Register or Sign In to remove these ads
guyinaredhat

I've got a good one.

72 posts in this topic

grayhawk,

You are missing the forest for the trees.

The "point" of the bases loaded situation is that when the game ending run is "forced" home by an AWARD to the batter ONLY the BR and R3 are required to reach their advance base in order to "validate" the run - intervening consecutive runners are not required to reach their advance base, as they would be were the ball batted into play.

A BR awarded 1B is ALWAYS required to advance to and touch 1B in order to preserve his right to be exempt from "liability to be put out" - see 6.08 (a), ( b ), ( c ), and (d).

The 4.09( b ) Penalty explicitly establishes the principal - reinforced by both JEA and J/R - that if the BR fails to advance when awarded 1B, the umpire is to call him out.

If the third out, no run can score per 4.09(a), Exception1.

JM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register or Sign In to remove these ads

grayhawk,

You are missing the forest for the trees.

The "point" of the bases loaded situation is that when the game ending run is "forced" home by an AWARD to the batter ONLY the BR and R3 are required to reach their advance base in order to "validate" the run - intervening consecutive runners are not required to reach their advance base, as they would be were the ball batted into play.

A BR awarded 1B is ALWAYS required to advance to and touch 1B in order to preserve his right to be exempt from "liability to be put out" - see 6.08 (a), ( b ), ( c ), and (d).

The 4.09( b ) Penalty explicitly establishes the principal - reinforced by both JEA and J/R - that if the BR fails to advance when awarded 1B, the umpire is to call him out.

If the third out, no run can score per 4.09(a), Exception1.

JM

I am firmly on the side of JM, here. Unless the batter completes his base award, he's liable to be called out. If he's out, it's the third out and the run doesn't score.

The bases loaded situation clarifies that only the BR and R3 must complete the award. But note that the BR *is* part of this. What makes the bases loaded situation special for the BR? Why would he be expected to advance and touch first in that specific situation and *not* when it's R3 only? That would make no sense whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JM and Rich, since abandonment is the out (right?), do you have an appeal play or do you just call the out as soon as the kid reaches his dugout? If you call this without and appeal, you've got a real SH*# show on your hands.

The other question would be when does he abandon his base? If the kids start jumping around and celebrating near the plate, and DC tries to appeal as I walk off the field, can BR advance to 1st base since he hasn't abandoned yet?

I sure as hell hope this never comes up in my game, but I'm working a league championship tonight and as luck would have it, this will probably be the final play of the game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JM and Rich, since abandonment is the out (right?), do you have an appeal play or do you just call the out as soon as the kid reaches his dugout? If you call this without and appeal, you've got a real SH*# show on your hands.

The other question would be when does he abandon his base? If the kids start jumping around and celebrating near the plate, and DC tries to appeal as I walk off the field, can BR advance to 1st base since he hasn't abandoned yet?

I sure as hell hope this never comes up in my game, but I'm working a league championship tonight and as luck would have it, this will probably be the final play of the game!

It's not abandonment, as abandonment requires the batter-runner to have reached first base first. Abandonment, of course, is umpire judgment and doesn't require an appeal, however I'd be really slow to call abandonment if it did apply in a game ended award situation (such as R3 not coming directly to the plate and celebrating first instead -- he's on the field and I'm going to wait a while for the player to touch).

I would not consider this to be an appeal play, not specifically. I'd do more research, but I believe UmpJM has covered all that's written on the subject. I do know I would probably call him out if he entered the dugout without completing the award. It's not abandonment and, yes, desertion is a J/R made-up word, but it probably applies best here.

I wouldn't fear a protest, either. LET the aggrieved team protest. Since humans make up protest committees, it's not obvious how it would play out, but I do have rules on my side that say that the BR must advance on a game-ending award. At least that's how I read things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

grayhawk,

You are missing the forest for the trees.

The "point" of the bases loaded situation is that when the game ending run is "forced" home by an AWARD to the batter ONLY the BR and R3 are required to reach their advance base in order to "validate" the run - intervening consecutive runners are not required to reach their advance base, as they would be were the ball batted into play.

A BR awarded 1B is ALWAYS required to advance to and touch 1B in order to preserve his right to be exempt from "liability to be put out" - see 6.08 (a), ( b ), ( c ), and (d).

The 4.09( b ) Penalty explicitly establishes the principal - reinforced by both JEA and J/R - that if the BR fails to advance when awarded 1B, the umpire is to call him out.

If the third out, no run can score per 4.09(a), Exception1.

