End of game situation

[maven]

This arrived in the ol' email bag this morning.

Quote

Bottom of the 7th, gamed tied 2 to 2, two outs, runner on first. Batter hits a long fly ball to right field, runner turns to watch to see if its going out, batter knows its out and runs in excitement and runs past the runner at first. Umpire calls the batter/runner out for passing the runner.

Is the game over or are we going into extra innings.

The question pertains to HS ball, but feel free to post the answer for other codes, if they're different.

At least one state interpreter has given the wrong answer to this question.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, maven said:

This arrived in the ol' email bag this morning.

The question pertains to HS ball, but feel free to post the answer for other codes, if they're different.

At least one state interpreter has given the wrong answer to this question.

Time play. In this case with only R1, no run scores, extra innings. 

[Richvee]

41 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Time play. In this case with only R1, no run scores, extra innings. 

Agree.

FED cites

8-4-2

m. passes an unobstructed preceding runner before such runner is out (including awarded bases)

*8.4.2 SITUATION L: 

With two outs, R2 on second base and R1 on first base, B5 singles. B5 passes R1 between first and second base (a) just before R2 touches the plate or (b) just after R2 touches the plate. 

RULING: In (a), the run does not count, while in (b), it does count. A runner is called out at the moment he passes a preceding runner, but the ball remains live.

[Jimurray]

10 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Agree.

FED cites

8-4-2

m. passes an unobstructed preceding runner before such runner is out (including awarded bases)

*8.4.2 SITUATION L: 

With two outs, R2 on second base and R1 on first base, B5 singles. B5 passes R1 between first and second base (a) just before R2 touches the plate or (b) just after R2 touches the plate. 

RULING: In (a), the run does not count, while in (b), it does count. A runner is called out at the moment he passes a preceding runner, but the ball remains live.

Yes, but in defense of Mavin's interpreter, CP 9.1.1M did exist at least in 2015 and allowed runs to score on the award when an out was made in passing or malicious contact. 8.4.2L also was in that book and was in conflict with 9.1.1M. Guess which one dissappeared this year. But what do we do with a malicious contact out?

[Richvee]

20 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Yes, but in defense of Mavin's interpreter, CP 9.1.1M did exist at least in 2015 and allowed runs to score on the award when an out was made in passing or malicious contact. 8.4.2L also was in that book and was in conflict with 9.1.1M. Guess which one dissappeared. But what do we do with a malicious contact out?

We need 2.21.1 SIT B to give the ruling with 2 outs.

*2.21.1 SITUATION B: 

R3 is on third and R2 on second. B4 hits down the leftfield line. R3 scores, but R2 maliciously runs over F5 after R3 touches home plate. 

RULING: Interference because of malicious contact. The ball is dead immediately. R3's run counts because he scored before the interference. R2 is called out and ejected because of malicious contact. The batter-runner shall be returned to the base he last legally touched before interference occurred.

[Senor Azul]

Unless NFHS rules and interpretations changed in 2017 or 2018, the play in the OP is not a time play. Since the batter hit an out-of-the-park home run, under FED rules the batter and runner(s) are awarded four bases. The batter-runner is out the moment he passes the runner but the runner is still allowed to score due to the dead-ball award (even if the BR is the third out).

I do not have the 2017 or 2018 rule books or case books. However, I did check the yearly interpretations and rule changes found currently on page seven of the High School forum on this site and did not see any pertinent changes needed to answer this question. By the way, this scenario is a time play in both NCAA and OBR.

 

[Senor Azul]

From the 2016 BRD (section 461, p. 307):

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. The umpire calls out BR immediately. Ruling:  In FED, all runners score. In NCAA/OBR, only R3 scores.

FED note 437:  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…

[scrounge]

I don't know how to square the idea that the awarded runners score with 9.1.1's general rule of no runs score after the 3rd out is made. The passing of the runner is an immediate out, so how can any other runners score? Where is this exception for awarded bases? By definition, an award is simply the right to advance without risk of being put out - there is nothing saying that the award shall proceed no matter what.Why wouldn't it just be a normal timing play? Other cases hint at normal timing rules applying but none really address this directly.  Where do we see anything, in any rule or case, that says that awarded bases have an exception from normal timing rules?

