I've got a good one.

[grayhawk]

grayhawk,

What I am saying is that the language in 4.09( b ) is specific to a bases loaded situation because it results in a force. The force cannot happen until BR touches first base. R3 is entitled to exactly nothing until BR touches first. I'm not saying the rule says NOT to call him out when the bases are not loaded. I am saying that the game is already over because R3 ended it by legally scoring on the wild pitch. I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one

Actually, the force "happens" as soon as the batter becomes a runner. And your interp seems directly contrary to...

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.

JM

Not contrary at all. Please reconcile your comment above with this:

6.08(a) Comment: A batter who is entitled to first base because of a base on balls must go to first base and touch the base before other base runners are forced to advance. This applies when bases are full and applies when a substitute runner is put into the game.

Seems like in a bases loaded walk situation, simply becoming a runner isn't enough. Technically, he has to touch first before the other runners are forced to advance. Notice in the case play you quoted, it didn't say the BR didn't touch first. It's not relevant to my point.

[umpire_scott]

Scott,

What umpire training have you had? Which of the interpretation manuals have you read. Which of the rule books (OBR, FED, NCAA) have you read? Which studies of the history and evolution of the rules have you read.

Or are you a self-taught, "common sense" umpire?

What qualifies you to determine "...what is logical and sensible..." or speak for "...what anyone who has ever played the game would assume..." or what the "..spirit and intent of the rules..." is?

How many HS Varsity games have you worked? Any in-season "conference" games?

What "would" happen in an MLB game is what always DOES happen - the BR would go touch 1B and the game would be over. You're making it seem like you've never even watched an MLB game with your hypothetical description of what "would" happen - utter nonsense.

JM

You've quoted the rules and cases and umpires not named Scott have disagreed with you. None of your cases are analogous to this case. I can't say that I've ever seen an MLB game where this situation has occurred. And if it did the BR likely would have gone to touch first after the cameras were off of him. But clearly in the game that the OP was doing no one thought the BR had to go touch first. In the few baseball fans that I've posed this to they have said that they would assume that 100 out of 100 MLB players would watch the winning run score and then celebrate with their teammates.

You've stated ALL the rules and cases that could pertain to this. None of them, in my opinion, clearly answers the question that was posed. So unless there is other verbiage that does do this then I would say it's how the umpire interprets it. At some point when the rules and cases don't specifically answer the question, common sense is what's left.

If you can give me a common sense reason why I should disallow the run in the exact case of the OP, then give it a whirl. You have not convinced me with the rules and cases that you've cited that the rules clearly support calling him out.

[UmpJM]

The comment about touching first base before other runners are forced to advance is contrary to the definition of a Force Play:

A FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses his right to occupy a base

by reason of the batter becoming a runner.

Of course, the force may be removed on a preceding runner if a following runner is retired during the course of the play.

However, in the 7.04 Comment I posted above, the initial "force" still entitles the runner to advance on the "forced" award, even though the preceding runner who forced him to advance was retired during the course of the play.

As often happens, the rule book contradicts itself.

JM

[UmpJM]

scott,

I can only infer that you have not had any umpire training, have never read any of the rule books or interpretation manuals, and have never umpired a HS Varsity baseball game. And that you've never taken a class in logic either.

The fact that you do not understand how the cites I've provided apply to the OP does not surprise me in the least.

The way that you think something ought to be or what you and a bunch of nameless fans ASSUME is NOT "common sense".

Edited to add...

Let's break it down to basics.

6.08 The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put

out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when—

(a) Four “balls†have been called by the umpire;

To anyone who thinks the run should score in the OP (i.e., R3 ONLY, 2 outs, wild pitch base on balls to the batter, BR fails to go to 1B), what do you think the bolded part of the rule means?

I believe it applies whether the bases are loaded or not and I believe that it means the batter is properly called out if he does not "advance to and touch first base". What else could it mean?

It clearly says his exemption from a liability to be put out is "dependent upon" his completing the award by advancing to and touching 1B. If he fails to complete the award, he loses the exemption.

So, if you accept that, 4.09(a) Exception 1 unequivocally states that no run can score on the play if the BR is called out for the third out of the half inning before touching 1B. Regardless of how the run scored.

