Jump to content

$100 Challenge


UmpTTS43
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 3678 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

Fourth Out caused by an appeal can only be activated when the third out is the result of an appeal. You cannot engage the apparent fourth out when the third out is made on a standard, non-appeal play. See rule 7.10 "Fourth Out" requirements.

 

No appeal allowed on the BR since the 3rd out was at home. Defense read the play wrong, and chose the wrong player to attempt to get out. Had they went after the BR, then the BR would have been the third out and NO runs would score. By choosing R2 at home, one run scored.

 

This is exactly how I interpret it except for the third out having to be an appeal.  If they don't want any runs to score and the B/R is laying on the ground injured, throw the ball to first and retire him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fourth Out caused by an appeal can only be activated when the third out is the result of an appeal. You cannot engage the apparent fourth out when the third out is made on a standard, non-appeal play. See rule 7.10 "Fourth Out" requirements.

 

No, that's not correct. Read the statement carefully:

"If the third out is made during a play in which an appeal play is sustained on another runner, the appeal play decision takes precedence in determining the out."

The third out must be made during the same play in which a different runner commits an appealable baserunning infraction, and the infraction by the other runner must be appealed, and the appeal upheld. The point of the sentence is that such an apparent 4th out will supersede the third out.

 

The (former) third out need not be the result of an upheld appeal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sorry, not true. Not running them in order means he gets to a following base without touching a preceding base.

99.99% of the time, running bases out of order is the mechanism used to violate 7.10(b), but that is not how the rule is written. You haven't considered that there may be another way to violate this appeal rule.

 

Simple question, did BR touch each base in order before he...is tagged (as the rule states) ? The answer is no, he failed to do so.

 

 

Pretend we're in an alternate universe, where everything is the same except this discussion winds up with a consensus to allow and uphold this appeal. A kid who's taking their first steps along the way to being an umpire reads this thread, and finds an opportunity to make use of it this weekend in a game they're playing. He's playing second base, and the lead-off hitter for the other team hits a stand-up double down the right field line (correctly touching first base on the way to standing on second). The throw from the right fielder comes in to our hero, sees an opportunity: he jogs over to third base, steps on it and appeals that the batter-runner has not touched each base in order, specifically third base.

 

In this alternate universe, the base umpire is about to tell the kid he's being silly, but then he too remembers reading this discussion, calls time and consults with his partner. They realise that given the appeal in the OP is valid (according to this alternate universe consensus) that this appeal must be valid too. They give the out, eject the entire coaching staff and half the kids from the batting team, declare a forfeit, and hurry away from the field with the help of a police escort because of the rioting parents who're are desperate for blood because of the umpires who've just made a travesty of the game.

 

Later when the situation is reviewed by the powers that be, they realise too that the umpires ruled correctly. Then this universe goes in one of two directions: either they change the rules to make it clear that this type of appeal is not valid, or baseball games become home run derbies, because hitting home runs is the only way to score runs in this crazy alternate universe.

 

The rule refers to the bases that have been touched by the runner in question, that they be touched in order, not that all four bases be touched in order!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fourth Out caused by an appeal can only be activated when the third out is the result of an appeal. You cannot engage the apparent fourth out when the third out is made on a standard, non-appeal play. See rule 7.10 "Fourth Out" requirements.

 

No appeal allowed on the BR since the 3rd out was at home. Defense read the play wrong, and chose the wrong player to attempt to get out. Had they went after the BR, then the BR would have been the third out and NO runs would score. By choosing R2 at home, one run scored.

Can 4th out appeal only be at first base concerning your first sentence above.  Delete the example I put first time (post 179) if it came through. Just trying to think of something that could not involve 1B on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, not true. Not running them in order means he gets to a following base without touching a preceding base.

99.99% of the time, running bases out of order is the mechanism used to violate 7.10(b), but that is not how the rule is written. You haven't considered that there may be another way to violate this appeal rule.

Simple question, did BR touch each base in order before he...is tagged (as the rule states) ? The answer is no, he failed to do so.

Pretend we're in an alternate universe, where everything is the same except this discussion winds up with a consensus to allow and uphold this appeal. A kid who's taking their first steps along the way to being an umpire reads this thread, and finds an opportunity to make use of it this weekend in a game they're playing. He's playing second base, and the lead-off hitter for the other team hits a stand-up double down the right field line (correctly touching first base on the way to standing on second). The throw from the right fielder comes in to our hero, sees an opportunity: he jogs over to third base, steps on it and appeals that the batter-runner has not touched each base in order, specifically third base.

