Jump to content

$100 Challenge


UmpTTS43
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 3678 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

Rule 4.09(B) discusses how a team scores. In it, the rule states that if a runner refuses to advance that the umpire can disallow a run, and call an offending player out. I bring this up, because it shows, in context, that the batter, once he legally puts the ball in play, or an act is done against him by the defense, that would award him 1st base, he is REQUIRED to advance to first. If in a dead ball situaiton, he is injured, a substitute player is allowed to be submitted, to complete his advance to the base or bases to which he was awarded. The rule says that the responsibility to advance and touch the bases in order, is NOT relieved, unless fans prevent such player from advancing, and the umpires can award the base(s) 4.09.

 

The throw to home plate for the 3rd out, as in the OP's scenario, is a seperate action from the batter. The batter is obligated by rule, that once he hit the ball, to advance, and touch in order, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and home, as he legally, possibly can. Just because he fell injured, that doesn't relieve him of his responsibility to advance to and touch 1st base, as required by rule. He didn't do that. It is a violation of the rule. An appeal under Rule 2.00 defines an APPEAL as a violation of the rules. 7.10B deals with this exact issue because it covers advancing to a base, which he is obligated to do.

 

So how do you negate the batter's responsibility to advance and touch the bases in order, by rule, when he didn't do that?

There's nothing that requires the B/R to continue running after the 3rd out has been made .........................it's been discussed ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the batter fell because of injury (as in the OP) but tried to crawl to 1B and was still creeping when the 3rd out was made at home?  For all of you claiming we have an appeal situation at 1B (which to me has been proven that we do not in this thread) in the original scenario, do you now say that since the batter/runner is "attempting" to advance to 1B that the appeal situation no longer exists?  He still didn't touch before the 3rd out was made.

 

Playing devil's advocate here, but I think that this reinforces that we do not have an appeal situation at 1B in this situation.  If the B/R had rounded 1B without touching, became injured between 1B and 2B and could not return, then we have an appealable situation at 1B.  But we don't in the OP because the runner never made it to 1B.  To twist the scenario a bit, the B/R can stop between home and 1B (no injury) to try and draw a throw from the defense to take the play away from other runners, to the best of my knowledge this is legal in all codes as long as he does not come back across home plate.  The OP, without the injury, fits this scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rule 4.09(B) discusses how a team scores. In it, the rule states that if a runner refuses to advance that the umpire can disallow a run, and call an offending player out. I bring this up, because it shows, in context, that the batter, once he legally puts the ball in play, or an act is done against him by the defense, that would award him 1st base, he is REQUIRED to advance to first. If in a dead ball situaiton, he is injured, a substitute player is allowed to be submitted, to complete his advance to the base or bases to which he was awarded. The rule says that the responsibility to advance and touch the bases in order, is NOT relieved, unless fans prevent such player from advancing, and the umpires can award the base(s) 4.09.

The throw to home plate for the 3rd out, as in the OP's scenario, is a seperate action from the batter. The batter is obligated by rule, that once he hit the ball, to advance, and touch in order, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and home, as he legally, possibly can. Just because he fell injured, that doesn't relieve him of his responsibility to advance to and touch 1st base, as required by rule. He didn't do that. It is a violation of the rule. An appeal under Rule 2.00 defines an APPEAL as a violation of the rules. 7.10B deals with this exact issue because it covers advancing to a base, which he is obligated to do.

So how do you negate the batter's responsibility to advance and touch the bases in order, by rule, when he didn't do that?

How can you say on one hand, that had the defense not attempted for the play at the plate, but tagged the batter for the 3rd out, no runs would score under 4.09 because the batter didn't complete his obligation to advance to and safely reach first base, to which when the 3rd out is made by the BR before reaching 1st, no run shall score, then, on the other hand, say the batter didn't cause a rule violation because the defense made the play at home for the third out, yet saw the batter's violation, then subsequently appealed correctly under 7.10(B) citing the batter didn't legally advance to and reach 1st safely, thus creating the advantagous "fourth" out, which the defense is allowed to do by rule 7.10? No rule negates the responsibility of running the bases in order, under normal circumstances.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. Or can you? LOL.

