A walk is as good as a hit...maybe

[jimpiano]

Rule 8-5,A

Runners are entitled to advance one base without liability to be put out when forced to vacate a base because the batter was awarded a base on balls.

Rule 5-5 One run shall be scored when a runner has touched first, second, third and home.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Rule 8-5,A

Runners are entitled to advance one base without liability to be put out when forced to vacate a base because the batter was awarded a base on balls.

Rule 5-5 One run shall be scored when a runner has touched first, second, third and home.

And where do those two rules tell us that an appeal on R2 or R3 failing to touch a base they were forced to advance to is not a force out?

[jimpiano]

Because when the runner hit home and the batter hit first the game was over.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Because when the runner hit home and the batter hit first the game was over.

I ask again - what rule tells you this? Where do you get these made up rules? Answer for us the question(s) I posted to NCASA. They apply to you as well.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Rule 8-5,A

Runners are entitled to advance one base without liability to be put out when forced to vacate a base because the batter was awarded a base on balls.

Rule 5-5 One run shall be scored when a runner has touched first, second, third and home.

I think what Jim is getting at is that at the bottom of the inning in a tie score situation, one runner legally touching home means ball game. All other runners can miss bases, dance in circles or stand on their head for all we care. The defense can appeal all they want, but it won't do them any good as any appeal on a *succeeding* runner does not prevent the run from being counted.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I think what Jim is getting at is that at the bottom of the inning in a tie score situation, one runner legally touching home means ball game. All other runners can miss bases, dance in circles or stand on their head for all we care. The defense can appeal all they want, but it won't do them any good as any appeal on a *succeeding* runner does not prevent the run from being counted.

You are mixing rules.

First off, a runner scoring apparent winning run does NOT mean the ballgame is over. Appeals on other runners can definitely cause a run to be pulled off the board.

Second - the rules quote by piano have nothing to do with this situation.

Third - the rule regarding an appeal out on BR or a scored runner have to do with FOURTH out appeals - and again ... nothing to do with this situation.

Ask yourself this - if this was a single, and not a walk, and R2 or R3 failed to touch the base they were forced to ... would an appeal at that base nullify the run? (Hopefully, the answer is "of course.") So ... what makes THIS situation different? The only difference on a walk is that they may advance without liability to be put out. However, there is nothing absolving from their responsibility to actually advance. If they miss the base they are going to, and leave the field of play, they can certainly be appealed for missing that base - and such an appeal would be a force out. And we all know what happens when a force out for a 3rd out occurs after a run has apparently scored, don't we?

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

You are mixing rules.

First off, a runner scoring apparent winning run does NOT mean the ballgame is over. Appeals on other runners can definitely cause a run to be pulled off the board.

Second - the rules quote by piano have nothing to do with this situation.

Third - the rule regarding an appeal out on BR or a scored runner have to do with FOURTH out appeals - and again ... nothing to do with this situation.

Ask yourself this - if this was a single, and not a walk, and R2 or R3 failed to touch the base they were forced to ... would an appeal at that base nullify the run? (Hopefully, the answer is "of course.") So ... what makes THIS situation different? The only difference on a walk is that they may advance without liability to be put out. However, there is nothing absolving from their responsibility to actually advance. If they miss the base they are going to, and leave the field of play, they can certainly be appealed for missing that base - and such an appeal would be a force out. And we all know what happens when a force out for a 3rd out occurs after a run has apparently scored, don't we?

I totally disagree.

A walk is not the same as a hit, because on a hit the runners have liability to be put out if they fail to advance.

Once the batter has touched first base on a base on balls the advance by the runner on third to home ends the game and there are no appeals that can be honored for other runners failing to advance.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

I totally disagree.

A walk is not the same as a hit, because on a hit the runners have liability to be put out if they fail to advance.

Once the batter has touched first base on a base on balls the advance by the runner on third to home ends the game and there are no appeals that can be honored for other runners failing to advance.

Quote me a rule that says this please. Not a rule that has similar words. The rule that tells you that "no appeals that can be honored for other runners failing to advance."

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Quote me a rule that says this please. Not a rule that has similar words. The rule that tells you that "no appeals that can be honored for other runners failing to advance."

How can you appeal a runner for missing a base they had no liability to be put out on?

The runners are forced to advance because the batter was awarded first base.
But they are not liable to be put out.

The scenario is that the runner on third scored and the batter did not go to first.

With less than two outs the batter could be appealed but the run would count. Game over. There is no potential appeal on any other runner since neither was under liabiliity to be put out, i.e. forced. The run scoring was not predicated on anything other than the batter being awarded first base and does not need the other runners to touch the next base as it would under a batted ball with the bases loaded.

With two outs the run would be nullified only if the batter failed to advance to first.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

How can you appeal a runner for missing a base they had no liability to be put out on?....

Hmmm....

Riddle me this. Suppose we have this same situation earlier in the game, so there is no game-ending scenario involved. F2 overthrows F1. All runners (who were forced to advance due to the base on balls) now take off, R1 scores on the walk, R2 scores on the overthrow, R3 ends up on 3rd and BR on 2nd. But, R2 missed 3rd (notice - the base she was entitled to without liability) and R3 missed 2nd (again, the base she was entitled to without liability). Would you not honor those appeals?

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

How can you appeal a runner for missing a base they had no liability to be put out on? The runners are forced to advance because the batter was awarded first base. But they are not liable to be put out.

Not exactly true - they are "entitled to advance without liability to be put out". There is a subtle difference, and this difference comes into play in the scenario we are discussing. They MUST still advance. They cannot be put out while advancing - but they can be out for failing to advance (or for missing a base and continuing to advance).

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I think what Jim is getting at is that at the bottom of the inning in a tie score situation, one runner legally touching home means ball game. All other runners can miss bases, dance in circles or stand on their head for all we care. The defense can appeal all they want, but it won't do them any good as any appeal on a *succeeding* runner does not prevent the run from being counted.

Thank you.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I think what Jim is getting at is that at the bottom of the inning in a tie score situation, one runner legally touching home means ball game. All other runners can miss bases, dance in circles or stand on their head for all we care. The defense can appeal all they want, but it won't do them any good as any appeal on a *succeeding* runner does not prevent the run from being counted.

jim's expression of appreciation notwithstanding, what about mcrowder's points?

I know there is a custom (especially in MLB) that in this situation the only runners that matter are R1 and the BR.

"By custom" is different from "by rule." jim said "by rule". What rule? And, the rule had better address that the other runners don't matter, or it is not the rule that pertains to what jim said was "by rule."

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Dakota

jim's expression of appreciation notwithstanding, what about mcrowder's points?

I know there is a custom (especially in MLB) that in this situation the only runners that matter are R1 and the BR.

"By custom" is different from "by rule." jim said "by rule". What rule? And, the rule had better address that the other runners don't matter, or it is not the rule that pertains to what jim said was "by rule."

I already cited the rules.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

I already cited the rules.

You cited some rules... but how do those rules apply at all to this situation? I'm asking you to explain it, not just give vague statements. I don't mind if you can explain your way into this ruling ... because frankly I like it better than what the rules say ... but I cannot use the rules (any rules - not just the two irrelevant ones you mentioned) to justify your conclusion.