In this alternate universe, the base umpire is about to tell the kid he's being silly, but then he too remembers reading this discussion, calls time and consults with his partner. They realise that given the appeal in the OP is valid (according to this alternate universe consensus) that this appeal must be valid too. They give the out, eject the entire coaching staff and half the kids from the batting team, declare a forfeit, and hurry away from the field with the help of a police escort because of the rioting parents who're are desperate for blood because of the umpires who've just made a travesty of the game.

Later when the situation is reviewed by the powers that be, they realise too that the umpires ruled correctly. Then this universe goes in one of two directions: either they change the rules to make it clear that this type of appeal is not valid, or baseball games become home run derbies, because hitting home runs is the only way to score runs in this crazy alternate universe.

The rule refers to the bases that have been touched by the runner in question, that they be touched in order, not that all four bases be touched in order!

What had any of this have to do with the play at first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Pretend we're in an alternate universe, where everything is the same except this discussion winds up with a consensus to allow and uphold this appeal. A kid who's taking their first steps along the way to being an umpire reads this thread, and finds an opportunity to make use of it this weekend in a game they're playing. He's playing second base, and the lead-off hitter for the other team hits a stand-up double down the right field line (correctly touching first base on the way to standing on second). The throw from the right fielder comes in to our hero, sees an opportunity: he jogs over to third base, steps on it and appeals that the batter-runner has not touched each base in order, specifically third base.

In this alternate universe, the base umpire is about to tell the kid he's being silly, but then he too remembers reading this discussion, calls time and consults with his partner. They realise that given the appeal in the OP is valid (according to this alternate universe consensus) that this appeal must be valid too. They give the out, eject the entire coaching staff and half the kids from the batting team, declare a forfeit, and hurry away from the field with the help of a police escort because of the rioting parents who're are desperate for blood because of the umpires who've just made a travesty of the game.

Later when the situation is reviewed by the powers that be, they realise too that the umpires ruled correctly. Then this universe goes in one of two directions: either they change the rules to make it clear that this type of appeal is not valid, or baseball games become home run derbies, because hitting home runs is the only way to score runs in this crazy alternate universe.

The rule refers to the bases that have been touched by the runner in question, that they be touched in order, not that all four bases be touched in order!

What had any of this have to do with the play at first?

 

This would be the result, or perhaps more correctly what should already be happening, if the appeal at first is valid. If the injured batter-runner is in danger of an appeal for a missed base under 7.10b, because he's not met the criteria of "touch each base in order", then any runner who's not successfully completed a home run by touching each base in the proper sequence is also at risk.

 

It'd be like some of the T-ball games I played many years ago when we'd get to the ninth batter in the inning and it'd be declared by the umpire, because you only got nine batters per inning. (At least for the first couple of innings, I can't remember if it applied every inning - it was almost 23 years ago.) Since everyone knew there'd be no more batters in the inning, the runners would just keep going until they were out or they scored, and the fielders would just try to get the ball to home plate as quickly as possible to stop runners from scoring.

 

With the possible perspective of some people with regard to the MLB level, baseball games aren't actually home run derbies. But if the appeal of the injured batter who's not yet reached first base is upheld, they may as well be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretend we're in an alternate universe, where everything is the same except this discussion winds up with a consensus to allow and uphold this appeal. A kid who's taking their first steps along the way to being an umpire reads this thread, and finds an opportunity to make use of it this weekend in a game they're playing. He's playing second base, and the lead-off hitter for the other team hits a stand-up double down the right field line (correctly touching first base on the way to standing on second). The throw from the right fielder comes in to our hero, sees an opportunity: he jogs over to third base, steps on it and appeals that the batter-runner has not touched each base in order, specifically third base.

 

In this alternate universe, the base umpire is about to tell the kid he's being silly, but then he too remembers reading this discussion, calls time and consults with his partner. They realise that given the appeal in the OP is valid (according to this alternate universe consensus) that this appeal must be valid too. They give the out, eject the entire coaching staff and half the kids from the batting team, declare a forfeit, and hurry away from the field with the help of a police escort because of the rioting parents who're are desperate for blood because of the umpires who've just made a travesty of the game.

 

Later when the situation is reviewed by the powers that be, they realise too that the umpires ruled correctly. Then this universe goes in one of two directions: either they change the rules to make it clear that this type of appeal is not valid, or baseball games become home run derbies, because hitting home runs is the only way to score runs in this crazy alternate universe.

 

The rule refers to the bases that have been touched by the runner in question, that they be touched in order, not that all four bases be touched in order!

