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

[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?

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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?

Of course I would, but you have totally changed the scenario.

We were discussing game ending scenarios on a bases loaded walk.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Of course I would, but you have totally changed the scenario.

We were discussing game ending scenarios on a bases loaded walk.

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?

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Of course I would, but you have totally changed the scenario.

We were discussing game ending scenarios on a bases loaded walk.

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.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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?

Thank you for illustrating the point in a much smarter way than I was able to.

[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).