$100 Challenge

[UmpTTS43]

Here's a little preseason fun.

This came up on ABUA's forum and I subsequently made this offer. I now bring it here.

This question is on the NCAA preseason test and has been a topic of debate prior.

R1, R2, R3, two outs. The batter hits the ball past the infielders into short right field. R2 is thrown out at home for the third out. The batter pulls a muscle just as he comes out of the batter's box and is unable to advance to first during playing action. After the out at home and before the defense has left the infield, F2 throws to first to retire the batter.

The question is whether or not this appeal is upheld thereby negating R3s run.

FED/NCAA and, to the best of my knowledge, OBR, including Jim Evans, recognize this as a valid appeal.

I have debated this interpretation with some of the most knowledgeable rules experts across the country. I have also researched and written about this extensively to the point of, "Gee, really?" Some consensus, some not.

My standing is that this is not a valid "fourth out" appeal, hence the run will score.

Here is my challenge. If you can demonstrate the validity of allowing this appeal through rule application, spirit of the game philosophy, and common sense, I will give you $100 cash. We will, of course, debate our positions. Simply saying that this is the accepted interpretation made by those that have the say so does not count. In fact I would be willing to debate them as well.

This discussion is limited to OBR/NCAA rules. I have zero interest in how FED sees this.

When and if anybody takes this up with me, after the debate, I will put up a poll with the participants and let the members decide.

Let's have a little fun.

[johnnyg08]

I'm just glad that UmpTTS43 is back posting again!  

[basejester]

There's a discussion on a play like this at the beginning of the BRD.

 

I personally don't think this is an appeal.  The inning is over.  Run scores.

[BigUmpire]

This must be some Warren Buffett money.

[th3]

OK...why would any runs score if the third out is a result of the batter runner not reaching first base? What am I missing (again)?

[johnnyg08]

OK...why would any runs score if the third out is a result of the batter runner not reaching first base? What am I missing (again)?

 

It's not the third out that's in question.  The defense is attempting an advantageous 4th out appeal.

[maven]

OK...why would any runs score if the third out is a result of the batter runner not reaching first base? What am I missing (again)?

 

R2 made the 3rd out. An advantageous 4th out must be an appeal play. Appeals are retouch or missed base appeals. The BR not reaching 1B is neither a retouch nor a missed base, and thus the play at 1B is not an appeal. The defense is therefore not entitled to an advantageous 4th out. Score R3's run.

 

I agree with UmpTTS43.

[UmpTTS43]

Thx Johnny. Good to be back.

[BT_Blue]

OK...why would any runs score if the third out is a result of the batter runner not reaching first base? What am I missing (again)?

 

R2 made the 3rd out. An advantageous 4th out must be an appeal play. Appeals are retouch or missed base appeals. The BR not reaching 1B is neither a retouch nor a missed base, and thus the play at 1B is not an appeal. The defense is therefore not entitled to an advantageous 4th out. Score R3's run.

 

I agree with UmpTTS43.

Thinking about this for a short second, I have to agree. A player the is unwilling or unable (as the case may be) usually gets talked about as "abandonment" or such. I dont think this even falls into that catagory. However, i also feel the OP is notan appealable situation.

Score the run... end of inning.

[MidAmUmp]

I would offer the correct answer, but I know Troy's check will bounce.

[UmpTTS43]

That's why I said cash.

You can still enlighten us.

[johnnyg08]

That's why I said cash.

You can still enlighten us.

I think that this should be the new way for confirming Authoritative Opinion.

UmpTTS43 puts up a Benjamin along w/ his interpretation and anybody else puts up their interpretation.

Then we all vote. Winner gets the Authoritative Opinion and TTS gets to keep his $100

[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."

[MidAmUmp]

Additionally, my notes from umpire school says, "If B/R retired before 1st, even if 4th out, no runs score."  I wrote that in red.  Musta been important.

[alex7]

Can we post where it shows that an advantageous 4th out must be 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'm sure that's what it says but there is zero rule support for this interp. It is simply an interp. J/R is no longer an authoritative manual. J/R once said that a pitched ball that bounced could not be caught legally on a foul tip. They have since changed their stance on that.

This does not qualify for the award since I stipulated that merely citing one's interps because they say so is not sufficient.

