Case Play Conflict - Time Play vs Awarded Bases

[grayhawk]

3.3.1 SITUATION AA: With two outs and the bases loaded, B6 hits a home run out of the park. R3 maliciously runs over (a) F4 before touching second base or (b) F5 before touching third. RULING: In both (a) and (b), R3 is declared out and ejected. In (a), the third out is a force, so no runs score. In (b), the third out was not a force play, so runners who have touched the plate prior to the infraction would score. Please note that in awarded situations it is not the base that is awarded, but rather the right to advance and legally touch a base with no play being made.

9.1.1 SITUATION M: With R1 at second base and R2 at first base and two outs, B5 hits a home run out of the park. While running the bases, B5 (a) passes R2 at first or (b) maliciously runs over F4. RULING: In both (a) and (b), B5 is declared out. R1 and R2 will be awarded home and allowed to score due to the award from the home run. B5's out is not a "force out" so the other runs will count. In (b) B5 would also be ejected for malicious contact.

So in both case plays, we have a home run out of the park.  In both plays, we have situations presented where the third out is made on the bases that is not a force out.  However, in the first case play, it's treated as a time play, whereas in the second case play, runs score due to the award of the home run.  Does anyone else interpret these differently?  @lawump, can you comment on this?

[Mudisfun]

@grayhawk the initial difference I see in the scenarios is who caused the infraction. In 3.1.1 the instigator is a base runner. In 9.1.1 the villain is the batter/runner.

My WAG is that the runs in 9.1.1 are considered scored subject to appeal for missed bases the moment the ball left the yard. But again... just my WAG.

[grayhawk]

8 minutes ago, Mudisfun said:

@grayhawk the initial difference I see in the scenarios is who caused the infraction. In 3.1.1 the instigator is a base runner. In 9.1.1 the villain is the batter/runner.

My WAG is that the runs in 9.1.1 are considered scored subject to appeal for missed bases the moment the ball left the yard. But again... just my WAG.

I also noted that there was a distinction in the two case plays with a runner committing the infraction in 3.3.1 and a batter-runner committing the infraction in 9.1.1.  I think it's a distinction without a difference, however.

I agree with your second statement, but the question at hand is why wouldn't the runs in 3.3.1 be considered scored subject to appeal for missed bases the moment the ball left the yard?

[maven]

Yeah, no. That's gotta be fixed.

[lawump]

4 hours ago, grayhawk said:

   @lawump, can you comment on this?

Um, yes I can...but any comment I make won't end your confusion, LOL.  I may have to ask for an official interp...

[udbrky]

3 minutes ago, lawump said:

Um, yes I can...but any comment I make won't end your confusion, LOL.  I may have to ask for an official interp...

Came for the answer, stayed for the LOLz

[grayhawk]

15 hours ago, lawump said:

Um, yes I can...but any comment I make won't end your confusion, LOL.  I may have to ask for an official interp...

I sent it over to a former committee member and his thought was that it's a result of different committees having discussions years apart.  Those case plays, at the time they were published, reflected the prevailing opinion of each of those committees at the time.  I would be curious to know the opinions of those on this board on which interpretation makes the most sense.  So if you were on the committee and it came to a vote, what would you choose?

1.  Time play.  Only runs that score prior to the third out will count.
2.  All runners ahead of the runner that committed the infraction that resulted in his being called out for the third out score due to the award from the home run.

My thought is that #1 makes the most sense because it is more consistent with "How a Team Scores" in 9-1-1.  It also aligns with OBR and NCAA.

[lawump]

I have asked for an official interp.

@grayhawk, I'd have to look at it hard before I answer your question.  I don't have my casebook or rulebook with me (I'm at my office), so I won't reply with what my vote would be, yet. 

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

I sent it over to a former committee member and his thought was that it's a result of different committees having discussions years apart.  Those case plays, at the time they were published, reflected the prevailing opinion of each of those committees at the time.  I would be curious to know the opinions of those on this board on which interpretation makes the most sense.  So if you were on the committee and it came to a vote, what would you choose?