I would also challenge any of you to find ANYTHING - a rule cite, an interpretation, a case play - that suggests the BR is relieved of the requirement to advance to 1B on a walk. Under ANY circumstances. I don't believe one exists.

JM

[carolinablue]

Scott, sometimes you just have to hold your nose and make the call. Rules are rules.

[umpire_scott]

scott,

I can only infer that you have not had any umpire training, have never read any of the rule books or interpretation manuals, and have never umpired a HS Varsity baseball game. And that you've never taken a class in logic either.

The fact that you do not understand how the cites I've provided apply to the OP does not surprise me in the least.

The way that you think something ought to be or what you and a bunch of nameless fans ASSUME is NOT "common sense".

JM

Well then anyone else that has disagreed with you must fall under the same category. I posted earlier about the situation where the BR pretended to be R1 and tag up at first base thus drawing a throw to second. The experts on the board disagreed about whether interference could be called. Some said no interference but they would eject for unsportmanlike conduct. YOU even said in your post a few minutes ago that, and I quote "as often happens the rule book contradicts itself".

So now you are basically saying that because I don't agree with you and was not convinced by you, that I must have had no formal training or ever taken a class in logic. Don't take it so personally. Everything in baseball is not black and white. This in my opinion is one of those.

[umpire_scott]

Scott, sometimes you just have to hold your nose and make the call. Rules are rules.

I agree with this. If you look back at my previous post about a BR pretending to be R1 and tag at first to draw a throw away from R3 going home, when I was presented with a case that while not exactly the same was close, I concluded that interference could not be called. Even though I thought the play was bush league and should not be supported I admitted that the rules did support it. I have no problem when the rules support it, even if I don't think it makes sense. In this case I don't think that JM's citations support his interpretation of the OP. And neither does Grayhawk. I'm not insulting JM for disagreeing with me.

[UmpJM]

Scott,

Well then anyone else that has disagreed with you must fall under the same category.

Another ridiculously wrong conclusion, unsupported by the premises. It is actually my impression, formed from reading their posts on this and other boards, that a number of those who disagree with me on this particular question - among them grayhawk, JaxRolo, Rich Ives, and carolinablue - are actually serious students of the rules and of umpiring.

While I may find their arguments flawed in this particular case, they at least put forward cogent arguments based in the text of actual rules, and do not rely on "common sense" or "what everyone would assume" to support their position.

I posted earlier about the situation where the BR pretended to be R1 and tag up at first base thus drawing a throw to second. The experts on the board disagreed about whether interference could be called. Some said no interference but they would eject for unsportmanlike conduct. YOU even said in your post a few minutes ago that, and I quote "as often happens the rule book contradicts itself".

Are you familiar with the term non sequitur ? This is a great example of one, and they are a regular characteristic of your posts.

So now you are basically saying that because I don't agree with you and was not convinced by you, that I must have had no formal training or ever taken a class in logic. Don't take it so personally. Everything in baseball is not black and white. This in my opinion is one of those.

No, I am saying I suspect you have no formal training or rules knowledge (or meaningful experience) because I asked you and you didn't respond with any. Plus your posts show no evidence of rules knowledge, having attended qualified training, or meaningful experience that would give your unsupported "opinion" any standing or weight. Plus, I may have been busting your balls a bit.

As to the logic, res ipsa loquitur.

Anyway, the point isn't even whether I'm right or those who disagree with me are right. The point is to go through the rules and interpretations, and the logic of how they might apply to an unusual situation, so that we all strengthen our knowledge and understanding - and confidence in that knowledge - so that when something weird happens in one of our games, we're able to handle it calmly and with aplomb from a solid foundation of knowledge.

JM

[JaxRolo]

I'm throwing this out there but keep in mind I'm tired don't know if I'm thinking straight :/

Could this be a time play?

The runner score on wild pitch then the third out is made after the score?

On edit:

Na! It don't make sense!

I guess if this was to happen to me I would allow the run and wait for a possible protest and let the higher ups decide!!! :(

[umpire_scott]

Scott,

Well then anyone else that has disagreed with you must fall under the same category.

