ASA Plays and Clarifications- March 2013

[BretMan]

They're ba-aaack...


ASA Plays and Clarifications- March 2013

[EsqUmp]

Can someone please proofread this stuff before posting it or at least before it is reposted 5 years later? In addition to looking poor, the use of improper grammar and improper language can change the meaning of a statement. There should also be consistency when writing "1B" versus "first base" and "3rd out" versus "third out."


We have had several questions in regard to the ability to make a “fourth out appeal.” We have included in this month’s Plays and Clarifications our posting about this rule from March 2008. We are sure these questions are coming up because of similar questions on the National Umpire Exam that have to do with a fourth out appeal. Hopefully a review of this posting will refresh everyone’s memory.
The question of a fourth out appeal has been raised again and the ability to appeal a batter-runner not making it to first base or missing first base as a fourth out appeal to nullify a run that has scored. We need to remember that the reason the fourth out appeal was added to our rules was to penalize a runner for missing a base or leaving a base too soon and who has scored, not to penalize a team for a batter-runner just stopping on the way to 1B because the third out has been recorded. How many times have we seen the batter-runner stop when the third out was recorded because they do not have to run to 1B anymore? The same is true when they do run to 1B but miss it when going to 2B or just overrunning the base. In those cases, they can be appealed for the third out but not the fourth out. The rule was made to nullify a run scored by a runner who violated a rule like missing a base or leaving a base too soon. 

Play: R1 on 3B and R2 on 2B with 1 out. B4 hits a fly ball to F8, who catches it for the 2nd out. R1 and R2 both tag up but R1 leaves early. R1 scores and R2 is thrown out for the third out. The defense wants to appeal R1 for leaving too soon. 

Ruling: If appealed properly, R1 is out and the run is nullified by our Fourth out appeal. Rule 5 section 5 C

Play: R1 on 3B and R2 on 2B with two outs. B4 hits a ground ball on which R1 scores before R2 is tagged out between 2B and 3B for the third out. B4 never runs all the way to 1B because the third out has been recorded. Now the defense wants to appeal the batter-runner not reaching 1B. 

Ruling: This appeal will not be granted since the third out has already been recorded. To nullify a run, the fourth out appeal has to be on a runner who has scored and either has missed a base or left a base too soon. 
Remember, the defense always has the opportunity to appeal a force out or the batter-runner not making it to 1B as the third out before making the third out somewhere else. Once the third out is made elsewhere, a fourth out appeal has to be made on a runner who has scored and THAT runner has violated a rule.

[Manny A]

Just to stir things up a bit, I prefer the baseball rule that does allow the defense to take advantage of a fourth out appeal on any runner besides the runner who just scored.

Sitch: Bases loaded, two outs. Batter hits one down the right field line for extra bases. R1 easily scores, R2 rounds third and scores as well. R1 tries to score, but gets thrown out at the plate by a perfectly-executed F9-to-F3-to-F2 relay for the final out of the inning. During the play, the BR never touched first base on her way to second.

To me, the offense should be penalized for the BR's failure to touch first. Why should the violation just go away because the third out was recorded elsewhere and a fourth out appeal isn't viable?

Heck, we're actually penalizing the defense for making a play on R1 at the plate, which is expected of a good, agressive team. If they hadn't made that play at home because they got lazy, muffed the relay, or threw the ball away, and then appealed the BR's violation at first, they would benefit from their ineptitude and wipe off three runs. But by playing sound, fundamental ball, they give up two runs. What's the sense in that?

That said, I don't agree that a runner should be held liable for not running all the way to the next base after the third out is recorded, such as the BR failing to advance to first after grounding into an inning-ending fielder's choice. There should be no requirement to continue running after three outs. But in the play I provided, the violation occurred during live ball play before the third out happened. Those types of violations should be subject to fourth out appeals.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I prefer the baseball rule that does allow the defense to take advantage of a fourth out appeal on any runner besides the runner who just scored.

It's not just baseball. I believe that ASA is the only organization- baseball or softball- that limits fourth out appeals to runners who have scored.

[IRISHMAFIA]

[quote=BretMan;884767]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I prefer the baseball rule that does allow the defense to take advantage of a fourth out appeal on any runner besides the runner who just scored.QUOTE]

It's not just baseball. I believe that ASA is the only organization- baseball or softball- that limits fourth out appeals to runners who have scored.

I think what killed this in ASA was the BRs and maybe others, not running out a play when they hear the 3rd out called and then that being used as an appeal.

Yes, I agree it shouldn't happen, but apparently it has somewhere.

[MD Longhorn]

Honestly, having worked both, it's obvious that both are wrong and "in between" makes more sense to both.

ASA should allow a 4th out appeal on ANY forced runner to negate a run - in cases where that runner MISSED a base.

OBR / Fed Baseball should not allow a 4th out on a forced runner who has not yet reached their forced base.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

ASA should allow a 4th out appeal on ANY forced runner to negate a run - in cases where that runner MISSED a base.

I do not disagree, but not sure if I do agree.

Who is to say the reason the runner missed the base was because s/he heard/saw the out call and actually gave up running the bases since there should be no reason at that point?

I don't know it that is a hair that can be successfully split in ASA or HS for that matter.

Then you have too many people try to force a scenario into a rule as opposed to applying a rule to the scenario.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I do not disagree, but not sure if I do agree.

Who is to say the reason the runner missed the base was because s/he heard/saw the out call and actually gave up running the bases since there should be no reason at that point?

Honestly, if I was the rules writer, then the miss would HAVE to have occurred before the 3rd out was made. If not - then we don't know the answer to the question you asked, and should not hold the runner liable for whatever he or she did after that 3rd out call. I'm really talking about a clear cut play. BR misses first, R1 from 3rd scores, R2 from first thrown out at third base for the third out (BR is heading to 2nd or at 2nd)... or even BR simply thrown out at 2nd base; an appeal of BR at first should result in no run here.