1.  Time play.  Only runs that score prior to the third out will count.
2.  All runners ahead of the runner that committed the infraction that resulted in his being called out for the third out score due to the award from the home run.

My thought is that #1 makes the most sense because it is more consistent with "How a Team Scores" in 9-1-1.  It also aligns with OBR and NCAA.

I would vote for #1.  I never thought #2 made much sense -- and I said so when it was introduced relatively recently.

[lawump]

Let's just look at NFHS (and not MLB and/or NCAA) for a moment:  If you look at 9.1.1 Situation C, I believe it gives the following play (I'm doing this from my notes as I don't have the casebook in front of me):  "Bases loaded with two outs.  B6 received a fourth ball.  R3 touches second base and is then tagged off base for the third out before R1 has touched home plate.  RULING:  R1 became entitled to home plate as soon as the fourth ball was declared.  Consequently, his run scores."  (Please NOTE that this example is using NFHS' labels for the runners.  R3 is the runner on first, and R1 is the runner on third.)

In 9.1.1 Situation C, NFHS says the runs scores.  Now I ask: Is there a difference between a base-on-balls award and a four base award (as a result of a batted ball going over the outfield fence in fair territory)?  Other than one is a live ball award and one is a dead ball award?  Is live vs. dead a meaningful difference, or is it a "distinction without a difference"?)

I'm beginning to think that if the NFHS wants to be consistent within their own interpretations, 9.1.1 Situation C suggests that the preceding runners should be allowed to score on the plays set forth in the Original Post.  If they want to match OBR/NCAA then they should make it a time play.

Don't be too hard on me...I'm doing this all without any books to look at.  LOL.

[goody14]

Your sample FED play about the walk is the same for OBR.

Quote

Rule 5.06(b)(3)(B) Comment (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.

But, as noted earlier, if play 9.1.1 M is to be followed, then MLB and FED would differ on the award being honored despite the infraction.

I think 9.1.1M is the outlier here.

[Senor Azul]

Three of the four scenarios presented in the case plays deal with malicious contact and the fourth deals with a runner passing a preceding one. Federation rules have an interpretation concerning a runner passing a preceding runner that differs from OBR/NCAA:

From the 2016 BRD (section 461, p. 306):

FED Official Interpretation: Hopkins:  When a home run hitter becomes the third out for passing a preceding runner, it is not a force play. (Website 2006 #14)

Note:  The rationale:  The ball is dead and all runners are awarded four bases. BR passes the runner after touching first, so his third out is not a force out:  Count all the runs.

Play 286-461:  Bases loaded, 2 outs. B1 homers and passes R1 in the base path. At the time he passes the runner, only R3 has crossed the plate. The ball is dead on the home run.  Ruling:  In FED, all runners score. In NCAA/OBR, only R3 scores.

Ordinarily, malicious contact results in an immediate dead ball. The question is since it is already a dead ball situation on an out-of-the-park home run how is play affected by the malicious contact during the dead ball situation?

I think the two case plays are telling us that runs scored are determined by the position of the runners at the time of the interference (malicious contact). Thus, it becomes a time play. Case play 9.1.1M does not make that clear in scenario (b).

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, Senor Azul said:

I think the two case plays are telling us that runs scored are determined by the position of the runners at the time of the interference (malicious contact). Thus, it becomes a time play. Case play 9.1.1M does not make that clear in scenario (b).

 

It's not that 9.1.1M doesn't make it clear in scenario B.  It's that it actually states the opposite.  9.1.1M (b) is identical in every way (I know one is a runner and the other is a BR, but that cannot be relevant once the BR passes first base) to 3.3.1AA (b) except that in 3.3.1, it's a time play and in 9.1.1, the run scores due to the award of the home run (not a time play).

[Replacematt]

Looking at two other case plays, it appears that the award of home plate supersedes the issue of timing (but not a force-out appeal:) These do not address the question of whether an infraction by BR is treated differently than one by any other runner, or if MC is the controlling variable between the two.