Another ridiculously wrong conclusion, unsupported by the premises. It is actually my impression, formed from reading their posts on this and other boards, that a number of those who disagree with me on this particular question - among them grayhawk, JaxRolo, Rich Ives, and carolinablue - are actually serious students of the rules and of umpiring.

While I may find their arguments flawed in this particular case, they at least put forward cogent arguments based in the text of actual rules, and do not rely on "common sense" or "what everyone would assume" to support their position.

I posted earlier about the situation where the BR pretended to be R1 and tag up at first base thus drawing a throw to second. The experts on the board disagreed about whether interference could be called. Some said no interference but they would eject for unsportmanlike conduct. YOU even said in your post a few minutes ago that, and I quote "as often happens the rule book contradicts itself".

Are you familiar with the term non sequitur ? This is a great example of one, and they are a regular characteristic of your posts.

So now you are basically saying that because I don't agree with you and was not convinced by you, that I must have had no formal training or ever taken a class in logic. Don't take it so personally. Everything in baseball is not black and white. This in my opinion is one of those.

No, I am saying I suspect you have no formal training or rules knowledge (or meaningful experience) because I asked you and you didn't respond with any. Plus your posts show no evidence of rules knowledge, having attended qualified training, or meaningful experience that would give your unsupported "opinion" any standing or weight. Plus, I may have been busting your balls a bit.

As to the logic, res ipsa loquitur.

Anyway, the point isn't even whether I'm right or those who disagree with me are right. The point is to go through the rules and interpretations, and the logic of how they might apply to an unusual situation, so that we all strengthen our knowledge and understanding - and confidence in that knowledge - so that when something weird happens in one of our games, we're able to handle it calmly and with aplomb from a solid foundation of knowledge.

JM

I didn't respond because I didn't feel the need to try and justify myself to you. This is an umpires forum, not a job interview. Have I taken clinics yes. Have I umpired high school games? Yes. Do you know more than me about baseball rules? Absolutely.

But none of those things matter to this situation. You have already used your vast knowledge to quote the rules and cases. This is simply about me disagreeing that your rules and case citations properly address the situation at hand. I can see your point regarding the BR not being liable to be put out "unless he touches first base". But I contend that there is a counter-argument that there he is no longer required to touch first base because the game is over when the winning run scores. I can see both sides to this argument, and the case that you cited involved a situation where the runner from 3rd would only be coming home if the runner touched first.

Think about it this way. If on ball 3 the runner from 3rd scored, would BR have to continue his AB? By this token I see no logical reason why on ball 4 he could be put out and the run not score. It just doesn't make sense that the team would be penalized for that. With all this being said, I don't know for sure what the correct rule interpretation is. And I don't know that there is an answer. Interpreting baseball rules is sort of like interpreting the Constitution. There is not always a black and white answer. If you interpret that based on the rules you've read that he has to touch first base I can't really argue that you are wrong. There are rules that can be interpreted to say this.

But I could also argue that a runner that knows he's out and remains on the field of play in order to draw a throw falls under the definition of interference. Interference says that "an act physical or verbal by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders, or CONFUSES any fielder attempting to make a play". Clearly to me if a player that knows the ball has been caught rounds first and then breaks for second to draw a throw they are CONFUSING the defense with their physical actions. But the FED case book specifically allows this.

[umpire_scott]

I'm throwing this out there but keep in mind I'm tired don't know if I'm thinking straight :/

Could this be a time play?

The runner score on wild pitch then the third out is made after the score?

On edit:

Na! It don't make sense!

I guess if this was to happen to me I would allow the run and wait for a possible protest and let the higher ups decide!!!

I would probably tell the BR to get his ass over to first base and touch it. Then all bases are covered (no pun intended).

[UmpJM]

I would probably tell the BR to get his ass over to first base and touch it. Then all bases are covered (no pun intended).

Scott,

In the spirit of "finding common ground", I would like to say that, in the unlikely event that this were to occur in a game that I was officiating, I suspect that I too would find some way to let the BR (or his coach) know that he really ought get his ass down to 1B.