 

 

Alternate universe umpires need more training. They may be right on the out call at 3B, but that play just hasn't happened yet...timing...timing...timing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wish all organizations would just put that "special interpretation" to this question in the book, even if they take opposite stances on the issue . I personally think we are much more apt to see, 2 outs bases loaded, 3-2 count on batter, runners motoring down the line on the pitch and a check swing, passed ball, wild pitch, situation and the batter just standing there with the runner from 2nd motoring towards home as the pitcher lolygags towards the plate not thinking about R2 scoring on this play. They get R2 at the plate while the batter may be just standing there waiting for the 1BU to call the swing or he may think it is ball 4 and just take a couple steps up the line and watch the play thinking it is ball 4 when the 1BU called the 3rd strike and now he is in jeopardy. They need an answer to the OP which would also carry for this PB, or WP scenario, which IMHO has a much higher percentage of happening than the OP with the batter and a pulled muscle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once a batter hits a ball into fair territory his status changes from being a batter to being a batter-runner. In the scenario the batter hit a ground ball into short right field. Then he collapsed a few feet up the line. But he is lying there as a batter-runner not a batter. The term is defined in OBR rule 2 (2013 edition) as:

 

Batter-runner is a term that identifies the offensive player who has just finished his time at bat until he is put out or until the play on which he became a runner ends.

 

In the OP, when R2 was retired at the plate for the third out, the play started by that ground ball ended. But how do we account for the batter's at-bat? For the answer we need to check OBR rule 10.02(g):

 

10.02 The official score report prescribed by the league president shall make provisions for entering the information listed below, in a form convenient for the compilation of permanent statistical records:

 

(g) Number of runners left on base by each team. This total shall include all runners who get on base by any means and who do not score and are not put out. Include in this total a batter-runner whose batted ball results in another runner being retired for the third out.

 

So the batter's apparent base hit becomes a fielder's choice and an RBI. Additionally, for scorekeeping purposes, he is considered to have reached first base and therefore is included in the LOB (left on base) totals. It does not matter how far or how close the batter-runner was from first base at the time. The inning ended with the tag at the plate for the third out.

 

Run scores in OBR--don't know about NCAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once a batter hits a ball into fair territory his status changes from being a batter to being a batter-runner. In the scenario the batter hit a ground ball into short right field. Then he collapsed a few feet up the line. But he is lying there as a batter-runner not a batter. The term is defined in OBR rule 2 (2013 edition) as:

 

Batter-runner is a term that identifies the offensive player who has just finished his time at bat until he is put out or until the play on which he became a runner ends.

 

In the OP, when R2 was retired at the plate for the third out, the play started by that ground ball ended. But how do we account for the batter's at-bat? For the answer we need to check OBR rule 10.02(g):

 

10.02 The official score report prescribed by the league president shall make provisions for entering the information listed below, in a form convenient for the compilation of permanent statistical records:

 

(g) Number of runners left on base by each team. This total shall include all runners who get on base by any means and who do not score and are not put out. Include in this total a batter-runner whose batted ball results in another runner being retired for the third out.

 

So the batter's apparent base hit becomes a fielder's choice and an RBI. Additionally, for scorekeeping purposes, he is considered to have reached first base and therefore is included in the LOB (left on base) totals. It does not matter how far or how close the batter-runner was from first base at the time. The inning ended with the tag at the plate for the third out.

 

Run scores in OBR--don't know about NCAA.

A 4th out takes the place of the 3rd out. If there is a undisputed 4th out then you count players LOB after the 4th out.

 

There are lots of places in the RB that talk about the 3rd out. They don't write the 4th out exception everytime the 3rd out is mentioned in the RB. None of the above has any baring on how the OP inning ends. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Food for thought...

 

Rule 8j A.R. 1 No run may score on ANY play when the third out is either a force out or the result of a batter-runner failure to reach first base safely.

 

NO Runs would score under this rule!

 

Food for thought? The rule doesn't apply, since the BR does NOT make the third out in this play.

 

I'm still hungry...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Food for thought...

 

Rule 8j A.R. 1 No run may score on ANY play when the third out is either a force out or the result of a batter-runner failure to reach first base safely.

 

NO Runs would score under this rule!

 

Food for thought? The rule doesn't apply, since the BR does NOT make the third out in this play.

 

I'm still hungry...

 

 

maybe not the original 3rd out, but that just wets your appetite for the 4th out. :wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Food for thought...

 

Rule 8j A.R. 1 No run may score on ANY play when the third out is either a force out or the result of a batter-runner failure to reach first base safely.

 

NO Runs would score under this rule!

 

Food for thought? The rule doesn't apply, since the BR does NOT make the third out in this play.

 

I'm still hungry...

