Question About Walk-off

[Guest Rob P]

High School Baseball. Bases loaded with 2 outs, bottom of the 7th (tie game). Batter takes ball 4 and runs to 1st. Runner on 3rd advances to home as winning run. Does it matter if the runner on 2nd ever touches 3rd before exiting the field?

[stkjock]

it does in HS.

 

guess your refering to the GA debacle... 

 

http://www.closecallsports.com/2017/05/ask-uefl-game-ending-appeal-force-play.html

 

 

[maven]

Yes, all runners must touch their advance base in that situation. This infraction is appealable. FED 9-1-1 NOTE 2

[BrianC14]

Primary Conclusion: Because of Johns Creek's failure to parse the difference between OBR Rule 5.08(b) and NFHS Rule 9-1-2, the high school mistakenly believes a rule was misapplied, when, in fact, the rule was properly enforced. 

 

Good grief.   It's a pretty poor high school coach that doesn't even know which set of rules apply to his team.  There is no "parsing the difference".... only ONE set of rules applies.

[Lindsay]

I phrased it as a "failure to parse the difference" given what appears to have been a deliberate attempt to deceive by cropping an "NFHS vs OBR Rule Differences" style table to only include the OBR (professional baseball) text, while passing it off as a NFHS (high school) rule. Benefit of the doubt to ignorance over malfeasance. Maybe some rapscallion assistant doctored the rule and passed it of to HC as the real thing.

Yes, all bases must be touched in High School ball. http://www.closecallsports.com/2017/05/ask-uefl-game-ending-appeal-force-play.html

Note the below image. There is no such thing as "NFHS rule 4.09": NFHS is formatted as #-#-#. OBR is formatted as #.##(letter). The high school rule is 9-1-1; the professional rule is 5.08(b) (formerly known as 4.09(b)).

[BrianC14]

Understand what you're saying, @Gil, my reply was directed to the coach who, as you correctly attribute, in his attempt to throw a big Baloney Sandwich of a protest. 

Edited to add:  I liked your summation in "Gil's Call".  Hard to believe that the state is even considering the protest.

Edited May 19, 2017 by BrianC14
Add info and correct.

[White47]

I think we had this discuss earlier this week, and i know it started a little argument, but i don't feel like we ( or I ) came to any type of an conclusion. Sorry if this hijacks this thread, but I'm truly curious. 

I know in the video R2 got close to third, but lets say he ran straight to home, or over to first base to celebrate. Is this still only out on appeal(which it my gut feeling), or could you get the guy for abandonment. 

When I was trying to look this up I couldn't find a rule or interp that went either way IMO. What do y'all think. 

[Thunderheads]

9 minutes ago, White47 said:

I think we had this discuss earlier this week, and i know it started a little argument, but i don't feel like we ( or I ) came to any type of an conclusion. Sorry if this hijacks this thread, but I'm truly curious. 

I know in the video R2 got close to third, but lets say he ran straight to home, or over to first base to celebrate. Is this still only out on appeal(which it my gut feeling), or could you get the guy for abandonment. 

When I was trying to look this up I couldn't find a rule or interp that went either way IMO. What do y'all think. 

appeal ....

video in Gil's post looks as though he touched third .......but oh well......

[White47]

4 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

video in Gil's post looks as though he touched third .......but oh well.....

I agree. If he did miss the bag it was so close I'm not sure I'd pick it up in a two man crew, or a three man where I'm not standing at third. 

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, White47 said:

I think we had this discuss earlier this week, and i know it started a little argument, but i don't feel like we ( or I ) came to any type of an conclusion. Sorry if this hijacks this thread, but I'm truly curious. 

I know in the video R2 got close to third, but lets say he ran straight to home, or over to first base to celebrate. Is this still only out on appeal(which it my gut feeling), or could you get the guy for abandonment. 

When I was trying to look this up I couldn't find a rule or interp that went either way IMO. What do y'all think. 

It must be appealed, in HS.

[White47]

10 minutes ago, noumpere said:

It must be appealed, in HS.

Same thing if it is from a hit?

[beerguy55]

This MiLB game in 2013 had this happen.

http://deadspin.com/minor-leaguer-hits-walk-off-single-his-team-loses-game-656822487

Since they ruled the runner out on the force at second, negating the run (and there is no doubt that BR and R3 reached their bases before the tag at second)...assuming they would be using OBR, 

Is the OBR rule wording something new since 2013?

OR

Did the umpires get the call wrong?   As the game is official in the books as a 5-4 win for Great Lakes, I gather it was never protested, but I wonder if there was any follow up with the umpires on the rule.

 

I wondered about abandonment, as R1 technically abandons before BR reaches first, but I doubt the umps caught that in real time, and, more importantly, the official boxscore has it as a FC 8-4, leading me to believe the umpires ruled it as such.

http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?sid=t499&t=g_log&gid=2013_07_01_swmafx_lanafx_1

http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?sid=t499&t=g_box&gid=2013_07_01_swmafx_lanafx_1

Side note - neat to see a few familiar names here.