Absent specific, controlling guidance saying the awarded bases score and are an exception to normal timing rules, I think the idea that they score is illogical and against the entire construct of other rules. I believe the BRD is simply wrong. I do agree that the force is removed - but so what? We're not relying on that or the 9.1.1 exceptions here - just the regular rule of runs must score before the 3rd out is made. It's an argument using an irrelevant rationale. 

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Senor Azul said:

Unless NFHS rules and interpretations changed in 2017 or 2018, the play in the OP is not a time play. Since the batter hit an out-of-the-park home run, under FED rules the batter and runner(s) are awarded four bases. The batter-runner is out the moment he passes the runner but the runner is still allowed to score due to the dead-ball award (even if the BR is the third out).

I do not have the 2017 or 2018 rule books or case books. However, I did check the yearly interpretations and rule changes found currently on page seven of the High School forum on this site and did not see any pertinent changes needed to answer this question. By the way, this scenario is a time play in both NCAA and OBR.

 

@Richvee gave you the current 2018 caseplay. It was confusing and conflicting in past years. Maybe @lawump got them to get their sht together. Anyway it is a time play in all codes. So @maven‘s rules interpreter should be given some latitude or maybe he was right and maven was out of date. @maven ?

 

[maven]

Senor Azul's mad skills quoting the BRD are again on point.

For OBR/NCAA, this is a time play. The rationale for so ruling is not as simple as it might seem: the ball is dead on the HR, so the provision in the "passing a runner" rule to leave the ball live lapses (it doesn't become live after the passing!). The conceptual problem arises because time plays are live ball situations in which the defense plays on runners and runners advance. In time plays, whoever does their job first wins (the moment). That seems fair—for a live ball. In the current play, these codes both opt to pretend the ball is still live and rule it a time play: run counts if it scores before the 3rd out is called for passing.

FED's approach is different, and opts instead to respect the dead-ball award earned by the HR. Provided the runners run their bases legally—a requirement of a base award—they will score, even after a 3rd out. There's a case play about a game ending walk with bases loaded (which I can't locate at the moment) where the runner may complete his award and score after the 3rd out.

The governing play comes from the 2006 interps:
 

Quote

 

SITUATION 14: In the bottom of the seventh inning, the visiting team leads 6-4. With the bases loaded and two outs, the batter hits a grand slam home run over the left field fence. B6, in his excitement, passes R3, who started the play on first base. At the time B6 passed R3, only R1 had touched home plate.

RULING: When a batter hits a home run, each runner on base is awarded four bases, or home. While B6 is out for passing an unobstructed preceding runner, his third out is not a force out since he had touched first base. Therefore, three runs will score and the home team will win, 7-6. (8-3-3a, 9-1-1)

 

We can roll our eyes about the BR's out not being a "force out," but he did legally touch 1B, so that provision of 9-1-1 is satisfied.

Frankly, I kinda like FED's approach here (I know, you're shocked). The defense did not record the third out in this play: they did not earn the benefit of negating runs, as in a live-ball time play. The out was called on a runner doing something dumb. That should be penalized (he's out); but negating 4 runs is an awfully steep penalty for one runner's negligence.

[maven]

OTOH, the following case has been deleted from the 2018 Case Book:
 

Quote

 

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.

RULING: 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.

 

Perhaps FED intends to make this a time play....

[Jimurray]

26 minutes ago, maven said:

OTOH, the following case has been deleted from the 2018 Case Book:
 

Perhaps FED intends to make this a time play....

They did. Have you not read @Richvees cite of this 2018 CP:

"Rule: 8.4.2


*8.4.2 SITUATION L:  

With two outs, R2 on second base and R1 on first base, B5 singles. B5 passes R1 between first and second base (a) just before R2 touches the plate or (b) just after R2 touches the plate.  

RULING: In (a), the run does not count, while in (b), it does count. A runner is called out at the moment he passes a preceding runner, but the ball remains live. Acts such as attempts of a runner to profit by running too far from the baseline to avoid a tag, or outside the three-foot lane while advancing to first, or running the bases in reverse, or other-wise making a travesty of the game may not be appealed. The umpire calls the runner out without waiting for the defensive player to call attention to the act."

That change and removal of 9.1.1M, cited in one of my posts, confirms that FED is now with the other codes in making this a time play.