I've got a challenge for you. In your penultimate post, you essentially asked (if I may take the liberty of paraphrasing), "Ball 3, Ball 4 - what's the diff?" Based on my understanding of the rules, there is a HUGE difference that is based on one of THE fundamental principles of the game of baseball. Think about it some, and see if you can figure out why I think that and explain that point of view - even if you don't agree with it. Just, why would someone think that?

Also, again based on your penultimate post, you at least seem to have a far superior understanding of the role of a baseball umpire than the current Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.

JM

[umpire_scott]

I would probably tell the BR to get his ass over to first base and touch it. Then all bases are covered (no pun intended).

Scott,

In the spirit of "finding common ground", I would like to say that, in the unlikely event that this were to occur in a game that I was officiating, I suspect that I too would find some way to let the BR (or his coach) know that he really ought get his ass down to 1B.

I've got a challenge for you. In your penultimate post, you essentially asked (if I may take the liberty of paraphrasing), "Ball 3, Ball 4 - what's the diff?" Based on my understanding of the rules, there is a HUGE difference that is based on one of THE fundamental principles of the game of baseball. Think about it some, and see if you can figure out why I think that and explain that point of view - even if you don't agree with it. Just, why would someone think that?

Also, again based on your penultimate post, you at least seem to have a far superior understanding of the role of a baseball umpire than the current Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.

JM

I'll take a crack at it, but I suspect I'm not going to give you what you are asking. The difference between ball 3 and ball 4 is that when ball 4 is issued the batter cease becoming a batter and becomes a batter-runner? So I assume that you are saying that because he has become a batter-runner he needs to complete his "assignment" which results in either being called safe or out.

I will admit when I think about it in those terms, I come over to your side a little more. As I said earlier, I am not saying you are wrong. Your points are well taken and there is clearly an argument within the verbiage in the rules to support your conclusion. And I admit that there is no verbiage to support my contention. But as has been stated earlier sometimes the absence of a rule against is the same as being a rule for.

Your comment about Chief Justice Roberts tells me we would agree about politics about as much as we do on this board. But that's all good. The world would be a boring place if everyone agreed.

[UmpJM]

Scott,

I'll take a crack at it, but I suspect I'm not going to give you what you are asking. The difference between ball 3 and ball 4 is that when ball 4 is issued the batter cease becoming a batter and becomes a batter-runner? So I assume that you are saying that because he has become a batter-runner he needs to complete his "assignment" which results in either being called safe or out.

...

Exactly.

My comment about Justice Roberts was not intended to be in any way politically partisan but was solely in reference to his comment about a Supreme Court justice being like a baseball umpire during his Senate confirmation hearings.

To my way of thinking a Supreme Court Justice is much more analogous to a member of a protest committee - perhaps, in some cases, the governing "rules committee" - while an umpire has to fulfill the role of material witness, arresting officer, trial judge, jury (though there is no right to a "jury of peers" on a baseball call), and first level appellate court judge - without the luxury of extensive deliberation, I might add - all at the same time.

Clearly, I'm sure you would agree, a far more challenging responsibility than that of a mere Supreme Court justice. B)

However, you may well be correct in your assessment of our relative political persuasions. I can't tell.

JM

[Richvee]

Heck of a debate. I'm on the fence. I fully understand the thought process involved in thinking the BR needs to touch 1st, and I certainly agree with all those who said they would tell the BR to get his butt down to 1st and touch it. That said, my original thought on the play is run scores, game over. I based this on the simple premise that the run scored and the WP, and 4.11© simply states

If the home team scores the winning run in its half of the ninth inning (or its half of

an extra inning after a tie), the game ends immediately when the winning run is

scored.

He's not forced. He's not forced after BR touches first. He scored on the WP. Game over.

But then I think about the D3K scenario and that, above all other arguments makes me wonder what is right here. :shrug:

[mrumpiresir]

On ball four, the Batter becomes a batter-runner. 4.09(a) says a run is not scored if the runner advances to home base during a play in which the third out is made by the batter-runner before he touches first base.

I'm voting for no run scores.

[noumpere]

If the home team scores the winning run in its half of the ninth inning (or its half of

an extra inning after a tie), the game ends immediately when the winning run is

scored.

Sure but the winning run might not score (and in most cases doesn't) until the batter reaches first and other runners advance. Note that it doesn't say "the game is over immediately when R3 touches the plate."