[noumpere]

12 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

This MiLB game in 2013 had this happen.

http://deadspin.com/minor-leaguer-hits-walk-off-single-his-team-loses-game-656822487

Since they ruled the runner out on the force at second, negating the run (and there is no doubt that BR and R3 reached their bases before the tag at second)...assuming they would be using OBR, 

Is the OBR rule wording something new since 2013?

OR

Did the umpires get the call wrong?   As the game is official in the books as a 5-4 win for Great Lakes, I gather it was never protested, but I wonder if there was any follow up with the umpires on the rule.

 

I'm not quite sure what the question is, but on a walk, or HBP, etc -- only the BR and R3 need advance in OBR.  On a batted ball, all the runners need advance.

And, it used to be (but I think it was before 2013) that abandonment wouldn't be called in these circumstances -- wait for the defense to make a play.  Now, I think the guideline is to call abandonment, and if that happens before R3 touches the plate, the run doesn't count (there was also some ruling to the effect that abandonment couldn't be a force out, so we could still wait for the defense to make a play if the runner was forced -- here's a play from some older MLBUM that illustrates this -- I don't know if it's in the current MLBUM:

 

There's also this from J/R:

During a force, any consecutive runner who abandons his advance base is not a 7.10
force out. However, an appeal of the abandoned base as a missed base can be
upheld for an advantageous fourth out (see second example below).
Examples:
(Example 1 removed -- not relevant)

2– R3, R1, game tied at 2-2, bottom of the ninth inning, 2 outs. Base hit.
R3 touches home plate as the apparent winning run and the batter-runner
touches first, but R1 goes to join in the celebration at home plate without
advancing to (or near) second base: technically, R1 is out for
abandonment, but this is not a force out, and the run can score. If the
defense were to appeal that R1 had not touched second, there would be a
force out, and no run. Hence, the umpire should not declare an out until
the defense appeals the missed base.

[beerguy55]

10 minutes ago, noumpere said:

I'm not quite sure what the question is, but on a walk, or HBP, etc -- only the BR and R3 need advance in OBR.  On a batted ball, all the runners need advance.

 

 

That's what I thought (and hoped).  On first reading of the rule I missed that differentiation between walks and hits and misinterpreted "any other play".  Makes sense now.  Thanks

[BrianC14]

On 5/19/2017 at 5:25 AM, White47 said:

I agree. If he did miss the bag it was so close I'm not sure I'd pick it up in a two man crew, or a three man where I'm not standing at third. 

This was a three FOUR man crew, and U3 can be seen in 'D' in the video.   According to the articles I've read, there was "a lengthy discussion" after the no-touch appeal was made.   U3 and U2 (as reported) both confirmed the miss of 3B by R2.

I don't think the video is conclusive either way.  Could U3 have been wrong, or simply missed the touch?  The video shows him standing rock solid until R2 is clearly beyond the bag. 

I hope that GHSA doesn't plan on viewing a video.  What a can of worms that would open up. 

It's amazing that they are even going to hear the protest, since their own bylaws prohibit it.

Even a 2 man crew should get this, under the circumstances in the situation. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by BrianC14
Self correction

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

 

2– R3, R1, game tied at 2-2, bottom of the ninth inning, 2 outs. Base hit.
R3 touches home plate as the apparent winning run and the batter-runner
touches first, but R1 goes to join in the celebration at home plate without
advancing to (or near) second base: technically, R1 is out for
abandonment, but this is not a force out, and the run can score. If the
defense were to appeal that R1 had not touched second, there would be a
force out, and no run. Hence, the umpire should not declare an out until
the defense appeals the missed base.

Thanks.  I would even question that it's an a appeal of a "missed base".  It's more accurately a base that has not yet been reached - if the play is still live it's just a force play - I wouldn't expect the defense to know that they have to make an unmistakable appeal on what just looks like a force play.

[White47]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

R1 is out for abandonment, but this is not a force out, and the run can score.

Thanks. this answer my Base hit question I posed earlier.

[blue23ll]

If I read the news reports correctly, they were not ruling on the 'protest', they were ruling on the correctness of the call on the appeal of the missed base. That, in no way, changes the impact of this decision in the least. It is wrong on every level. This sets a very unpleasant precedent. 

[BrianC14]

1 hour ago, blue23ll said:

If I read the news reports correctly, they were not ruling on the 'protest', they were ruling on the correctness of the call on the appeal of the missed base. That, in no way, changes the impact of this decision in the least. It is wrong on every level. This sets a very unpleasant precedent. 

What's bizarre is that the Board of Trustees president has admitted that it's unusual.  Of course, he also claims to have been supportive of the officials over the past 20 years.   And then he threw them under the bus, anyway, and actually stated that it was a "bad call" .     Unreal.

[DVA7130]

This whole damn thing makes my blood boil. I would burn every bridge possible and raise Hell with GHSA if I was on that game. 

A proper appeal upheld and the correct ruling made by rule. What am I missing here?