^^^This^^^
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I may have answered my own question:

 

7.10: Appeal plays may require an umpire to recognize an apparent fourth out. If the third out is made during a play in which an appeal play is sustained on another runner, the appeal play decision takes precedence in determining the out. If there is more than one appeal during a play that ends a half-inning, the defense may elect to take the out that gives it the advantage. For the purpose of this rule, the defensive team has left the field when the pitcher and all infielders have left fair territory on their way to the bench or clubhouse.

 

Since the third out was made outside the parameter of the scope of an appeal, then the recognition of the appeal on the BR for the fourth out cannot be made by the umpire. The defense erred in its choice selection of plays. They should have been aware of the rules and the situation and went for the wounded BR instead of R2 trying to score. Because they made the wrong choice, they cost themselves the run. The tag on the BR after the play at the plate does not meet the parameter of the fourth out.

 

What happened to the batter, after the plate at the plate, is a moot point since the third out was made at home. The batter didn't violate a rule. He failed to complete his responsibility to reach 1st base. Defense chose poorly. No cake for them.

 

YES? NO?

 

Do I win $100.00? LOL...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I may have answered my own question:

 

7.10: Appeal plays may require an umpire to recognize an apparent fourth out. If the third out is made during a play in which an appeal play is sustained on another runner, the appeal play decision takes precedence in determining the out. If there is more than one appeal during a play that ends a half-inning, the defense may elect to take the out that gives it the advantage. For the purpose of this rule, the defensive team has left the field when the pitcher and all infielders have left fair territory on their way to the bench or clubhouse.

 

You have arrived at the correct answer, but not by using the correct rule. The rule you're quoting here is irrelevant to the OP. The "defense gets to pick its appeal" rule applies when you have multiple valid and upheld appeals. For example:

 

SITUATION: R1, R2, 1 out. Batter hits a long fly ball that appears to be over F8's head, and the runners take off. F8 makes a diving catch, both runners cross the plate. The defense appeals R1's failure to retouch for the third out. They then appeal R2's failure to retouch for an apparent 4th out.

 

RULING: The defense will choose R2's out as the 3rd out of the inning, which will cancel both runs (4.09). If they chose R1's out to be the third out, R2's run would count (time play).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think I may have answered my own question:

 

7.10: Appeal plays may require an umpire to recognize an apparent fourth out. If the third out is made during a play in which an appeal play is sustained on another runner, the appeal play decision takes precedence in determining the out. If there is more than one appeal during a play that ends a half-inning, the defense may elect to take the out that gives it the advantage. For the purpose of this rule, the defensive team has left the field when the pitcher and all infielders have left fair territory on their way to the bench or clubhouse.

 

You have arrived at the correct answer, but not by using the correct rule. The rule you're quoting here is irrelevant to the OP. The "defense gets to pick its appeal" rule applies when you have multiple valid and upheld appeals. For example:

 

SITUATION: R1, R2, 1 out. Batter hits a long fly ball that appears to be over F8's head, and the runners take off. F8 makes a diving catch, both runners cross the plate. The defense appeals R1's failure to retouch for the third out. They then appeal R2's failure to retouch for an apparent 4th out.

 

RULING: The defense will choose R2's out as the 3rd out of the inning, which will cancel both runs (4.09). If they chose R1's out to be the third out, R2's run would count (time play).

 

I brought the 7.10 rule out to show how an appeal doesn't work here, and how the recognition of the fourth out can't work either. There is no appeal play possible because the 3rd out was made to end the inning on a standard play, not an appeal play which would have opened the door for recognition of the fourth out. The defense simply chose poorly in which play to go for. I'm not sure you understood or read fully what I said. Not accusing, just appears you missed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we put to bed any notion that the batter violated a rule by not running to first base?

