IF they actually touch the base, they have no liability to be put out. But, if they don't touch the base, they can be appealed out and the out is a force out if they were forced to advance because the batter became a batter-runner.

ANY rule basis for what you're saying here would truly be appreciated. You keep stating the 2nd paragraph as fact, with no basis. The first sentence is simply false.

OK, please cite the rule that makes the duties of the runners and the availability of defensive appeals different in a "game ending" bases loaded walk and any other bases loaded walk. Again, rule, please? The generic "run scores" rule doesn't work since that generic "run scores" rule is always subject to a valid appeal. So, your case boils down to these are not valid appeals because it involves the winning run in the bottom of the 7th.

Again, I say, rule, please?

No, the only thing he has changed was that the run that apparently scores is no longer an apparent game-winner. But the apparent runs scored in the situaitons are governed by the same rules. There are no separate rules for game-ending runs or even inning-ending runs. If you understand and agree with THIS scenario, it should easy for you to apply exactly the same rules to the original scenario, and in doing so, you would then rule correctly.

I'm still waiting for the citation of a rule which determines a game is over which terminates any possible appeals.:D

If you take my replies as "bombastic" then I apologize, but they were never intended to be.

I have cited the rules covering the situation as I see it.

If you prefer to honor those appeals at second or third you certainly can, but I never would.

Jim,

I think what Mike (and others) would be looking for is something like 8-7-R states "The runner is out if he fails to remain in contact..." blah blah blah.

The above rule is irrelevant to this discussion. Just using it as an example of what they're looking for. Since I don't have my book with me, I'm keeping out of it until later tonight when I can grab my copy.

I agree with you. I cannot see any relationship between the scenario started in this thread and those quoted rules regarding force outs.

I believe we're trying to be patient with you here ... You've cited rules. Several of us have mentioned that the rules you cited have nothing to do with this situation. Your response? "I've cited the rules." Us: "Those rules don't apply, please cite the rules that do." You: "I've cited the rules."

Give us the rule that supports your case ... or at least explain to us why you think the rules you quoted support your case.

Our honoring of appeals at 2nd and 3rd ARE supported by the rulebook. So why wouldn't you - and what would your defense be when your ruling is protested? Show us ANY ruling that either differentiates between THIRD out forced base appeals at 1st or home, and the same appeal at 2nd or 3rd. Or show us ANY rule that differentiates between apparent game-ending runs and any other run scored during a game. If you can't do either, then your position is indefensible.

But you can see the relationship if the run isn't an apparent game-ender? You just said you would allow those appeals if the run was not an apparent game-ender. What's the difference? Why can you understand one and not the other - they are the same.

I will defer to your argument.

In researching old case books I did find a similar situation in the 2005/6 book that talks about runners heading to dead ball areas on a walk. While the scenario is a little different, it does say that awarded bases must be touched.
This is a fast pitch situation.

Bummer... I was about to bet money that this thread would reach over 80 posts by the time I got home tonight. :)

Sometimes we're right, sometimes we're wrong. Sometimes, the rules are completely whacked. But we still follow them to the best of our abilities, and when we make mistakes, it never hurts to look it up and strive to be better.

Any time I have a "freak" play or have to pull out an obscure ruling, I *always* go back to the book later that night to make sure I was right. And if I'm not, well... Life goes on.

Mcrowder (or Bretman), help me with this, as I believe you also do baseball and/or, at least baseball rules based softball (Little League, Babe Ruth, Dizzy Dean, Dixie??). Am I incorrect in believing there is an OBR based interpretation that matches the previous statements by those who believed the run scores and end the game?

Not trying to reopen the disagreement, because I am secure in my understanding about softball, that the bases must be touched. Just testing my memory that this is (or may be) another undocumented difference between some flavors of softball. Kind of like whether a batter-runner who has received a base on balls is eligible to safely overrun first base, like any other batter-runner.

wow...on the news just now...a woman was arrested for blowing a .47 for a DWI...set a state record...and was out of jail 24 hours later, driving again...and had another DWI and another accident.

I think maybe she was the UIC who made some of these rulings cited in some of these posts. :D

I did baseball for a number of years back in the olden days (let's say 1970-1992), some of it at a pretty high level. And, yes, in OBR as long as the 3B runner touches home and B/R touches first, the game is over regardless of the actions of the other runners.

BUT...that's OBR. The fastpitch I work (ASA, Juco using NCAA rules, NFHS) require all runners to advance.

As several have pointed out in various ways, the batter is awarded first base on a base on balls without liability to be put out. It's an award, and the ball remains live (talking fastpitch here).

The rule book is also clear that the batter-runner must advance to first base because it is an award...and shall be declared out if they enter the team area or other DBT.

8-7-U says the runner is OUT "When a runner abandons a base and enters the team area or leaves live ball territory."

I would vigorously oppose any move to not force all runners to complete their obligation to advance. I have always been opposed to the OBR understanding that R1 and R2 don't have to advance. I have been opposed to efforts to eliminate the pitches for an intentional base on balls. In fact, a girl hit a triple during such an attempt in my game Monday.

Without going into some societal diatribe about obligations...I feel all runners must advance one base.

What I was looking for as much as anything else was advic such as that so eloquently presented by Mike. If anyone else would like to chime in on the mechanics of that situation, please, feel free.

And thank you to everyone for your contributions. Even the stuff that is wrong helps us all understand.;)

This is what I just don't understand. If you are not going to worry about the other runners, why worry about the BR? That is about as stupid (yes, I said "stupid") as the organizations that do not require players to run out an over-the-fence HR (SP), but make the BR and all R advance one base and then sit down.