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. :)

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

This is why there was a proposed rule change a couple years ago which received support from just about no one.

Somebody proposed going back to the old rule but got little support?

Although I don't understand the reasoning behind the current rule, it hardly makes my list of rules I hate. But I know of no other code that prohibits a post-third-out appeal on a runner solely because the runner didn't score (seems like a strange criterion), and I can't imagine what situation arose to drive ASA to change their rule a few years ago.

Bases loaded, 2 out. BR hits a ball over F8. BR misses 1B on his way around the bases. All 3 runners score. BR also tries to score, but F2 gloves the throw well ahead of the BR.

If F2 tags the BR out, 3 runs will score, since the defense won't be able to appeal the miss at 1B, which would nullify the runs. So F2 has to take a chance and let the BR score a fourth run, hoping the umpire saw the miss at 1B. As I said, strange rule. What was the problem with the old rule?

While I get what you're trying to illustrate, if the catcher was that alert, why not just say (loudly) HE MISSED FIRST as you tag him? Then it's an obvious live ball appeal - but if the appeal is denied, you still have the tag.

why not just say (loudly) HE MISSED FIRST as you tag him?

Yes, that would certainly do it. I didn't even think of that.

There are some weird scenarios in which a runner, to prevent a run-nullifying third-out appeal, could make a deliberate third out by running directly into the dugout or by catching a throw or something, but that kind of oddness arises with other rules, too. My main question about this rule is, Why? How does it improve on the old rule? What could have happened to make somebody even think of creating a rule different from everybody else's?

Years ago, MLB handed down a ruling on the following play (using softball notation):

R1 on 3B, R2 on 2B, two out. B3 hits a ground ball to F5, who instead of throwing to 1B opts to tag R2, who appears to be giving himself up. But R2 reverses direction. F5 chases R2 for a couple of steps as R1 crosses the plate. F5 tags R2 for the third out but then throws to 1B in time to get B3.

I guess that because this play did not involve a base missed or left too soon, there was some uncertainty about whether the out on B3 at 1B was obtainable by appeal, and even about whether such an out actually constituted an appeal. So MLB ruled that a fourth out can be obtained by normal play on a force or on the BR before reaching 1B. ASA has made it clear that such a fourth out cannot be obtained, and in fact uses in its case book example the BR out before reaching 1B.

That would be correct. The old rule was part of the old regime and I can only assume the new regime didn't quite care for it.

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.

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.