealed as a fourth out for missing a base or leaving one too soon.

And all of this would be clear and as everyone understands it to be, until a certain casebook ruling was published in 2005 (5.5-7), adding (IMO) something not stated in the rule, nor intended (I don't believe); that this now limited the fourth out to an appeal of a runner who has scored.

I see this as a simple bad casebook ruling which attempts to make two rules (5-5.B Note and 5.5-C) contradict and limit, when 5.5-C was intended to add to 5.5-B, not limit it. The rule doesn't need to be revisited, or even clarified; the bad casebook ruling needs to be rescinded.

Since Casebook play 5.5-7 is listed as "FP Only," am I correct in assuming that this would be ruled differently (and seemingly, logically) in slow pitch, by reason of 5.5.B.3-NOTE?

Sorry, man. It is marked FP only because the particular play is about a dropped third strike, a play which doesn't exist in slow pitch.

Then I agree that something needs to happen with that Casebook play, and also that another 4th out play or two needs to be inserted into the Casebook, and/or possibly changing the wording of 5.5.C. to include a BR missing first base. - Until I am convinced otherwise, anyway.

And I would agree if your reference wasn't attached to Para 3 referring to a preceding runner.

That's why I think it would be more appropriate to change 5.5.C. to read something to the effect of:

No run shall be scored if a "fourth out" is the result of an appeal of:
1. A base missed or left to soon by a runner who has scored.
2. The batter-runner missing first base.
EFFECT 5.5.C.2: Any runs scored on the play are nullified.

So, if I understand you Mike, you are saying that 5.5-B(3) allows a 4th out appeal on a preceding runner to nullify a run, 5.5-C allows an appeal on the runner you are nullifying, but 5.5-B(1) only can keep a run from scoring on a force out of a following runner or BR not reaching 1B if it is the ONLY third out?

And, this is now the interp because 5-5.C was added to ADD that circumstance where the appeal was on the affected runner, but, instead, is being used to limit the following runners? Can I assume you are proposing a rule change or editorial revision to clarify what everyone has known all along?