It's a strange rule, and fairly recent.

R1 on 3B, R2 on 2B, R3 on 1B, two out. B4 gets a hit off the fence. R1 scores, R2 scores. B4 misses 1B but keeps running. R3 is thrown out at home for the third out as B4 stops at 3B.

The defense cannot appeal B4's (fourth out) miss of 1B, since B4 didn't score. However, had the defense not put R3 out, they could then have appealed B4 (for the third out) and nullified any previous runs.

Similarly, if B4 didn't even run but stood near the plate watching R1 and R2 score and then R3 get put out at home, the defense could not throw to 1B for the out on B4 to nullify the first 2 runs.

This is why there was a proposed rule change a couple years ago which received support from just about no one.

This is why there was a proposed rule change a couple years ago which received support from just about no one.

Somebody proposed going back to the old rule but got little support?

Although I don't understand the reasoning behind the current rule, it hardly makes my list of rules I hate. But I know of no other code that prohibits a post-third-out appeal on a runner solely because the runner didn't score (seems like a strange criterion), and I can't imagine what situation arose to drive ASA to change their rule a few years ago.

Bases loaded, 2 out. BR hits a ball over F8. BR misses 1B on his way around the bases. All 3 runners score. BR also tries to score, but F2 gloves the throw well ahead of the BR.

If F2 tags the BR out, 3 runs will score, since the defense won't be able to appeal the miss at 1B, which would nullify the runs. So F2 has to take a chance and let the BR score a fourth run, hoping the umpire saw the miss at 1B. As I said, strange rule. What was the problem with the old rule?

While I get what you're trying to illustrate, if the catcher was that alert, why not just say (loudly) HE MISSED FIRST as you tag him? Then it's an obvious live ball appeal - but if the appeal is denied, you still have the tag.

why not just say (loudly) HE MISSED FIRST as you tag him?

Yes, that would certainly do it. I didn't even think of that.

There are some weird scenarios in which a runner, to prevent a run-nullifying third-out appeal, could make a deliberate third out by running directly into the dugout or by catching a throw or something, but that kind of oddness arises with other rules, too. My main question about this rule is, Why? How does it improve on the old rule? What could have happened to make somebody even think of creating a rule different from everybody else's?

Years ago, MLB handed down a ruling on the following play (using softball notation):

R1 on 3B, R2 on 2B, two out. B3 hits a ground ball to F5, who instead of throwing to 1B opts to tag R2, who appears to be giving himself up. But R2 reverses direction. F5 chases R2 for a couple of steps as R1 crosses the plate. F5 tags R2 for the third out but then throws to 1B in time to get B3.

I guess that because this play did not involve a base missed or left too soon, there was some uncertainty about whether the out on B3 at 1B was obtainable by appeal, and even about whether such an out actually constituted an appeal. So MLB ruled that a fourth out can be obtained by normal play on a force or on the BR before reaching 1B. ASA has made it clear that such a fourth out cannot be obtained, and in fact uses in its case book example the BR out before reaching 1B.

That would be correct. The old rule was part of the old regime and I can only assume the new regime didn't quite care for it.

It's clear. In this ONE case, baseball gets it right. What's easier to say, R3 or R1 on third?

Softball gets other things right. Not keeping score. :)

You don't want to hear my answer.

When I started reading OBR books in the 1950s, everything was by name:

Abel, Baker, Charles, Daniels, Edwards, Frank, etc. As I remember, there was no F9, F3; it was "the right fielder" and "the first baseman."

That's what I got used to and what I still futilely prefer.

Of course, if they used names today, they'd get complaints from the p.c. crowd no matter what names they chose, so I guess R1, R2, work.

I like the softball system slightly better than the baseball one.