$100 Challenge

[JaxRolo]

 

 

 

 7.10 Any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when...(b) With the ball in play, while advancing or returning to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he, or a missed base, is tagged.  Touching each base in order starts with the requirement to touch the first one.

The problem is that as a letter-of-the-law stickler I have to point out that by your highlighting you're showing that you're skipping the key part of "in order". There's been no failure to touch them in order.

 

It would be more correct to say that BR did not run the bases out of order. But the rule doesn't say that BR is out if he runs the bases out of order. What the rule does say is that BR is out on appeal if he fails to run the bases in order. There is a difference. Obviously if you run the bases out of order, then you failed to run them in order. But is that the only way to violate this rule?  Can you violate this rule by omission as well as commission? If BR doesn't run the bases in any order, hasn't he failed to run them in order ?

 

 

No, he hasn't failed to run them in order, he's not even failed to run them at all, he's just not yet run the bases.

 

The rule says he may be out if appealed, if he fails to touch each base in order. If the BR is at risk in the OP of an appeal at first base until he himself touches it, then he'd have to be at risk at each of the other bases as well: he's not yet touched second, third or home in order either, so if he's "missed" first base he's also "missed" the others and can be appealed at any of them. Recognising this as an appeal situation means not only does the need to tag a runner who's not forced evaporate - because they've not yet touched the base they're attempting to advance to "in order" - but that even if standing on a base with no other runner also in contact with the base, and not forced to advance by virtue of the batter becoming a runner, they would be at risk of an appeal at any base they've not yet touched.

 

The rule requires that each base a runner touches be touched in order. Its impossible to have touched the bases out of order if he's not yet touched any base. Unless every runner who's not hit a home run is at risk of an appeal at bases they've not yet touched...

 

(Edit: By the way, do I get a cut of the prize money for having both the 100th and the 150th post in the thread? )

 

 

 

That does not make sense. He did fail to run them in order!

[grayhawk]

 

 

 

 

 7.10 Any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when...(b) With the ball in play, while advancing or returning to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he, or a missed base, is tagged.  Touching each base in order starts with the requirement to touch the first one.

The problem is that as a letter-of-the-law stickler I have to point out that by your highlighting you're showing that you're skipping the key part of "in order". There's been no failure to touch them in order.

 

It would be more correct to say that BR did not run the bases out of order. But the rule doesn't say that BR is out if he runs the bases out of order. What the rule does say is that BR is out on appeal if he fails to run the bases in order. There is a difference. Obviously if you run the bases out of order, then you failed to run them in order. But is that the only way to violate this rule?  Can you violate this rule by omission as well as commission? If BR doesn't run the bases in any order, hasn't he failed to run them in order ?

 

 

No, he hasn't failed to run them in order, he's not even failed to run them at all, he's just not yet run the bases.

 

The rule says he may be out if appealed, if he fails to touch each base in order. If the BR is at risk in the OP of an appeal at first base until he himself touches it, then he'd have to be at risk at each of the other bases as well: he's not yet touched second, third or home in order either, so if he's "missed" first base he's also "missed" the others and can be appealed at any of them. Recognising this as an appeal situation means not only does the need to tag a runner who's not forced evaporate - because they've not yet touched the base they're attempting to advance to "in order" - but that even if standing on a base with no other runner also in contact with the base, and not forced to advance by virtue of the batter becoming a runner, they would be at risk of an appeal at any base they've not yet touched.

 

The rule requires that each base a runner touches be touched in order. Its impossible to have touched the bases out of order if he's not yet touched any base. Unless every runner who's not hit a home run is at risk of an appeal at bases they've not yet touched...

 

(Edit: By the way, do I get a cut of the prize money for having both the 100th and the 150th post in the thread? )

 

 

 

That does not make sense. He did fail to run them in order!

 

 

Really?  Which ones did he mix up?

[JaxRolo]

Going to First first

[Mike Prince]

7.10 Any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when...(b) With the ball in play, while advancing or returning to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he, or a missed base, is tagged. Touching each base in order starts with the requirement to touch the first one.

The problem is that as a letter-of-the-law stickler I have to point out that by your highlighting you're showing that you're skipping the key part of "in order". There's been no failure to touch them in order.