 

If a batter hits a grounder right at F3 and never steps foot out of the box because he knows he's a dead duck, he's not out for violating the rules - he's out because 6.05(j) says he is.

 

If a batter runner retreats towards home (usually when being chased by either F1 or F3), he is not out until he reaches home.  This means he did not violate the rules by not advancing towards first - he violated them by retreating to or past home.

 

If a batter runner stands at the plate on an uncaught third strike, he is not out unless he or first base is tagged, or until he leaves the dirt circle.  He is not out for just standing there.

 

He puts himself in jeopardy of being put out by not advancing, but he is not obligated to run to first and is not out for the simple act of failing to do so.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are quoting OBR when the situation is on the NCAA test.  For all we know the NCAA may have a different interp. than OBR (it's been known to happen).  It's fun to kick it around and argue back and forth, but understand the specific play in question concerns NCAA, not OBR or NFHS rules.

 

And with that, I bid you farewell on this topic.  :wave: 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said that in post #129. He didn't violate a rule. He just failed to meet his obligation to advance and reach 1st safely because of his injury.

 

Except that you DID say he violated a rule before you edited your post.  That's what prompted me to write my post.  I've seen you do this on many occasions.  If you change the content of a post (something more than just a typo), you should call that out when you make your edits.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

ok.. I just got a answer from Harry's.....the run scores...this is not the apparent 4th out sit.

Uh, we all knew that's what Harry thinks. And most of us agree with it. But FED and NCAA and JR aficionados believe differently. The NCAA question this year will probably be correct if you rule the run doesn't score. They want to rule one way, OBR rules another way, Carl says, I hope this doesn't happen to you in your game.

 

Carl is not a rules god, or a governing body, just someone who wrote a few books.. no disrespect.

 

But Carl consults with governing bodies. He consulted with someone in OBR and changed his current BRD to reflect that in OBR the run scores. His other references from 2001 for FED and NCAA allow the appeal and don't score the run. The current NCAA test maker apparently still believes in that interp and the reported correct answer on the test is to allow the appeal and no run scores. I like the current OBR interp as do most of us on this thread but if you call NCAA you might have to rule the other way if this happens to you. That would be highly unlikely but in case it does NCAA made it a test question so you will know how to rule on their field.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I said that in post #129. He didn't violate a rule. He just failed to meet his obligation to advance and reach 1st safely because of his injury.

 

Except that you DID say he violated a rule before you edited your post.  That's what prompted me to write my post.  I've seen you do this on many occasions.  If you change the content of a post (something more than just a typo), you should call that out when you make your edits.

 

Yes, you are correct. I did originally say that and then I edited it because I didn't want to make a mistake. I will work on your suggestion. My apologies for any confusion. :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are quoting OBR when the situation is on the NCAA test.  For all we know the NCAA may have a different interp. than OBR (it's been known to happen).  It's fun to kick it around and argue back and forth, but understand the specific play in question concerns NCAA, not OBR or NFHS rules.

 

And with that, I bid you farewell on this topic.  :wave:

I thought the OP said "...limited to OBR/NCAA"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

but why on earth would it? especially here!

 

I learned something on this one and enjoyed it!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I brought the 7.10 rule out to show how an appeal doesn't work here, and how the recognition of the fourth out can't work either. There is no appeal play possible because the 3rd out was made to end the inning on a standard play, not an appeal play which would have opened the door for recognition of the fourth out. The defense simply chose poorly in which play to go for. I'm not sure you understood or read fully what I said. Not accusing, just appears you missed it.

I read and understood what you wrote. It just didn't make much sense. You selected a rule that involves multiple valid appeals to try to show that in the OP we do not have a valid appeal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I answered on the test that the run is canceled because of the 4th out "appeal".  That is not what I think is supported by rule though.  I agree that the run should count.

 

The problem I have is that this is not even covered in the NCAA rule book.  For a guy taking the test who doesn't come on here, how is he supposed to figure this one out?  I guess he should just take a shot in the dark.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 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 ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 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? :))

Edited by afaber12
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...