Does R1 score?

[youngump]

ASA. Bases loaded, one out. All three runners think there are two outs and go on contact on a very high fly ball which is caught. R1 and R2 score without attempting to tag up. R3 is called out on appeal. Then R2 is called out for a fourth out appeal.

[spoiler space]





I would have said yes up until reading the book last night [dangerous I know, another thread coming on that too]. But from reading the third point on scoring it appears to read that no runs score if the 4th out is the result of an appeal on a runner who has scored. [Sorry I don't have my book here for reference]. Is that correct?
________
Marijuana card

[JefferMC]

I would have thought that you could "fourth" and "fifth" out appeal R2 and R1 and nullify both of their runs. However, I don't see why an appeal on a batter other than R1 would cancel the run for R1 unless the appeal for the third out happened before she crossed the plate or prevented the BR from safely reaching 1B (i.e. an appeal of the BR missing 1B).

However, I have to read 5.5.C to agree with the OP:

No run shall be scored if a “fourth out” is the result of an appeal of a base missed
or left to soon on a runner who has scored.

[PSUchem]

Originally Posted by JefferMC

5.5.C: No run shall be scored if a “fourth out” is the result of an appeal of a base missed or left to soon on a runner who has scored.

I could be wrong, but I always took this to mean: if the runner has scored, and there are already 3 outs, you can make an appeal on THAT runner to nullify HIS/HER run.

In the OP, if R2 was out on appeal, this does not affect R1's run, as this is a timing play.

However, if the defense had just appealed R1, then that run is nullified, and by my interpretation, no succeeding runners can score (meaning R2's run is also nullified).

Can you have a 5th out appeal? If not, then by the OP, R1's run would still count.

[MD Longhorn]

Run scores. I think you're reading that rule too broadly. I don't think the intent of the rule was to disallow OTHER runs... just that no run would score BY THE APPEALED RUNNER.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Run scores. I think you're reading that rule too broadly. I don't think the intent of the rule was to disallow OTHER runs... just that no run would score BY THE APPEALED RUNNER.

Maybe softball is different but in baseball if the appealed out is out 3 then no trailing runner can score.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Maybe softball is different but in baseball if the appealed out is out 3 then no trailing runner can score.

Softball is not different in this case ... but we're not talking about a trailing runner.

[SC Ump]

Originally Posted by JefferMC

5.5.C: No run shall be scored if a “fourth out” is the result of an appeal of a base missed or left to soon on a runner who has scored.

I can change the original post slightly and I think it will change your understanding of this rule.

With 1 out, R1 tags up properly on a fly ball caught by F8 and scores. R2 and R3 leave early. When an appeal is made on R3, R2 has also scored. The defense subsequently makes a "fourth out" appeal on R2.

Would you then cancel R1's score, even though he scored before the third out. I don't think so. I think the above rule means, as others have already said, that no run will be scored for the specific player that is appealed for the forth out. I does not seem to be referencing other runners that have properly scored on that same play.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Again, RS #1, handles all this. "Fourth Out Appeal" is simply a label.

And AFA, "guessing" appeals, WTF did that come from? It simply means that you can appeal more than one runner to negate a run after the 3rd out.

[greymule]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by greymule

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.