$100 Challenge

[Bob Bainter]

Jason, I get that. The question that I posed is what basis per the rules, are there that support this particular interpretation? My stand is that there is no rule support. It is simply an interpretation based on opinion not rules. I would love to see the rule that supports this, hence the debate.

Here's a $100 theory:

If the batter fails to touch first base in this case, aren't you in a way "appealing" his failure to touch it?

Abandoning effort says "after reaching first base..."

Just a theory

[basejester]

I think the logic behind allowing the fourth out appeal is that we assign the time of the out to the time of the infraction, not to the time of the appeal.  E.g., when the defense appeals R3's failure to retouch on a caught fly ball, we treat the out as happening before his score or other outs made on the play.  We often rewind and undo things on an appeal.

 

But after the third out is made, there can't be any more infractions.  The inning is over.  So, at what point in time did the "infraction" of failing to reach first base occur?  We can't really assign a time, because there really hasn't been an infraction.  The ordinary play to first is not an appeal. 

 

The "advantageous fourth out" is a misnomer, in my opinion, because what we're really doing is recording a different third out at the time of the infraction and negating the previously recorded third out.  The infraction happened first, so the appeal of that infraction is enforced first.

[ricka56]

So, at what point in time did the "infraction" of failing to reach first base occur?  

When he batted an uncaught ball into fair territory.

[Haid D' Salaami]

I referenced only NCAA. In obvious places I [paraphrased].

1-1- ..."When three offensive players are legally put out, the teams change from the offensive to the defensive and from defensive to offensive."

6-1-a- [When the umpire says "play" the ball is in play]

8-5-j- "A runner is out when: The individual fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags the runner..."

8-5-j-A.R. 1- "No run may score on any play when the third out is either a force out or the result of the batter-runner's failure to reach first base safely." Since we already have our third out, I don't believe this applies.

8-6-a- "A runner shall be called out on specific appeals that are made when:

(1) [No tag up]

(2) [Running-start tag up]

(3) [Failure to touch each base in order, advancing or retreating]

(4) [No touch of home plate]

These are the only specific appeals mentioned. As for "advantageous fourth outs", these are mentioned only once in the NCAA rules (my copy is two seasons old) and I think it's apparent that this doesn't apply to o.p.:

8-6-b(7)- "If there are two or more appeals during a play, which could make a total of 'four outs' in an inning, the defensive team may choose to take any out it desires."

Holy crap some one who actually get its..

[basejester]

Similar principles at play in this topic:

 

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/54463-appeal-at-1b-br-never-reached/

[ricka56]

It is. We have a governing body (NCAA) that says it is a 4th out. And we have highly respected OBR umpire (though not a governing body) saying that it is not appealable.

[basejester]

When he batted an uncaught ball into fair territory.

 

:-)

 

That's the best answer that leads toward $100.  The implication is that all outs on the BR at first are appeals, which is pretty weird.

[ricka56]

When he batted an uncaught ball into fair territory.

 

The implication is that all outs on the BR at first are appeals, which is pretty weird.

No, you only appeal when there is a rule broken (refer to appeal definition). You don't have to appeal every BR out at 1B, he is out for NCAA 7-11b (OBR 6.05j).

 

And that's why I think the 4th out should be allowed. No where in any rule book does it define a fourth out. It is only referred to in the appeal section. If you buy into the concept of a 4th out negating a run, then tagging 1B before he reaches 1B should be included. IMO, it is rule-geekish to disallow this 4th out because it may not be one of the appeal plays listed in NCAA 8-6 (my argument that it is included, not withstanding). I think it was an oversight in the writing of the rules. And now, for the same basic rule/concept we have different ways to call it...that's too bad.

[MidAmUmp]

 

Well...at the bottom of page 63 of my Jaksa-Roder Manual it says...

"Not an appeal: Bases loaded, two outs.  The batter singles and R2 is thrown out at home for the third out. The batter has been injured and is unable to advance to first, prompting the defense to throw to first against him: this is an advantageous fourth out and supersedes the former third out, and no run can score."

I read and reread the entire appeals section of my 12th edition J/R manual. This language seems to have been removed entirely.

 

Back on page one of this endless discussion UmpTTS43 officially declared, "J/R is no longer an authoritative manual."  Didn't you get the memo???

[ricka56]

  :Horse:            

Someone needs to design an emoticon that depicts someone being forced to read a thread that they think is past its usefulness.   

