Does R1 score?
 

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

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.

With you. I am saying we CAN apply this rule as written. Literally. To still mean what we think it means. No run is scored - can easily mean no run is credited.

No run is credited with a 4th out blah blah blah... I can read this to NOT mean that it wipes out previously scored runs.

5.5.B. No run shall score if the third out is the result of ...
5.5.C. No run shall score if a "fourth" out is the result of ...

How do you differentiate those in any meaningful way to get where you're trying to get?
________
TITS LIVE

I think that the confusion that youngump is experiencing is the strikingly similar language between 5-5-B and 5-5-C.

However, just like Mike, I maintain that the wording of the rule only pertains to the runner being appealed. It does not prevent R1 from scoring. Though that runner may also be appealed.

I see mbcrowder's point.

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

Meaning, applying to THAT runner, not others. If it were meant to apply to all runs on the play, perhaps it would read:
No runs shall score if a "fourth out" is the result of an appeal of a base missed or left too soon on any runner who has scored.

The problem with trying that kind of contortionism is that you can do the same thing to 5.5.B. No run (singular) shall be scored ...

If they had really meant that a BR thrown out at first should erase the run scored by a runner from third, they could have written:
No runs shall be scored ...
________
Live sex

Nnnggg... I believe my argument is leaking. :)