 

 

maybe not the original 3rd out, but that just wHets your appetite for the 4th out. :wave:

 

fixed :wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of you need to put down your stick.  The horse is dead.  The NCAA says this is an appealable play and if so, no run would score.  You may not like it.  You may not agree with it.  You may feel the rule book doesn't support it.  You know what?  It doesn't matter.  The NCAA believes their rules support this advantageous fourth out and they say no runs score in this play.

 

So you have 2 options: Enforce it the way the NCAA proscribes, or call it the way you feel it should be called and subject yourself to a potential lost protest which could effect your future umpiring career.

 

If you are adamantly opposed to the NCAA's interpretation, I suggest you contact Jim Paronto or a member of the rules committee, request them to take a look at the rule, and ask them to consider revising the interpretation.

 

Like I said earlier, this is neither the first...nor the last...time the NCAA book goes against pro interpretations.  They have their own rules for a reason.  Same as NFHS.  Some rules don't make sense, but you still have to call them.

 

And before anyone throws a stone in my direction about my advocacy for umpiring "with the book" vs. "by the book" and using common sense and fair play in rule enforcement...this isn't one of those times.  This is a black and white rule.  There's no judgment involved.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NCAA says this is an appealable play and if so, no run would score.  You may not like it.  You may not agree with it.  You may feel the rule book doesn't support it.  You know what?  It doesn't matter.  The NCAA believes their rules support this advantageous fourth out and they say no runs score in this play.

 

So you have 2 options: Enforce it the way the NCAA proscribes, or call it the way you feel it should be called and subject yourself to a potential lost protest which could effect your future umpiring career.

My only issue is the location of this interp. Is it a NCAA RB rule, an AR, or somewhere else. I may be missing something, but the only citation to reference that I see is a NCAA test question. Many baseball test have at least one error in them. If someone told me that the only reference for a controversial issue was a test question, I would be dubious of its validity. 

 

The NCAA will cite the rule references when the test is finished. 211.

I look forward to this information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you have 2 options: Enforce it the way the NCAA proscribes, or call it the way you feel it should be called and subject yourself to a potential lost protest which could effect your future umpiring career.

 

This comment applies ONLY to umpires working NCAA games, which includes some but not nearly all of those who have contributed to this discussion.

 

It is also worth pointing out that the matter is not "black and white," at least not in the sense that a simple glance at the book answers the question. There is apparently an authoritative interpretation, but the authority extends only to NCAA games. The interpretation dictates how to rule on this play for NCAA.

 

The next time I see this play in an NCAA game, I'll grant the appeal. :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of you need to put down your stick.  The horse is dead.  The NCAA says this is an appealable play and if so, no run would score.  You may not like it.  You may not agree with it.  You may feel the rule book doesn't support it.  You know what?  It doesn't matter.  The NCAA believes their rules support this advantageous fourth out and they say no runs score in this play.

 

So you have 2 options: Enforce it the way the NCAA proscribes, or call it the way you feel it should be called and subject yourself to a potential lost protest which could effect your future umpiring career.

 

If you are adamantly opposed to the NCAA's interpretation, I suggest you contact Jim Paronto or a member of the rules committee, request them to take a look at the rule, and ask them to consider revising the interpretation.

 

Like I said earlier, this is neither the first...nor the last...time the NCAA book goes against pro interpretations.  They have their own rules for a reason.  Same as NFHS.  Some rules don't make sense, but you still have to call them.

 

And before anyone throws a stone in my direction about my advocacy for umpiring "with the book" vs. "by the book" and using common sense and fair play in rule enforcement...this isn't one of those times.  This is a black and white rule.  There's no judgment involved.

 

I've been one to support not allowing the 4th out appeal on this play - in OBR.  I don't call NCAA games, but if I did, I would call it the way they want me to.  To do otherwise is a fool's errand.  While I agree that you can't use common sense and fair play in this situation in NCAA (because they have spoken on the interp), I wouldn't call this a "black and white rule," but I would call it an unambiguous interpretation.

 

For OBR, I would most certainly NOT allow this "appeal" because it simply isn't supported by the rules.  At least one authoritative opinion (Wendelstedt) agrees, and that's good enough for me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of you need to put down your stick.  The horse is dead.  The NCAA says this is an appealable play and if so, no run would score.  You may not like it.  You may not agree with it.  You may feel the rule book doesn't support it.  You know what?  It doesn't matter.  The NCAA believes their rules support this advantageous fourth out and they say no runs score in this play.

The original poster knew the NCAA ruling at the start of the thread.  If you don't care about the topic of the thread, that's OK, but I diagree with telling other people they shouldn't care about discussing the validity of the interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...