It would be more correct to say that BR did not run the bases out of order. But the rule doesn't say that BR is out if he runs the bases out of order. What the rule does say is that BR is out on appeal if he fails to run the bases in order. There is a difference. Obviously if you run the bases out of order, then you failed to run them in order. But is that the only way to violate this rule? Can you violate this rule by omission as well as commission? If BR doesn't run the bases in any order, hasn't he failed to run them in order ?

No, he hasn't failed to run them in order, he's not even failed to run them at all, he's just not yet run the bases.

The rule says he may be out if appealed, if he fails to touch each base in order. If the BR is at risk in the OP of an appeal at first base until he himself touches it, then he'd have to be at risk at each of the other bases as well: he's not yet touched second, third or home in order either, so if he's "missed" first base he's also "missed" the others and can be appealed at any of them. Recognising this as an appeal situation means not only does the need to tag a runner who's not forced evaporate - because they've not yet touched the base they're attempting to advance to "in order" - but that even if standing on a base with no other runner also in contact with the base, and not forced to advance by virtue of the batter becoming a runner, they would be at risk of an appeal at any base they've not yet touched.

The rule requires that each base a runner touches be touched in order. Its impossible to have touched the bases out of order if he's not yet touched any base. Unless every runner who's not hit a home run is at risk of an appeal at bases they've not yet touched...

(Edit: By the way, do I get a cut of the prize money for having both the 100th and the 150th post in the thread? )

That does not make sense. He did fail to run them in order!

Sorry, not true. Not running them in order means he gets to a following base without touching a preceding base. That didn't happen here, he never made it to a base...

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[JaxRolo]

Where does it say that?

[sdix00]

 

 

 

 

 7.10 Any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when...(b) With the ball in play, while advancing or returning to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he, or a missed base, is tagged.  Touching each base in order starts with the requirement to touch the first one.

The problem is that as a letter-of-the-law stickler I have to point out that by your highlighting you're showing that you're skipping the key part of "in order". There's been no failure to touch them in order.

 

It would be more correct to say that BR did not run the bases out of order. But the rule doesn't say that BR is out if he runs the bases out of order. What the rule does say is that BR is out on appeal if he fails to run the bases in order. There is a difference. Obviously if you run the bases out of order, then you failed to run them in order. But is that the only way to violate this rule?  Can you violate this rule by omission as well as commission? If BR doesn't run the bases in any order, hasn't he failed to run them in order ?

 

 

No, he hasn't failed to run them in order, he's not even failed to run them at all, he's just not yet run the bases.

 

The rule says he may be out if appealed, if he fails to touch each base in order. If the BR is at risk in the OP of an appeal at first base until he himself touches it, then he'd have to be at risk at each of the other bases as well: he's not yet touched second, third or home in order either, so if he's "missed" first base he's also "missed" the others and can be appealed at any of them. Recognising this as an appeal situation means not only does the need to tag a runner who's not forced evaporate - because they've not yet touched the base they're attempting to advance to "in order" - but that even if standing on a base with no other runner also in contact with the base, and not forced to advance by virtue of the batter becoming a runner, they would be at risk of an appeal at any base they've not yet touched.

 

The rule requires that each base a runner touches be touched in order. Its impossible to have touched the bases out of order if he's not yet touched any base. Unless every runner who's not hit a home run is at risk of an appeal at bases they've not yet touched...

 

(Edit: By the way, do I get a cut of the prize money for having both the 100th and the 150th post in the thread? )

 

 

 

That does not make sense. He did fail to run them in order!

 

 

 

 

What if the BR is just slow? (not injured).

 

The third out has been made and the inning is over (by rule, an inning ends when etc, etc).    Where does it say the BR has any obligation to (continue to)  run the bases (in order or otherwise) after the third out has been made?

[afaber12]

Going to First first

 

Then which base did he go to first?

[JaxRolo]

Going to First first

Then which base did he go to first?

Doesn't say he has to go to a base first.

[afaber12]

 

 

Going to First first

Then which base did he go to first?

 

Doesn't say he has to go to a base first.

 

 

Then he hasn't done anything wrong. He hasn't made a base-running error, and isn't at risk of an appeal.

