You can check all the books. You won't find any real justification for the run scoring when the third out is made before the run scores other than a case book ruling by DA in NCAA and MS in NFHS. No where is there logic for runners awarded bases on a walk to the batter, they are simply advanced by force; a force that disappears when a trailing runner is put out!

In fact, if they were all awarded bases, wouldn't they advance even when NOT forced? And, wouldn't the run NOT score if a runner failed to advance and that (force) was appealed for the third out? How is that consistent, or logical?

Fed (NFHS) 8-4-3a Effect

"Art.3 . . . A runner is entitled to advance without libility to be put out when:
a. forced to vacate a base because the batter was awarded first base.
Effect: (F.P.) The ball remains in play unless it is blocked. Any runner affected is entitled to one base and may advance farther at their own risk if the ball is in play. (S.P.) The ball is dead."

Play 9.1.1 Situation D
"With two outs and R1, R2, and R3 on base, B6 receivs ball four. R3 touches second and is then tagged off base for the third out before R1 has reached home base. Ruling:The run scores; R1 was awarded home as soon as ball four was declared. (8-1-3a Effect; 9-1-1 Exception b). "

:D

Who left the gate open and let this stranger wander in here? :D

True. But I think the use of the word "preceding" in the rule is meant to address a situation just like the OP. Otherwise, how in the world does a runner cross home plate after an actual preceding runner is declared out?

Hmmmm... Am I thinking that 9-1-1f should have said "succeeding" instead of "preceeding" runner? :eek:

Hey, I'm still on the top side of the grass! (Although I'm getting old.)

I drop by here occasionally to see if ya'll are still around.
:cool:

Good for you. You should stop by more often.

agreed

Yet, the rule you cite clearly does NOT state the base is an award; "entitled to advance" should not supercede other rules which make the run unscored if the third out is made prior to the run actually crossing the plate.

Nor is it listed with "awards".

Yes... I agree that "clearly" the run should not score in NHFS... yet their own published cases and clarifications scores the run, despite the utter lack of rules support.

I'm not a fan of the NFHS interpretation of this situation, yet they appear to be relying on the following part of the EFFECT: Any runner affected is entitled to one base and may advance farther at their own risk if the ball is in play.

Being entitle to one base is completely different than being awarded one base... but this Don Quixote stopped trying to bash this windmill long ago.

Walk-Off Bases Loaded BB
 

I don't want to start a new thread because this is very similar.

ASA Rules (Slow pitch, but shouldn't make a difference)
Tie game, home team at bat, bases loaded, 2 outs.
Batter is awarded a base on balls. Runners advance due to being forced to vacate current base. R1 crosses home plate, BR touches 1st, and R2 touches 3rd; R3 does not complete his base-running responsibilities, does not touch 2B and joins his team mates for the post-game congratulations. Umpires get together and leave the field.

Once R3 leaves live ball territory (assuming umpires were still on the field), it seems the defense could make an appeal that R3 didn't touch 2nd, which would be 3rd out and the score would still be tied and moves to the next inning. (Reasoning - R3 is "entitled" to advance (not awarded) and therefore, must complete base-running responsibilities.)

Assuming last or extra inning, doesn't the game end when the winning run scores because in ASA this becomes an appeal which would be ruled after the score?

Correct assumption concerning the inning - either bottom of last inning, or bottom of extra inning.

Why is this an appeal?

Is it a missed base, violating 8.7-G (which would be an appeal) or, by referencing leaving live ball territory, haven't you actually judged this a violation of 8.7-U, abandoning?

Man up, guys (and gals); you need to make this call if it happens, not hope the visiting team doesn't appeal. :o:o