[basejester]

No, you only appeal when there is a rule broken (refer to appeal definition). You don't have to appeal every BR out at 1B, he is out for NCAA 7-11b (OBR 6.05j).

I think you're saying it could be either an ordinary out-that-is-like-a-force-but-is-for-some-reason-is-not-called-that-in-the-rules-for-the-Batter-Runner or an appeal.  And since it doesn't usually matter which it is, the distinction is usually irrelevant.

 

Right?

[ricka56]

 

No, you only appeal when there is a rule broken (refer to appeal definition). You don't have to appeal every BR out at 1B, he is out for NCAA 7-11b (OBR 6.05j).

I think you're saying it could be either an ordinary out-that-is-like-a-force-but-is-for-some-reason-is-not-called-that-in-the-rules-for-the-Batter-Runner or an appeal.  And since it doesn't usually matter which it is, the distinction is usually irrelevant.

 

Right?

 

No, I did not say it that it was an either or case. On the contrary, I said it was an ordinary rule book ground out...why would an appeal even be considered. I suppose someone could see it as an either/or type out (I wouldn't), but as you say the distinction would be irrelevant.

[basejester]

No, I did not say it that it was an either or case. On the contrary, I said it was an ordinary rule book ground out...why would an appeal even be considered. I suppose someone could see it as an either/or type out (I wouldn't), but as you say the distinction would be irrelevant.

It wouldn't.

 

What's the distinguishing factor between the ordinary ground out and an appeal that makes the play in the OP an appeal?  Because it seems to be, the defense wants this one to be an appeal so it can supersede the 3rd out already recorded, which seems like a silly reason.

[ricka56]

 

No, I did not say it that it was an either or case. On the contrary, I said it was an ordinary rule book ground out...why would an appeal even be considered. I suppose someone could see it as an either/or type out (I wouldn't), but as you say the distinction would be irrelevant.

It wouldn't.

 

What's the distinguishing factor between the ordinary ground out and an appeal that makes the play in the OP an appeal?  Because it seems to be, the defense wants this one to be an appeal so it can supersede the 3rd out already recorded, which seems like a silly reason.

What distinguishes the two is that the ordinary ground ball out is the ordinary out number one, two, or three, but the advantageous fourth out is anything but ordinary.

 

Distinguishing them may seem silly, but if some think that if there cannot be an advantagous 4th out without an appeal (that is the rub), then one can make a case that it is an appeal.

[UmpTTS43]

Well...at the bottom of page 63 of my Jaksa-Roder Manual it says...

"Not an appeal: Bases loaded, two outs.  The batter singles and R2 is thrown out at home for the third out. The batter has been injured and is unable to advance to first, prompting the defense to throw to first against him: this is an advantageous fourth out and supersedes the former third out, and no run can score."

I read and reread the entire appeals section of my 12th edition J/R manual. This language seems to have been removed entirely.

Back on page one of this endless discussion UmpTTS43 officially declared, "J/R is no longer an authoritative manual."  Didn't you get the memo???

I think if you were to go back and read my original post concerning J/R, I mentioned it is no longer an authoritative opinion concerning professional baseball. Most rules that have needed further clarification come from professional interps since the NCAA rulebook is modeled, for the most part, on OBR.

[BigUmpire]

For gods sake pick the winner and give him the $100.00 !

[grayhawk]

Not sure why $100 would be awarded to anyone since nobody has even come close to providing actual rule support to grant an appeal.  The NCAA may want its umpires to rule this way, but it's only because they say so - not because the rule language supports it.

[BigUmpire]

[ricka56]

Not sure why $100 would be awarded to anyone since nobody has even come close to providing actual rule support to grant an appeal.  The NCAA may want its umpires to rule this way, but it's only because they say so - not because the rule language supports it.

 

Hey, mine's worth at least $17.50 on creativity alone...and as Esther would say, $17.50 is $17.50.

 

I'll be surprised if on Feb 11, NCAA justifies this test question answer by decree.

[UmpTTS43]

I'll try to make this simple as possible. The NCAA will cite two rules when justifying the ruling. 8-5-j and 8-6-b (9). These are woefully inadequate since they address situations in which action occurs on, specifically, the third out.

Since they cite a rule under Section 6 which specifically addresses appeals, we can rightly presume that they consider this an appeal. There are only 4 appeals that can be made on a runner for a rule violation under this section. 8-6-a (3) "The runner fails to touch each base in order when advancing or returning to a base," is the only one that could be considered, hence, not advancing to first after three outs have been recorded is considered a missed base.

