Easy one. Don't waste my time. . .

[sdix00]

R2, R3, two outs. Ground ball to F5. F5 tags R2 after R3 crosses the plate.

Seeing this,

BR stops running to first and never touches first.

a)Defense appeals

BR at 1B.

b)Defense does not appeal.

Does the run score in a) or b )?

[guyinaredhat]

Apparent 4 th out in A

No run no run

Run scores in b

Score that run , score that run

That run scores !

[Welpe]

Going from memory here:

According to Wendelstedt, run counts in both. According to BRD for FED, run counts in b but not a. I think this is based upon an obscure interpretation though so I'm inclined to say it counts in both. It is rather counterintuitive to say that the BR needs to touch first after the third out is already made.

[umped up]

Apparent 4 th out in A

No run no run

Run scores in b

Score that run , score that run

That run scores !

I guess I'm a little confused with the "apparant 4th out? Wouldn't that simply be 3 outs and runner scores assuming no appeal? And in B, defense doesn't appeal, what changes? If the defense does appeal, then no run would score since no runs can score on a force out. What am I missing :ZZZ:

[noumpere]

Let me add play 2 with the same runners but F6 swipes at R2 and not knowing if he got him or if the umpire saw it F6 throws the ball to first and beats the batter who never stopped running. The first base umpire calls the batter out so no run scores. Then when meeting with the third base umpire between innings (humour me here) discovers that the third base umpire had an out. So do we put the run back on the board?

[umped up]

Not officially. Unless R3 is launched out of a rocket, he'll never beat the play from SS tagging R2. Sorry, I know you said to "humour you", I couldn't resist. :rollinglaugh:

[grayhawk]

Apparent 4 th out in A

No run no run

Run scores in b

Score that run , score that run

That run scores !

I guess I'm a little confused with the "apparant 4th out? Wouldn't that simply be 3 outs and runner scores assuming no appeal? And in B, defense doesn't appeal, what changes? If the defense does appeal, then no run would score since no runs can score on a force out. What am I missing

Well, it's not technically a "force out". A run cannot score when the third out is made by the batter-runner before he reaches first base. It's spelled out both ways in the rules for a reason. The "apparent fourth out" happens because the third out was made by tagging R2. Making the appeal on the BR at first is the "4th out" but this one takes precedence and wipes the run off the board.

[mstaylor]

The appeal at first was an interpt made by PBUC's previous head. It was pushed by a guy named Steve Friex from Texas. I do not believe MLB, FED or NCAA ever addressed it. If you allow the advantagous fourth out then the run doesn't count.

[sdix00]

The WUM offers an interp for OBR that aligns with the rule as written in the OBR.

§8.4.1.b Appealable Plays

Appeals may only be made for runners either missing bases, or not legally tagging up from a

base. If a third out is made during a play in which a runner never advances to a base he is

forced to advance to (or the batter-runner never reaches first base), the defense may not then

appeal that runner. This is a base never reached, not one they missed or one they did not

legally tag up from; it cannot be appealed.

The WUM offers this case play to illustrate.

R2 & R3, two outs, no count. The batter hits the next ball into right-center field for a base hit. The BR injures his

knee as he is running towards first base, and ends up on the ground around the 45' line. R3 easily scores on the

play, however, R2 is thrown out on a close play at the plate. The defense then notices the BR has not yet reached

first base, and throws the ball to the first baseman, who 'appeals' the play at first.

Ruling:

R3's run scores. This play at first does not qualify to become an "apparent fourth" out. It is made on a runner who has not yet reached

a base, not one who has missed a base, or not properly tagged up from one. The defense could have easily

prevented the run from scoring had their initial play been on the BR at first base. Since the third out would then

have been made on the BR before he reached first base, no runs could score. This requirement of vigilance by the

defense is not specific to this play in order to keep runs from scoring. With less than two outs, the defense may

be required to appeal runners in a particular sequence in order to prevent runs from scoring. If they appeal these

runners in a different order, they may risk runs being allowed to score.

[UmpTTS43]

I agree with the above interp. Evans feels that the appeal should be allowed. I have debated/argued this very topic with him for hours. An appeal is there for instances where there was a rules violation. There is no rule that requires runners to advance to any base after 3 outs have been made.

[Replacematt]

What about R1 who reaches 2B, but upon seeing the third out made, goes back to his dugout on the 1B side. Would Evans then claim that his leaving the base (after the third out, mind you) reinstates the force? Hmmm?