[JaxRolo]

Let me clarify that I do not know what the correct ruling should be.

I am 55/45 in favor of no appeal allowed.

That is not good enough for me. I want to know a rule 100%

Here we have umpires saying appeal and no appeal.

It's driving me nuts.

[Replacematt]

Here's the simple reason why this is not a valid appeal:

 

If you use 7.10b logic in that BR failed to run the bases in order, then any unretired runner is liable to be out on a 4th-out appeal if at any time before the defense can no longer legally appeal, he leaves a legally-acquired base. You have bases loaded and BR is put out, then they throw to 2B to "appeal" R1 (who is heading to the 3B dugout,) and you have to allow it--R1 did not run the bases in order.

 

Now let's determine the time at which the "violation" occurred and whether R1 is forced at that time...

[basejester]

There's no consensus on the correct answer.

This situation will probably not occur even once in your career.

 

This is a ridiculous test question.  (It's fine as a discussion; no hate for the OP.)

[JaxRolo]

There's no consensus on the correct answer.

This situation will probably not occur even once in your career.

This is a ridiculous test question. (It's fine as a discussion; no hate for the OP.)

I agree!

Someone mark this post as the "best answer"!!!!'

[ricka56]

Sorry, not true. Not running them in order means he gets to a following base without touching a preceding base.

99.99% of the time, running bases out of order is the mechanism used to violate 7.10(b), but that is not how the rule is written. You haven't considered that there may be another way to violate this appeal rule.

 

Simple question, did BR touch each base in order before he...is tagged (as the rule states) ? The answer is no, he failed to do so.

[Haid D' Salaami]

For what it's worth (at least as far as answering the question correctly on the NCAA test) - the book, "Study Guide: College Baseball Rules 2013-14", by George Demetriou, has essentially the same play, with the result of having the fourth out appel canceling the run:

 

Play 4-89 (page 103): With runners on second and third and two outs, B1 singles to right, but pulls his groin and cannot advance.  R3 scores, but R2 is thrown out at the plate for the third out.

 

Ruling: A fourth out appeal on B1 will cancel the run

 

In the verbiage before this play, he talks about this scenario, but does not give any rule support for it.  My guess is that this is where the question came for the test, and if so, this is how the NCAA wants it answered!

that book was wrong about another play.. 7-11n.. that book says the play is live, but the NCAA the play is dead...

[Haid D' Salaami]

 

Most of the rules that have been discussed here I cited in my argument against the ruling of taking the run off of the board. As I said, a highly debated interp with no unanimous consensus, even within the powers that be. I can post my paper if there is interest.

What I appreciate most about this discussion is, outside of a few goodhearted jabs, we have been discussing the topic at hand without insulting/berating anyone's intelligence/experience concerning the game we all love.

I am also pleased that this topic has reached 8 pages before someone had any input or opinion on umpire attire.

 

If wearing black or cream, allow the appeal and take the run off the board.  If wearing pro blue, score the run.  If wearing navy, then pack up and head home - you aren't smart enough to make a correct ruling.

 

I wear PoLo blue alot in College ball... its one of my uni's in 2 DI conferences I work in.

[ricka56]

Here's the simple reason why this is not a valid appeal:

 

If you use 7.10b logic in that BR failed to run the bases in order, then any unretired runner is liable to be out on a 4th-out appeal if at any time before the defense can no longer legally appeal, he leaves a legally-acquired base. You have bases loaded and BR is put out, then they throw to 2B to "appeal" R1 (who is heading to the 3B dugout,) and you have to allow it--R1 did not run the bases in order.

 

Now let's determine the time at which the "violation" occurred and whether R1 is forced at that time...

A fourth out is used to supersede the third out. The example that you cite above is an unforced out on a time play. You see in lower level baseball where the defense tags a 4th runner out, but it has no affect. An unforced fourth out after a runner has scored (time play) would not change the scoring. The OP is different in that BR has not yet reached 1B. The fourth out in the OP replaces the third out and no run scores when BR is the third out before reaching 1B.

[BT_Blue]

So, since this is an NCAA test question... have we figured out what the NCAA wants us to do?