OBR has clarified that a runner cannot correct a base running infraction, ie missed base, after 3 outs have been recorded. Cannot find an NCAA clarification, but I would think it would be safe to presume that they would rely on the pro interps.

If a runner is not allowed to correct a missed base after 3 outs have occurred, why should we expect the BR to continue to first base when it is explicitly prohibited?

Since a runner cannot correct his baserunning infraction after 3 outs, if he did continue to run to and touch first base, it shouldn't be allowed anyway, and subject to proper appeal.

If the NCAA recognizes this as a missed base appeal, they can't have it both ways saying it is a rule violation and that the correction, of continuing to run to first, by the BR is illegal.

If the NCAA does not recognize this as a missed base, there are no grounds for allowing a "fourth" out under the rules governing appeals.

[ricka56]

OBR has clarified that a runner cannot correct a base running infraction, ie missed base, after 3 outs have been recorded. Cannot find an NCAA clarification, but I would think it would be safe to presume that they would rely on the pro interps.

If a runner is not allowed to correct a missed base after 3 outs have occurred, why should we expect the BR to continue to first base when it is explicitly prohibited?

Since a runner cannot correct his baserunning infraction after 3 outs, if he did continue to run to and touch first base, it shouldn't be allowed anyway, and subject to proper appeal.

If the NCAA recognizes this as a missed base appeal, they can't have it both ways saying it is a rule violation and that the correction, of continuing to run to first, by the BR is illegal.

If the NCAA does not recognize this as a missed base, there are no grounds for allowing a "fourth" out under the rules governing appeals.

I don't think that the NCAA is recognizing this as a missed base appeal. They are citing failure to touch the next base. That is different from missing a base (that can't be corrected after 3 outs). Where in their rule citations did they use a missed base reasoning?

[UmpTTS43]

OBR has clarified that a runner cannot correct a base running infraction, ie missed base, after 3 outs have been recorded. Cannot find an NCAA clarification, but I would think it would be safe to presume that they would rely on the pro interps.

If a runner is not allowed to correct a missed base after 3 outs have occurred, why should we expect the BR to continue to first base when it is explicitly prohibited?

Since a runner cannot correct his baserunning infraction after 3 outs, if he did continue to run to and touch first base, it shouldn't be allowed anyway, and subject to proper appeal.

If the NCAA recognizes this as a missed base appeal, they can't have it both ways saying it is a rule violation and that the correction, of continuing to run to first, by the BR is illegal.

If the NCAA does not recognize this as a missed base, there are no grounds for allowing a "fourth" out under the rules governing appeals.

I don't think that the NCAA is recognizing this as a missed base appeal. They are citing failure to touch the next base. That is different from missing a base (that can't be corrected after 3 outs). Where in their rule citations did they use a missed base reasoning? There are only 4 instances where there can be legal appeals on runners: failure to retag after a caught fly ball, taking a running start off of a base, missed base, and missing home plate and not returning. If it's not one of those, you can't appeal. No appeal, no "fourth" out. No "fourth" out, run scores.

[ricka56]

Even though they didn't specify 8-6-a(3) (the one I cited) you must think that is the one used. OK, but A.R.2 specifies that: When the ball is dead, no runner may touch a missed base... The key is the dead ball wording. If I'm not mistaken NCAA doesn't have a dead ball appeal, so any 4th out must be a live ball. 3 outs doesn't make the ball dead...the ball is still live...a runner may touch a missed base before he is out on appeal.

[UmpTTS43]

Even though they didn't specify 8-6-a(3) (the one I cited) you must think that is the one used. OK, but A.R.2 specifies that: When the ball is dead, no runner may touch a missed base... The key is the dead ball wording. If I'm not mistaken NCAA doesn't have a dead ball appeal, so any 4th out must be a live ball. 3 outs doesn't make the ball dead...the ball is still live...a runner may touch a missed base before he is out on appeal.

I'm not going to throw in the monkey wrench of whether the ball is live or dead after three outs. Different day. That is why I cited the pro interp that states a runner cannot correct base running errors after 3 outs have been recorded. To the best of my knowledge, NCAA recognizes this as well.

Rather than rewriting/defining the whole live ball appeal process verbiage in the rule book, OBR added this interp of the restrictions once the third out is recorded.

[Haid D' Salaami]

For the record i agree with Troy 100%... this should not be an appeal.