JM

I am firmly on the side of JM, here. Unless the batter completes his base award, he's liable to be called out. If he's out, it's the third out and the run doesn't score.

The bases loaded situation clarifies that only the BR and R3 must complete the award. But note that the BR *is* part of this. What makes the bases loaded situation special for the BR? Why would he be expected to advance and touch first in that specific situation and *not* when it's R3 only? That would make no sense whatsoever.

Here is why:

Rule 6.08(a) Comment: A batter who is entitled to first base because of a base on balls must go to first base and touch the base before other base runners are forced to advance. This applies when bases are full and applies when a substitute runner is put into the game.

In a bases loaded situation, R3 isn't forced to advance until the BR touches first. Think of the OP this way:

If the wild pitch was on the first pitch (ball 1), then the run scores and there is nothing to question. Why does the wild pitch on ball 4 make the run count less just because the BR didn't touch first? Not THAT doesn't make sense. Bases loaded, I can understand - R3 isn't entitled to home until the BR touches first (according to 6.08(a) comment). R3 only, why does the BR touching first matter at all - it had nothing to do with why R3 scored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with grayhawk .

The run scored because of a wild pith not a base on balls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

grayhawk,

Because if it's not ball 4, there IS no BR, so the 4.09 exception doesn't come into play.

If it is ball 4, AND the BR does not complete his award, then the 4.09 Exception does come into play.

JM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that run dependent upon the batter being awarded first?

4.09( says: (emphasis mine)

( When the winning run is scored in the last half-inning of a regulation game, or in

the last half of an extra inning, as the result of a base on balls, hit batter or any other

play with the bases full which forces the runner on third to advance, the umpire

shall not declare the game ended until the runner forced to advance from third has

touched home base and the batter-runner has touched first base.

This winning run was not the result of the base on balls.

This seems to me to be a case of distinction without a difference. The run has scored. You're free to call the BR out for abandonent if you wish, but the fact is that the run scored not as a result of the BR acquiring first.

You can also just use the comment to allow play to continue.

Seriously - would any of you take this run off the board?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jax,

While the run "apparently" scored due to the wild pitch rahter than the base on balls, if the BR does not touch 1B safely, no run can score on the play.

JM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally,

Rule 7.05(i) Comment: The fact a runner is awarded a base or bases without liability to be put out

does not relieve him of the responsibility to touch the base he is awarded and all intervening bases.

It is a fundamental principle of the base running rules.

JM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

grayhawk,

Because if it's not ball 4, there IS no BR, so the 4.09 exception doesn't come into play.

If it is ball 4, AND the BR does not complete his award, then the 4.09 Exception does come into play.

JM

But on what basis are you calling out the BR? You cannot use rule 4.09( b ) to call out the BR - that is specific only to bases loaded situations. You can't use 7.08(a) 2 because that only applies for AFTER a runner touches first base. You can't call him out on appeal - he never "missed" the base. 7.05(i) refers to a missed base on an award - can't use that because he never missed a base. 4.09( b ) is the only cite that specifically says you can call an out on the BR, but that's only when the bases are loaded. That's why J/R invented desertion - because getting an out in this situation is not supported specifically by the rules. Nor do I think getting an out here is within the intent or spirit of the rules cited.

If you can't call out the BR, the 4.09(a) exception cannot be used because the BR did not make the third out before reaching first base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H D'S

7.12 is not pertinent to the sitch because the runner who failed to advance to his next base was a following runner, not a preceding runner.

The pertinent rule cite is the 4.09 ( b ) Penalty:

( b ) When the winning run is scored in the last half-inning of a regulation game, or in the

last half of an extra inning, as the result of a base on balls, hit batter or any other

play with the bases full which forces the runner on third to advance, the umpire shall

not declare the game ended until the runner forced to advance from third has

touched home base and the batter-runner has touched first base.

...

PENALTY: If the runner on third refuses to advance to and touch home base in a

reasonable time, the umpire shall disallow the run, call out the offending player and

order the game resumed. If, with two out, the batter-runner refuses to advance to

and touch first base, the umpire shall disallow the run, call out the offending player,

and order the game resumed. ...

JM

This doesn't happen very often, but I disagree with JM. Read your rule cite very carefully. In the OP, the winning run did not score as a result of a bases loaded walk, hit batter or any other bases loaded play where R3 was forced home. In the OP, the winning run scored as a result of a wild pitch (and there was only R3, not bases loaded). There was a base on balls awarded on the same play, but that's not why the run scored.