[maven]

I saw it. 8.4.2L is not relevant to the case in the OP. It is a a straight live-ball time play.

The problem posed by my play is the conflict between calling this a time play, which shouldn't occur during a dead ball, and the dead-ball awards after a HR, which shouldn't count after the 3rd out.

I have no objection to FED going with the other option for this play, if that's what the deletion of 9.1.1M signals. There's no intrinsic reason why either option is better (pretend it's a live ball and treat as a time play, or pretend the awarded bases count after the 3rd out is recorded). Consistency with the other codes is as good a reason as any for picking one.

Perhaps a new case play will appear in the 2018 Interps.

[Jimurray]

17 minutes ago, maven said:

I saw it. 8.4.2L is not relevant to the case in the OP. It is a a straight live-ball time play.

The problem posed by my play is the conflict between calling this a time play, which should occur during a dead ball, and the dead-ball awards after a HR, which shouldn't count after the 3rd out.

I have no objection to FED going with the other option for this play, if that's what the deletion of 9.1.1M signals. There's no intrinsic reason why either option is better (pretend it's a live ball and treat as a time play, or pretend the awarded bases count after the 3rd out is recorded). Consistency with the other codes is as good a reason as any for picking one.

Perhaps a new case play will appear in the 2018 Interps.

Was your state interpreter privy to other info or was he just infering from the removal of 9.1.1M?

[scrounge]

That's my problem with the 2006 Interp (which is way beyond unreasonably old to be expected to be known IMO)....it says "therefore, since it's not force out, the runs score". Well, no #%@#, no one argued it was a force, so the 9.1.1 exceptions for force out negating runs wouldn't apply - but that's not the situation at hand. It's timing rules that should apply. The incorrect rationale in that interp point to how sloppily it was written - and maybe why it disappeared for 12 years till someone dug it up on stevetheump.com. 

I keep coming back to why timing rules don't apply to awarded advances - the only way those runs could score is if awarded bases are exempt from the timing rules that apply to any other 3rd out situation. Absent a specific guideline, exception, case, or even another interpretation that addresses timing rules rather than irrelevant force out rules, I can only logically go with the general 9.1.1 application of no runs score after a 3rd out. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but as I read it, both the 2006 interp and the BRD are simply wrong.

And rules aside - if a batter-runner is this incredibly stupid to do this and create this exceedingly rare unicorn play? Stupid needs to have a price!

[Jimurray]

18 minutes ago, scrounge said:

That's my problem with the 2006 Interp (which is way beyond unreasonably old to be expected to be known IMO)....it says "therefore, since it's not force out, the runs score". Well, no #%@#, no one argued it was a force, so the 9.1.1 exceptions for force out negating runs wouldn't apply - but that's not the situation at hand. It's timing rules that should apply. The incorrect rationale in that interp point to how sloppily it was written - and maybe why it disappeared for 12 years till someone dug it up on stevetheump.com. 

I keep coming back to why timing rules don't apply to awarded advances - the only way those runs could score is if awarded bases are exempt from the timing rules that apply to any other 3rd out situation. Absent a specific guideline, exception, case, or even another interpretation that addresses timing rules rather than irrelevant force out rules, I can only logically go with the general 9.1.1 application of no runs score after a 3rd out. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but as I read it, both the 2006 interp and the BRD are simply wrong.

And rules aside - if a batter-runner is this incredibly stupid to do this and create this exceedingly rare unicorn play? Stupid needs to have a price!

The BRD was not wrong when 9.1.1M existed. FED was different from NCAA/OBR in past years.

[maven]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

Was your state interpreter privy to other info or was he just inferring from the removal of 9.1.1M?

First, I never said it was MY state interpreter.

Second, that's an excellent question. If I learn the answer, I'll post it.

[noumpere]

This play, which exists in all codes, might be adding to the confusion (and / or be the basis for the old FED 9.1.1M ruling):

 

Bases loaded, two outs.  B6 walks.  R1 overruns second and is tagged out before R3 touches the plate.  Ruling:  R3's run scores because he was forced home on the award.

 

(I recognize the differences, as I am sure do many / most here.  But not everyone on some facebook forum or your partner at a particular game will)

[grayhawk]

Hmm, this topic is eerily familiar...