[Replacematt]

 

Here's the simple reason why this is not a valid appeal:

 

If you use 7.10b logic in that BR failed to run the bases in order, then any unretired runner is liable to be out on a 4th-out appeal if at any time before the defense can no longer legally appeal, he leaves a legally-acquired base. You have bases loaded and BR is put out, then they throw to 2B to "appeal" R1 (who is heading to the 3B dugout,) and you have to allow it--R1 did not run the bases in order.

 

Now let's determine the time at which the "violation" occurred and whether R1 is forced at that time...

A fourth out is used to supersede the third out. The example that you cite above is an unforced out on a time play. You see in lower level baseball where the defense tags a 4th runner out, but it has no affect. An unforced fourth out after a runner has scored (time play) would not change the scoring. The OP is different in that BR has not yet reached 1B. The fourth out in the OP replaces the third out and no run scores when BR is the third out before reaching 1B.

 

Should have been more specific--BR is put out after reaching 1B.

[dumbdumb]

Can I assume that if R1 never made it to 2nd base because he broke his ankle and went down right in his tracks and the 2nd baseman got the catcher to throw to second for the appeal at 2nd, everyone would agree the run scores???????????

 

So, the only problem is getting a ruling when this happens at 1st base with an intervening play (not the interference one) and the appeal is at 1st base for the 4th out and it concerns the part about no run can score if the 3rd out is at first and in this case the 4th out superseding the 3d out, all because of the 1st base scenario?

[zm1283]

So, since this is an NCAA test question... have we figured out what the NCAA wants us to do?

 

From what I can tell they're allowing the 4th out appeal and canceling the run.  I still have yet to see rule support from the NCAA book for that.  IMO, this could be a "Point not covered in the rules" and the umpires could rule accordingly.  

[UmpTTS43]

The NCAA will cite the rule references when the test is finished. 211.

[noumpere]

Can I assume that if R3 never made it to 2nd base because he broke his ankle and went down right in his tracks and the 2nd baseman got the catcher to throw to second for the appeal at 2nd, everyone would agree the run scores???????????

 

So, the only problem is getting a ruling when this happens at 1st base with an intervening play (not the interference one) and the appeal is at 1st base for the 4th out and it concerns the part about no run can score if the 3rd out is at first and in this case the 4th out superseding the 3d out, all because of the 1st base scenario?

Assuming that you mean R1 never made it to second, then I think your assumption is wrong.

 

I think that NCAA is taking the stance that (a) the ball remains live even after the third out is made and that (b) forced runners (and the BR to first) are always required to advance or be subject to being put out.

 

It's not that much different from a play with a tie game and R3, two outs, BR singles, breaks his ankle, R3 scores "ending the game immediately" and then F7 throws to F3 to put out BR.

 

Heck, wasn't that the "Merkels boner" play (with R1 forced to second)?

 

I'm not saying that's how I'd interpret it or what I think is "fair" or that other codes might not interpret it differently.

[maven]

It's not that much different from a play with a tie game and R3, two outs, BR singles, breaks his ankle, R3 scores "ending the game immediately" and then F7 throws to F3 to put out BR.

 

Heck, wasn't that the "Merkels boner" play (with R1 forced to second)?

 

I'm not saying that's how I'd interpret it or what I think is "fair" or that other codes might not interpret it differently.

Merkel's boner and similar plays concern game-ending scoring, and the advance of runners in that situation is explicitly addressed by rule. In game-ending situations, (at least some) runners ARE required to reach their advance base, on pain of being put out, possibly for a 3rd out that nullifies a score.

 

To extend that reasoning to include "play" after a 3rd out, and to require runners to continue to run in such a situation, is an unreasonable and unwarranted extension, IMHO.

 

The cases are not at all parallel.

[Texas Manny]

Fourth Out caused by an appeal can only be activated when the third out is the result of an appeal. You cannot engage the apparent fourth out when the third out is made on a standard, non-appeal play. See rule 7.10 "Fourth Out" requirements.

 

No appeal allowed on the BR since the 3rd out was at home. Defense read the play wrong, and chose the wrong player to attempt to get out. Had they went after the BR, then the BR would have been the third out and NO runs would score. By choosing R2 at home, one run scored.