Does R1 score?

[vcblue]

If you are talking logic then just use rule 10.1 and extend 5.5.C to cover a fifth out appeal. If we can grant a forth out appeal in this case why not a fifth out if properly appealed? To me rule 10.1 was put in place so we can logically extend a rule to cover a situation that may happen once in a life-time.

So if appealed then call it. No runs!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Did anyone bother reading RS1.M?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Did anyone bother reading RS1.M?

Yes, but it only covers the runner who was appealed. It makes no mention of any other runners scoring.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Yes, but it only covers the runner who was appealed. It makes no mention of any other runners scoring.

It states that you can make an appeal after a third out on a runner who has scored to negate that run.

The purpose of the rule is to give the defense the ability to negate a run scored as a result of a rule violation. There is no restriction on the number of appeals which can be made.

[PSUchem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

It states that you can make an appeal after a third out on a runner who has scored to negate that run.

The purpose of the rule is to give the defense the ability to negate a run scored as a result of a rule violation. There is no restriction on the number of appeals which can be made.

There is no restriction on the number of appeals. I take that to mean a team can keep guessing which runner left early to get a 4th out appeal. I don't take that to mean you can get unlimited outs.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by PSUchem

There is no restriction on the number of appeals. I take that to mean a team can keep guessing which runner left early to get a 4th out appeal. I don't take that to mean you can get unlimited outs.

If you think they're just guessing at appeals in order to try and get a cheap out, you can certainly tell them to knock it off. Either they have an appeal on a specific runner because they genuinely BELIEVE that runner left early or missed a base, or they don't.

[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.

[PSUchem]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

If you think they're just guessing at appeals in order to try and get a cheap out, you can certainly tell them to knock it off. Either they have an appeal on a specific runner because they genuinely BELIEVE that runner left early or missed a base, or they don't.

Right, and we're instructed to keep them from randomly guessing; this is the exception. But my point was that, other than that exception, they are allowed more than one chance to appeal runners. Multiple appeals in an attempt to get the 4th out should not be confused with awarding multiple outs.

Player: Blue! R2 left early!
Ump: Nope, safe.
Player: Blue! R1 left early too!
Ump: Yup, out.

[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

[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.