Additionally, my notes from umpire school says, "If B/R retired before 1st, even if 4th out, no runs score."  I wrote that in red.  Musta been important.

You went to Harry's right? In the Wendelstedt Umpire School Manual they discuss this play on page 115 and it clearly states that this appeal is not allowed.

[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'm sure that's what it says but there is zero rule support for this interp. It is simply an interp. J/R is no longer an authoritative manual. J/R once said that a pitched ball that bounced could not be caught legally on a foul tip. They have since changed their stance on that.

This does not qualify for the award since I stipulated that merely citing one's interps because they say so is not sufficient.

Additionally, my notes from umpire school says, "If B/R retired before 1st, even if 4th out, no runs score."  I wrote that in red.  Musta been important.

You went to Harry's right? In the Wendelstedt Umpire School Manual they discuss this play on page 115 and it clearly states that this appeal is not allowed.

 

So in the world according to Troy Jaksa-Roder isn't a valid manual.  I'll beg to differ.

It's not an appeal.  It's an advantageous 4th out.  B/R did not touch 1st base and is still subject to being forced out.

 

That's the gospel according to me and I'll stand by it.

[maven]

That's the problem in a nutshell: no rules basis for a 4th out that is not an appeal.

maven

[MidAmUmp]

That's the problem in a nutshell: no rules basis for a 4th out that is not an appeal.

maven

Huh????  Check pages 79 & 80 in the NCAA rule book.  I say it's not an appeal, but it actually is an apparent, advantageous 4th out appeal.  B/R didn't touch 1st, force is not removed, B/R is called out and no run can score when the 3rd out (or in this case an advantageous 4th out) is a force out.

[MidAmUmp]

Troy,

When were you going to release a memo to the rest of the umpiring world that J/R is no longer an authoritative manual?  I need something in writing so I can begin to rewrite my clinic lesson plans, as many of the things we teach is based upon things written in that no longer authoritative manual.

[UmpTTS43]

The phrase "advantageous 4th out" was derived and used exclusively for legal appeals. Absent an appeal, you cannot have this "advantageous 4th out". You will not find anywhere in the rulebook where it says you can have this 4th out without a valid appeal.

At one time the J/R was the official interpretation manual and was used at the Brinkman school. In today's pro game it is no longer recognized as an official manual. It is just another manual and is not to be used in an official capacity. Although this manual is a great resource, it is not official.

[UmpTTS43]

Troy,

When were you going to release a memo to the rest of the umpiring world that J/R is no longer an authoritative manual?  I need something in writing so I can begin to rewrite my clinic lesson plans, as many of the things we teach is based upon things written in that no longer authoritative manual.

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest. What I share is what I have been taught. This is meant to be a spirited and thoughtful debate concerning the ruleset and subsequent interpretations based on those rules. J/R has been wrong in the past and has had to subsequently change their position more than once.

J/R says one thing, Harry's manual says the opposite. Take that as you wish. One scenario, different philosophies.

[MidAmUmp]

 

Troy,

When were you going to release a memo to the rest of the umpiring world that J/R is no longer an authoritative manual?  I need something in writing so I can begin to rewrite my clinic lesson plans, as many of the things we teach is based upon things written in that no longer authoritative manual.

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest. What I share is what I have been taught. This is meant to be a spirited and thoughtful debate concerning the ruleset and subsequent interpretations based on those rules. J/R has been wrong in the past and has had to subsequently change their position more than once.

J/R says one thing, Harry's manual says the opposite. Take that as you wish. One scenario, different philosophies.

 

Perhaps Harry's manual is incorrect.  I know they've made mistakes.  Who knows.  Hell, the MLB rule book contradicts itself several times.  All I can tell you is my notes say no runs score...which means Nauert said it and I was paying attention.  That doesn't mean the interp. hasn't changed.  However, it's pretty obvious whoever wrote the NCAA test took that question straight out of the J/R Manual (since it's almost verbatim), so someone must still think it's authoritative.  And I'm willing to bet the correct answer on the test is no runs score.  I'm also willing to bet, if protested the NCAA would say no runs score.  But you can't bet on NCAA events.........

[UmpTTS43]

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.

[johnnyg08]

I will check MLBUM...I don't remember seeing anything in there, but that doesn't mean that it's not in there.