[Senor Azul]

The play that Mr. noumpere referred to—and I think the one Mr. maven mentioned earlier--is from the NFHS website (2008):

“SITUATION 4:  With the bases loaded and two outs and a 3-2 count, the runners are off with the pitch. The pitch is ball four, but the runner from first slides into second and his momentum carries him over and past the base. The catcher makes a quick throw to second base and the tag is applied for the third out before the runner from third trots home and touches the plate. Does the run count? RULING: Yes, the run does count. Each runner may, without liability to be put out, advance one base when he is forced to vacate his position on the bases due to the batter being awarded a base-on-balls. The runners advance past the bases to which they are entitled at their own risk. All runners are awarded one base, and as long as all the bases are touched appropriately, the run would count. (8-1-2a, 8-1-1c, Awards Table)”

This play then was incorporated into the FED case book as 9.1.1 C (at least it was in 2015 and 2016—don’t know about 2017). But it is not there in the 2018 case book. Using the logic put forth regarding the deletion of former play 9.1.1 M, are we to assume the same thing for Mr. nompere’s play? Does the run still count?

[Jimurray]

19 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

The play that Mr. noumpere referred to—and I think the one Mr. maven mentioned earlier--is from the NFHS website (2008):

“SITUATION 4:  With the bases loaded and two outs and a 3-2 count, the runners are off with the pitch. The pitch is ball four, but the runner from first slides into second and his momentum carries him over and past the base. The catcher makes a quick throw to second base and the tag is applied for the third out before the runner from third trots home and touches the plate. Does the run count? RULING: Yes, the run does count. Each runner may, without liability to be put out, advance one base when he is forced to vacate his position on the bases due to the batter being awarded a base-on-balls. The runners advance past the bases to which they are entitled at their own risk. All runners are awarded one base, and as long as all the bases are touched appropriately, the run would count. (8-1-2a, 8-1-1c, Awards Table)”

This play then was incorporated into the FED case book as 9.1.1 C (at least it was in 2015 and 2016—don’t know about 2017). But it is not there in the 2018 case book. Using the logic put forth regarding the deletion of former play 9.1.1 M, are we to assume the same thing for Mr. nompere’s play? Does the run still count?

Using that logic would make the deletion of 9.1.1M put FED in line with OBR but the deletion of 9.1.1C would put them out of line with OBR. Which wouldn’t be logical

“to advance;
 Rule 5.06(b)(3)(B) Comment (Rule 7.04(b) Comment): A run- ner 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.”

[beerguy55]

On 1/19/2018 at 9:04 PM, scrounge said:

I don't know how to square the idea that the awarded runners score with 9.1.1's general rule of no runs score after the 3rd out is made. The passing of the runner is an immediate out, so how can any other runners score? Where is this exception for awarded bases? By definition, an award is simply the right to advance without risk of being put out - there is nothing saying that the award shall proceed no matter what.Why wouldn't it just be a normal timing play? Other cases hint at normal timing rules applying but none really address this directly.  Where do we see anything, in any rule or case, that says that awarded bases have an exception from normal timing rules?

Absent specific, controlling guidance saying the awarded bases score and are an exception to normal timing rules, I think the idea that they score is illogical and against the entire construct of other rules. I believe the BRD is simply wrong. I do agree that the force is removed - but so what? We're not relying on that or the 9.1.1 exceptions here - just the regular rule of runs must score before the 3rd out is made. It's an argument using an irrelevant rationale. 

There is one exception I know of.   On a bases loaded walk with two out, if R1, for example, overruns second base and is tagged out before R3 touches home the run still counts.  I would also assume the same is true if R1 ran past second and actually passed R2 before R3 touched home.

Now, should that same approach be applied to a home run??   I doubt it myself, but I can see how someone would connect one to the other.

[lawump]

I have not gotten involved in this thread (beyond this post) because i have sent a formal request to Indianapolis for a rules interpretation on the case play in OP...since it has apparently blown up Facebook, and I have received about 10 emails on this one play from around the country, including from my own South Carolina umpires.

I'll post the official response when I receive it.

[Sut'n Blue]

Jump to near the end oft he clip:

 

 

[Rich Ives]

43 minutes ago, Sut'n Blue said:

Jump to near the end oft he clip:

 

 

We know the OBR outcome. FED is the one that is causing the consternation.