FWIW (not much I know) I vote for (a) the batter must go to first and (B) I'm telling him that "the game isnt over until you touch first" -- note I didn't tell him to go there, just gave him information on the status -- and if the catcher hears it, well, good for him.

[Welpe]

On ball four, the Batter becomes a batter-runner. 4.09(a) says a run is not scored if the runner advances to home base during a play in which the third out is made by the batter-runner before he touches first base.

I'm voting for no run scores.

Put me in this camp. But if I have to call the BR out without an appeal, I'm going to see if he'd be so kind as to run down and touch first before I get to that point.

[Rich Ives]

Heck of a debate. I'm on the fence. I fully understand the thought process involved in thinking the BR needs to touch 1st, and I certainly agree with all those who said they would tell the BR to get his butt down to 1st and touch it. That said, my original thought on the play is run scores, game over. I based this on the simple premise that the run scored and the WP, and 4.11© simply states

If the home team scores the winning run in its half of the ninth inning (or its half of

an extra inning after a tie), the game ends immediately when the winning run is

scored.

He's not forced. He's not forced after BR touches first. He scored on the WP. Game over.

But then I think about the D3K scenario and that, above all other arguments makes me wonder what is right here.

You really can't assume the immediately. Suppose the winning run appeared to score on a SF. If the game was immediately over you wouldn't be able to appeal that he left early.

[Jocko]

Heck of a debate. I'm on the fence. I fully understand the thought process involved in thinking the BR needs to touch 1st, and I certainly agree with all those who said they would tell the BR to get his butt down to 1st and touch it. That said, my original thought on the play is run scores, game over. I based this on the simple premise that the run scored and the WP, and 4.11© simply states

If the home team scores the winning run in its half of the ninth inning (or its half of

an extra inning after a tie), the game ends immediately when the winning run is

scored.

He's not forced. He's not forced after BR touches first. He scored on the WP. Game over.

But then I think about the D3K scenario and that, above all other arguments makes me wonder what is right here.

You really can't assume the immediately. Suppose the winning run appeared to score on a SF. If the game was immediately over you wouldn't be able to appeal that he left early.

interesting point

[wek29]

Heck of a debate. I'm on the fence. I fully understand the thought process involved in thinking the BR needs to touch 1st, and I certainly agree with all those who said they would tell the BR to get his butt down to 1st and touch it. That said, my original thought on the play is run scores, game over. I based this on the simple premise that the run scored and the WP, and 4.11© simply states

If the home team scores the winning run in its half of the ninth inning (or its half of

an extra inning after a tie), the game ends immediately when the winning run is

scored.

He's not forced. He's not forced after BR touches first. He scored on the WP. Game over.

But then I think about the D3K scenario and that, above all other arguments makes me wonder what is right here.

You really can't assume the immediately. Suppose the winning run appeared to score on a SF. If the game was immediately over you wouldn't be able to appeal that he left early.

interesting point

This is like the chicken and the egg...did the winning run score if he left early?

[grayhawk]

The comment about touching first base before other runners are forced to advance is contrary to the definition of a Force Play:

A FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses his right to occupy a base

by reason of the batter becoming a runner.

Of course, the force may be removed on a preceding runner if a following runner is retired during the course of the play.

However, in the 7.04 Comment I posted above, the initial "force" still entitles the runner to advance on the "forced" award, even though the preceding runner who forced him to advance was retired during the course of the play.

As often happens, the rule book contradicts itself.

JM

And you have used parts of it to support your interpretation and I have used parts to support mine. For me, it comes down to this: You are right about much in this thread. You have used rule and case cites that come close to giving an answer. Unfortunately, none of them deal with the specifics of the OP. To me, there is a reason the rulesmakers used language describing bases loaded and force situations and did not make it all-inclusive.

The fact that no rule or case play deals with this situation precisely tells me that there is no perfect answer. If this were to happen multiple times, and there were multiple protests, I would guess that some protests would be upheld, and some would not. Perhaps these protests would be ruled in favor of your interpretation more often - there is no way to know for sure.

Either way, it's been a thought provoking discussion.