9.1.1C: With two outs and R1, R2 and R3 on base, B6 receives a fourth ball. R3 touches second and is then tagged off base for the third out before R1 has reached home base.

RULING: R1 became entitled to home base as soon as the fourth ball was declared. Consequently, his run scores.

9.1.1L: With the bases loaded and one out, B5 hits a home run out of the park. While advancing to second base, B5 passes R3 (force is removed) and B5 is declared out. R3 fails to touch second base, but touches third base on his way home.

RULING: For missing a base or leaving a base too soon, the umpire will declare the runner out upon proper appeal. R1 and R2 score, because R3’s out was not a force out for the third out. 

[Replacematt]

Wait a minute...I think I have the answer.

Part of the penalty for MC is that runners return to their bases at the time of the infraction. Maybe that's why this comes into play--if they haven't scored, they would return to their last base. And since it's the third out, that return would render it impossible to score.

[grayhawk]

9 minutes ago, Matt said:

Wait a minute...I think I have the answer.

Part of the penalty for MC is that runners return to their bases at the time of the infraction. Maybe that's why this comes into play--if they haven't scored, they would return to their last base. And since it's the third out, that return would render it impossible to score.

9.1.1M scenario b says that the runs score regardless of the MC because of the award on the home run.

[Jimurray]

4 hours ago, lawump said:

Let's just look at NFHS (and not MLB and/or NCAA) for a moment:  If you look at 9.1.1 Situation C, I believe it gives the following play (I'm doing this from my notes as I don't have the casebook in front of me):  "Bases loaded with two outs.  B6 received a fourth ball.  R3 touches second base and is then tagged off base for the third out before R1 has touched home plate.  RULING:  R1 became entitled to home plate as soon as the fourth ball was declared.  Consequently, his run scores."  (Please NOTE that this example is using NFHS' labels for the runners.  R3 is the runner on first, and R1 is the runner on third.)

In 9.1.1 Situation C, NFHS says the runs scores.  Now I ask: Is there a difference between a base-on-balls award and a four base award (as a result of a batted ball going over the outfield fence in fair territory)?  Other than one is a live ball award and one is a dead ball award?  Is live vs. dead a meaningful difference, or is it a "distinction without a difference"?)

I'm beginning to think that if the NFHS wants to be consistent within their own interpretations, 9.1.1 Situation C suggests that the preceding runners should be allowed to score on the plays set forth in the Original Post.  If they want to match OBR/NCAA then they should make it a time play.

Don't be too hard on me...I'm doing this all without any books to look at.  LOL.

They have matched OBR in the base on balls sit. An over zealous runner's out is not a time play in that live ball award in FED or OBR. One FED case play is consistent with OBR in the HR award in that an unforced out, during that dead ball award is a time play. The other caseplay differs. Like you I ask, but I ask OBR, why the difference between a base on balls and a HR?

To paraphrase the late, great Carl Childress, I hope both situations don't happen to you in your game.

[noumpere]

17 hours ago, lawump said:

Let's just look at NFHS (and not MLB and/or NCAA) for a moment:  If you look at 9.1.1 Situation C, I believe it gives the following play (I'm doing this from my notes as I don't have the casebook in front of me):  "Bases loaded with two outs.  B6 received a fourth ball.  R3 touches second base and is then tagged off base for the third out before R1 has touched home plate.  RULING:  R1 became entitled to home plate as soon as the fourth ball was declared.  Consequently, his run scores."  (Please NOTE that this example is using NFHS' labels for the runners.  R3 is the runner on first, and R1 is the runner on third.)

In 9.1.1 Situation C, NFHS says the runs scores.  Now I ask: Is there a difference between a base-on-balls award and a four base award (as a result of a batted ball going over the outfield fence in fair territory)?  Other than one is a live ball award and one is a dead ball award?  Is live vs. dead a meaningful difference, or is it a "distinction without a difference"?)

I'm beginning to think that if the NFHS wants to be consistent within their own interpretations, 9.1.1 Situation C suggests that the preceding runners should be allowed to score on the plays set forth in the Original Post.  If they want to match OBR/NCAA then they should make it a time play.

