Does R1 score?

[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.

[vcblue]

Please tell me why you wouldn't allow a 5th out appeal? Are you telling me you would really allow a score because the rule book only goes to 4? Are you telling me that you are going to put the defensive team at a disadvantage because the rule book only goes to 4, and the Offense should have appealed R1 and not R2? If there were no outs you would have a fourth out appeal and this wouldn't even be a thread.

The bottom line here is the offensive runners did not tag up got out 3 on a live ball appeal on R3. So now the defense can appeal R1 and get both scores off the books. Or, they can appeal R2 for a fourth out appeal. Then appeal R3 for a 5th out appeal that we can honor by the use of 10.1 NO RUNS SCORE.

[MD Longhorn]

I think all this talk about 5th out appeal (which I would allow, as I believe that was the intent of the rule) has muddied the issue. What if, in the OP, R1 (from 3rd base) did tag properly.

The discussion is about rule 9-9-c. And how it's similar to 9-9-b. Does 99C mean that R1's run doesn't score because "no runs may score on a play where the 4th out..."

[youngump]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I think all this talk about 5th out appeal (which I would allow, as I believe that was the intent of the rule) has muddied the issue. What if, in the OP, R1 (from 3rd base) did tag properly.

The discussion is about rule 9-9-c. And how it's similar to 9-9-b. Does 99C mean that R1's run doesn't score because "no runs may score on a play where the 4th out..."

I'm pretty sure you meant 5-5-b and 5-5-c and you're right that in retrospect I wish the OP had just had R1 tag properly as this muddies things up.

To make this rule more annoying, if you read it the way you'd like to [and I would too for that matter], then you still have a problem, suppose in the OP that the appeal goes to third instead of second. I think it's safe to say that the intent was to disallow the run from second in that case, but you can't even remotely get there by rule unless you just go with the no runs shall score reading. [The preceding runner exception is in 5-5-b-3].
________
Volcano Vaporizer

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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.

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

[greymule]

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.