I believe this is a play that is simply not covered under the rules. Abandonment? No, that only applies AFTER a runner reaches first. Missed base? No, you cannot appeal a base that was never reached. Desertion? Only if you ask J/R which is not an official interpretation. What we have here is a game over, thanks for coming, and good night.

+1. I look at this way. If it had happened on ball 3, the game would be over. Why does ball 4 change that. If the winning run was forced in by the walk then I see it, but as it is I still say game over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

grayhawk,

The sitch in 4.09( b ) is, as stipulated, a bases loaded situation. However, it in NO WAY says that is the ONLY situation where the BR can be called out for failing to advance to his awarded base.

The 7.05(i) Comment I quoted says unequivocally that the runner is responsible for TOUCHING his awarded base, and makes no distinction in that responsibility between "missing" it and "never advancing" to it.

7.08(a) says unequivocally that a BR must advance to and touch 1B on a base on balls award in order to maintain his exemption from being liable to be called out. As does the remainder of 7.08 for other awards of 1B to the BR.

Both of the two most authoritative interpretation manuals concur that it is proper to call the BR out and nullify the run in this sitch.

You whole argument is based on the misinterpretation that says since the 4.09( b ) Penalty says you call the batter out when he fails to advance on a walk with bases loaded, you DON'T call him out when the base are NOT loaded and he fails to advance. It does not say that, and the logic of your inference is fallacious.

You call him out because he failed to advance, NOT because the bases are loaded. The "point" of the bases loaded, is that in this special case (only), the R1 and R2 are RELIEVED of THEIR responsibility to touch their "forced to" bases.

A BR is ALWAYS required to touch awarded 1B to maintain his exemption from liability to be called out.

If nothing else, I would think...

I agree with Grayhawk.

...would give you serious pause to reconsider your position.

JM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

+1. I look at this way. If it had happened on ball 3, the game would be over. Why does ball 4 change that. If the winning run was forced in by the walk then I see it, but as it is I still say game over.

carolina,

By your logic, if the same pitch were a strike 3 the run would score even if the defense subsequently put the BR out before he touched 1B. I mean the R3 scored because of the wild pitch, not because the batter swung at it.

If it were Ball 3, the game would indeed be over. However, since it was Ball 4, the batter became a runner and the "play" isn't over until the BR touches 1B. If he fails to, he is properly called out and the run nullified per the 4.09(a) Exception.

JM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

+1. I look at this way. If it had happened on ball 3, the game would be over. Why does ball 4 change that. If the winning run was forced in by the walk then I see it, but as it is I still say game over.

carolina,

By your logic, if the same pitch were a strike 3 the run would score even if the defense subsequently put the BR out before he touched 1B. I mean the R3 scored because of the wild pitch, not because the batter swung at it.

If it were Ball 3, the game would indeed be over. However, since it was Ball 4, the batter became a runner and the "play" isn't over until the BR touches 1B. If he fails to, he is properly called out and the run nullified per the 4.09(a) Exception.

JM

The difference, as you pointed out, was that the batter became a batter-runner on the pitch that was Ball 4. He has responsibilities, one of which includes not being put out before reaching first base. If he does, no runs can score.

Those that are saying that the run didn't score on the walk but "on a wild pitch" are using the same argument coaches use when saying first base isn't occupied on a third strike because the runner was stealing. Sounds good, but has no basis in the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I'll go with the veterans here. Very good discussion though and I learned something. Although I don't think I'm going to hang around too long after the run scores.GTHOOD. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Although I don't think I'm going to hang around too long after the run scores.GTHOOD. LOL

carolina,

I don't think I'd argue THAT point! :rolleyes:

JM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

grayhawk,

The sitch in 4.09( b ) is, as stipulated, a bases loaded situation. However, it in NO WAY says that is the ONLY situation where the BR can be called out for failing to advance to his awarded base.

The 7.05(i) Comment I quoted says unequivocally that the runner is responsible for TOUCHING his awarded base, and makes no distinction in that responsibility between "missing" it and "never advancing" to it.

7.08(a) says unequivocally that a BR must advance to and touch 1B on a base on balls award in order to maintain his exemption from being liable to be called out. As does the remainder of 7.08 for other awards of 1B to the BR.

Both of the two most authoritative interpretation manuals concur that it is proper to call the BR out and nullify the run in this sitch.

You whole argument is based on the misinterpretation that says since the 4.09( b ) Penalty says you call the batter out when he fails to advance on a walk with bases loaded, you DON'T call him out when the base are NOT loaded and he fails to advance. It does not say that, and the logic of your inference is fallacious.

