Does R1 score?

[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.

[CecilOne]

I think most of us (and the rule writers) have assumed "if the runner has scored, and there are already 3 outs, you can make an appeal on THAT runner to nullify HIS/HER run" as above.

Is this nearly TWP something the rule writers never expected? Logic says each non-trailing runner must be appealed separately, but 5.5.c literally says
"no runs" if "fourth out", etc. Literal reading of a rule which is that specific takes precedence over logic or "something the rule writers never expected".

[MD Longhorn]

I disagree. I can read this rule... "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. " and literally interpret this to mean what we think it means. It says no run shall be score if... It does not say no run could have scored earlier. I'm reading, in this case, the word "scored" to be equivalent to "credited". I don't have the book in front of me, but I wonder if the wording is similar in the case of the appeal simply being the third out...

Bases loaded, R1 and R2 leave early, R2 is appealed after R1 crosses the plate... how is this rule worded, as R1's run DOES score here.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I disagree.

With whom? If with me, I said the logic would be what you said. But, often we have to apply a rule as written, sense or not.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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

The why did you say:

I don't think the intent of the rule was to disallow OTHER runs... just that no run would score BY THE APPEALED RUNNER.

Which implies that the scoring is only affected on the appealed runner.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

The why did you say:

I don't think the intent of the rule was to disallow OTHER runs... just that no run would score BY THE APPEALED RUNNER.

Which implies that the scoring is only affected on the appealed runner.

R1 is not a trailing runner. R1 is ahead of everyone else. R1 started on third. R2, starting on second, was where the appeal was. I don't believe (despite the words they used being nearly identical to B) that the intent of C was to disallow R1's run because of an appeal on R2.

Not sure why this isn't clear.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

R1 is not a trailing runner. R1 is ahead of everyone else. R1 started on third. R2, starting on second, was where the appeal was. I don't believe (despite the words they used being nearly identical to B) that the intent of C was to disallow R1's run because of an appeal on R2.

Not sure why this isn't clear.

Not clear to Rich, who thinks baseball nomenclature, where the runner numbering based on the base the runner occupied at the TOP, not which runner is furthest advanced.

So, to him, R1 was on 1st, not third; and R3 was on 3rd, not first.

Not looking to start the inevitable "which is a better system" discussion, just pointing out the reason.