Don't be too hard on me...I'm doing this all without any books to look at.  LOL.

That play, in all codes, recognizes the difference between being "put out" (by the defense) and being "declared out" (by the umpire for a baserunning infraction).  In the former, the run scores; in the latter, it doesn't (or shouldn't, imo).

[maven]

13 minutes ago, noumpere said:

That play, in all codes, recognizes the difference between being "put out" (by the defense) and being "declared out" (by the umpire for a baserunning infraction).  In the former, the run scores; in the latter, it doesn't (or shouldn't, imo).

That helps with lawump's play, but it doesn't explain the discrepancy pointed out in the OP, where both cases involve a baserunning infraction.

[Jimurray]

59 minutes ago, noumpere said:

That play, in all codes, recognizes the difference between being "put out" (by the defense) and being "declared out" (by the umpire for a baserunning infraction).  In the former, the run scores; in the latter, it doesn't (or shouldn't, imo).

Is that the guiding principle? So with a bases loaded wild pitch ball four, where R3 lolligags home but R2 is thinking of scoring on the wild pitch and either passes R3 or is assisted by the third base coach to return to 3B we would not score the run?

[Jimurray]

54 minutes ago, maven said:

That helps with lawump's play, but it doesn't explain the discrepancy pointed out in the OP, where both cases involve a baserunning infraction.

Nothing can help with that until something official comes out of FED.

[lawump]

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 5:29 PM, grayhawk said:

3.3.1 SITUATION AA: With two outs and the bases loaded, B6 hits a home run out of the park. R3 maliciously runs over (a) F4 before touching second base or (b) F5 before touching third. RULING: In both (a) and (b), R3 is declared out and ejected. In (a), the third out is a force, so no runs score. In (b), the third out was not a force play, so runners who have touched the plate prior to the infraction would score. Please note that in awarded situations it is not the base that is awarded, but rather the right to advance and legally touch a base with no play being made.

9.1.1 SITUATION M: With R1 at second base and R2 at first base and two outs, B5 hits a home run out of the park. While running the bases, B5 (a) passes R2 at first or (b) maliciously runs over F4. RULING: In both (a) and (b), B5 is declared out. R1 and R2 will be awarded home and allowed to score due to the award from the home run. B5's out is not a "force out" so the other runs will count. In (b) B5 would also be ejected for malicious contact.

So in both case plays, we have a home run out of the park.  In both plays, we have situations presented where the third out is made on the bases that is not a force out.  However, in the first case play, it's treated as a time play, whereas in the second case play, runs score due to the award of the home run.  Does anyone else interpret these differently?  @lawump, can you comment on this?

Okay, as of this post my comment is to go with 3.3.1 Situation AA and disregard 9.1.1 Situation M.

I would expect this discrepancy to be addressed in future editions of the casebook.  Thanks grayhawk!

[VolUmp]

4 hours ago, lawump said:

Okay, as of this post my comment is to go with 3.3.1 Situation AA and disregard 9.1.1 Situation M.

I would expect this discrepancy to be addressed in future editions of the casebook.  Thanks grayhawk!

LawUmp, are you saying that in the case of 9.1.1 M, if it happens on the field this spring, you won't allow the runs to count?  Or is that "pending an inquiry?"

[lawump]

13 hours ago, WildFlyer said:

LawUmp, are you saying that in the case of 9.1.1 M, if it happens on the field this spring, you won't allow the runs to count?  Or is that "pending an inquiry?"

I am saying that if the following play(s) happened: "R1 at second base and R2 at first base and two outs, B5 hits a home run out of the park. While running the bases, B5 (a) passes R2 at first or (b) maliciously runs over F4," I would use 3.3.1 Situation A to guide me on how to rule. 

I do NOT know this, but it would not surprise me (again I have NO knowledge) if the discrepancy between the two casebook plays is addressed on the NFHS website when they post their annual pre-season approved rulings.