[Thunderheads]

OK, ...hang with me for a second ....

BR never reaches first, ....but .....the 3rd out isn't made by the BR, so that is why the run scores (in the OP) ...correct?

thanks

[JaxRolo]

OK, ...hang with me for a second ....

BR never reaches first, ....but .....the 3rd out isn't made by the BR, so that is why the run scores (in the OP) ...correct?

thanks

That would be my guess!

[Thunderheads]

OK, ...hang with me for a second ....

BR never reaches first, ....but .....the 3rd out isn't made by the BR, so that is why the run scores (in the OP) ...correct?

thanks

That would be my guess!

I know, I know, ...it's stupid, but that's why I love this site so much. These situations come up for discussion and you can clear your own head about your interpretations with TONS of people, and, make sure you get it right if it happens on the field. Personally, I come from the "no question is a dumb question" mindset, albeit, aggrevating at times :wave:

[sdix00]

You got it Jeff.

When I asked a coach about this play, he had no problem with the ruling and said it makes total sense. The umpires were the only folks who argued.

Sometimes we over think. When I first heard the case play, I was thinking the appeal would be valid. It took me a few minutes to realize how simple the ruling really is.

[Thunderheads]

You got it Jeff.

When I asked a coach about this play, he had no problem with the ruling and said it makes total sense. The umpires were the only folks who argued.

Sometimes we over think. When I first heard the case play, I was thinking the appeal would be valid. It took me a few minutes to realize how simple the ruling really is.

Thanks! I look at it like this..... if you read a case play or a situation on this site and it makes you think, ...what are you going to do on the field when it matters? So, sorting out wierd situations NOW can only help just in case it happens.

[Kevin Finnerty]

... Sometimes we over think.

Maybe I'm over-thinking this, but the word over-think is almost certainly not a compound word, but I always thought that it was hyphenated. Maybe I'm using the wrong interpretation, but I was almost sure.

Anyone?

[JaxRolo]

... Sometimes we over think.

Maybe I'm over-thinking this, but the word over-think is almost certainly not a compound word, but I always thought that it was hyphenated. Maybe I'm using the wrong interpretation, but I was almost sure.

Anyone?

World English Dictionary overthink (ˌəʊvəˈθɪŋk) — vb , -thinks , -thinking , -thought to spend more time thinking about something than is necessary or productive

[TNCoach]

If appealed, that is a 4th out, no run. If I am not mistaken....

If not appealed, the run counts though the coach may need to make the argument for it to count...

[sdix00]

If appealed, that is a 4th out, no run. If I am not mistaken....

If not appealed, the run counts though the coach may need to make the argument for it to count...

Refer to the ruling above.

Your answer makes sense, but is incorrect according to the rule and interp.

[Thunderheads]

If appealed, that is a 4th out, no run. If I am not mistaken....

If not appealed, the run counts though the coach may need to make the argument for it to count...

No, it's been discussed. You can't appeal a runner who didn't make it to a base...

[Welpe]

If appealed, that is a 4th out, no run. If I am not mistaken....

As others have said, not in a game I'm working. Appeal denied.

If not appealed, the run counts though the coach may need to make the argument for it to count...

I sure hope not. That's a pretty basic case of a time play.

[carolinablue]

It seems like not too long ago there was a lot more umpires that said it was a legal fourth out and the run would not score. I never believed that but I am glad it has tilted the other way now.

[TNCoach]

Not that everything always meshes easily anyway, I would guess part of the reason I would assume that it would is because of stats. A book I read on baseball statistics states that Plate Appearances (AB+BB+HBP+SAC+INT) must equal PO+R+LOB, so a runner who does not make it to 1B when hitting and a fielder's choice takes place is credited with having been left on base. If this were not to have happened, those wouldn't add up to allow someone to balance the stat sheet...

As I said, I realize things don't always mesh. That was probably why I was mistaken.

[ukce1861]

Not that everything always meshes easily anyway, I would guess part of the reason I would assume that it would is because of stats. A book I read on baseball statistics states that Plate Appearances (AB+BB+HBP+SAC+INT) must equal PO+R+LOB, so a runner who does not make it to 1B when hitting and a fielder's choice takes place is credited with having been left on base. If this were not to have happened, those wouldn't add up to allow someone to balance the stat sheet...

As I said, I realize things don't always mesh. That was probably why I was mistaken.

This must be from that rule I've never read... What is that, Rule 10?

Sir, I didn't understand a word you said...