You call him out because he failed to advance, NOT because the bases are loaded. The "point" of the bases loaded, is that in this special case (only), the R1 and R2 are RELIEVED of THEIR responsibility to touch their "forced to" bases.

A BR is ALWAYS required to touch awarded 1B to maintain his exemption from liability to be called out.

What I am saying is that the language in 4.09( b ) is specific to a bases loaded situation because it results in a force. The force cannot happen until BR touches first base. R3 is entitled to exactly nothing until BR touches first. I'm not saying the rule says NOT to call him out when the bases are not loaded. I am saying that the game is already over because R3 ended it by legally scoring on the wild pitch. I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, however THIS...

If nothing else, I would think...

I agree with Grayhawk.

...would give you serious pause to reconsider your position.

...is some funny stuff!

JM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#1 - The rules interpretations don't really make much sense to the OP. In the cases cited there is good reason to require the BR to touch first base. It is only by his touching of first base that R3 gets to come home. But in this case the run has already scored, during a time when BR was not liable to be put out. So the game would end before his requirement to touch first base would ever come into play. The example of the run scoring on strike 3 that JM gave makes no sense. In that situation BR is liable to be put out as soon as it's strike 3. But on ball 4 BR is not liable to be put out. I'm sure if you talked to the committee that wrote the rules book this is NOT the spirit or intent of this rule. Anyone watching a baseball game would not even consider that on ball 4 after the winning run scores, on a wild pitch, that a runner has to go touch first base.

#2 -This situation probably has as much a chance of turning out bad as an alien abducting the BR on his way to first base. I in no way would expect any team to think that they had to go touch first base. So if it is found to be that it is required then I most certainly would tell the BR, "Hey go touch first to make this official".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

grayhawk,

What I am saying is that the language in 4.09( b ) is specific to a bases loaded situation because it results in a force. The force cannot happen until BR touches first base. R3 is entitled to exactly nothing until BR touches first. I'm not saying the rule says NOT to call him out when the bases are not loaded. I am saying that the game is already over because R3 ended it by legally scoring on the wild pitch. I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one

Actually, the force "happens" as soon as the batter becomes a runner. And your interp seems directly contrary to...

Rule 7.04( b ) Comment: A runner forced to advance without liability to be put out may advance

past the base to which he is entitled only at his peril. If such a runner, forced to advance, is put out for the

third out before a preceding runner, also forced to advance, touches home plate, the run shall score.

Play. Two out, bases full, batter walks but runner from second is overzealous and runs past third

base toward home and is tagged out on a throw by the catcher. Even though two are out, the run would

score on the theory that the run was forced home by the base on balls and that all the runners needed to do

was proceed and touch the next base.

JM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A force is in effect as soon as the batter becomes a runner not by the Batter/Runner touching 1st. In a bases loaded walk situation as soon a ball four is delivered, all runners are forced and may advance without liability to be put out. The batter/Runner has a responsibilty to advance and touch 1B and if he doesn't can be called out.

My question is this, in a bases loaded situation and a walk, if the B/R heads immediately to the dug-out for some unknown reason and is called out for not advancing due the other runners loose thier right to advance without liability to be put out? I know it's not likely to happen that way but you never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

carolina,

It would seem that they do retain that right, however, no run can score on the play if the out on the BR is the 3rd out of the half inning.

If there were less than 2 outs, the run would score.

JM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's pretend this were a MLB game and this exact situation happened. The BR would back out of the box and emphatically signal for his R3 to come home. They would then all mob him at home plate, just like in the OP. The game is over. There is no reason for BR to advance to first. The game ends with two outs. That is what is logical and sensible. Calling him out when anyone who has ever played the game would assume there is no reason to go to first is wrong to the spirit and intent of the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott,

What umpire training have you had? Which of the interpretation manuals have you read. Which of the rule books (OBR, FED, NCAA) have you read? Which studies of the history and evolution of the rules have you read.

Or are you a self-taught, "common sense" umpire?

What qualifies you to determine "...what is logical and sensible..." or speak for "...what anyone who has ever played the game would assume..." or what the "..spirit and intent of the rules..." is?

How many HS Varsity games have you worked? Any in-season "conference" games?

What "would" happen in an MLB game is what always DOES happen - the BR would go touch 1B and the game would be over. You're making it seem like you've never even watched an MLB game with your hypothetical description of what "would" happen - utter nonsense.

JM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now