$100 Challenge

[MidAmUmp]

 

Some of you need to put down your stick.  The horse is dead.  The NCAA says this is an appealable play and if so, no run would score.  You may not like it.  You may not agree with it.  You may feel the rule book doesn't support it.  You know what?  It doesn't matter.  The NCAA believes their rules support this advantageous fourth out and they say no runs score in this play.

The original poster knew the NCAA ruling at the start of the thread.  If you don't care about the topic of the thread, that's OK, but I diagree with telling other people they shouldn't care about discussing the validity of the interpretation.

 

I'm not sure the OP knew the NCAA interp when he started the thread.  Maybe he did, but I've discussed it with him privately and did not get that feeling.

 

You can discuss the validity of the interp. all you want, but it's not going to change what should be called on an NCAA field.  That's all I'm saying.  I mean hell, there have been pages and pages on here about the stupidity of some NFHS rules.  We have debated all day long their validity, but again, it doesn't change the fact they are what they are.  Agree or disagree with it, but fail to enforce them and you open yourself up to losing a protest.

 

There have been comments in this post that they aren't going to call it this way.  If that's your take, go for it, but you won't be working very long at the NCAA level.

[zm1283]

I'll absolutely call it how the NCAA wants.  I'm just curious to see which rule citation they use to get there.  

[johnnyg08]

yep, it's as easy as that.  your boss tells you how to do something, you do it that way.  plain and simple.  

 

arguing and trying to be smarter than them is only going to get you into trouble.

[UmpTTS43]

Seems like sentiment is saying we've exhausted this debate. Here is my original post.

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.

My challenge still stands. I am a man of my word. If you believe you have a valid argument that this appeal is valid based on rule support, common sense, and within the spirit of the game, I will award you the cash.

Post your argument with your supporting rules and philosophies. Those against this position need not respond since it has already been debated. I will then post my opinion against.

I will not decide if your position is valid or not, I will let the members of this forum decide. Once those that support this appeal have declared so, I will start a new thread with a poll. The members can then decide if your position is more valid than mine.

If the members say your argument is valid, I will award the money. If there is more than one opinion that the members deem valid, then the members will have to decide who laid out the best argument.

[grayhawk]

I agree that the rules do not support an appeal.

I'm not a lawyer, so I only argue things I believe in. I'm out.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JaxRolo]

I'm done with this thread as well.

Adios

[Mike Prince]

Well, I am not an NCAA umpire but will still follow this with interest, no need to "check out"...

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[grayhawk]

For clarity, I'm not out of this thread.  I'm twisted enough to enjoy this stuff!  I just won't make a counter argument to @UmpTTS43 because I agree with him and don't care to argue for argument's sake.

[maven]

I'm done with this thread as well.

Adios

Apparently not.

maven

[Jimurray]

It's really simple. We know how OBR now rules. We don't care how FED rules. If in your NCAA game the BR falls down and the defense plays on a non forced runner, allowing another runner to score, you score the run. If the defense the sees that they have the BR laying on the ground and are cognizant of the NCAA interp and throws to 1B for a fourth out appeal ( don't give the writer a hard time), the umpire will call time and await the doctors report confirming a MUSCLE PULL and then rule no run scores. If the BR fell down or did not reach 1B for another reason you can rule as per the rulebook.

[ricka56]

My challenge still stands. I am a man of my word. If you believe you have a valid argument that this appeal is valid based on rule support, common sense, and within the spirit of the game, I will award you the cash.

Post your argument with your supporting rules and philosophies. Those against this position need not respond since it has already been debated. I will then post my opinion against.

Well as Esther might have said...a hundred dollars is a hundred dollars.

 

I'll amend my entry with rule support from the NCAA equivalent 8-6-3. All the original arguments stay the same. Refer to Post # 106.

 

Common Sense/Spirit of the game argument- it is obvious that the rule makers wanted to include an advantage fourth out in baseball. Getting hung up on whether a tag of 1B prior to BR reaching is an appeal or not is (IMO) not what the rule makers intended. 

 

But even if you insist that an advantageous fourth out must be an appeal, I think you can get there with the following rule references.

1. NCAA 2.00 Definition of terms ... An APPEAL is the act of a fielder in claiming violation of the rules by the offensive team...
2. NCAA 8-6 runner shall be called out, on specific appeal, when...(3) the runner  fails to touch each base in order when advancing...to a base. Touching each base in order starts with the requirement to touch the first one.

So I believe that even if you are a letter-of-the-law stickler and require an appeal for an advantageous fourth out, there is common sense, spirit of the game, and rule application support to disallow the run to score.

[VolUmp]

Of COURSE this is a valid play.  No, It's not an appeal ... it is a play.

 

Although someone screwed the game up years ago by misdefining the term "force" ... which left us with the adage, "There is no force at 1B ..." the rules work just like a force at 1st base.  Whether the injured runner failed to advance to 1st, to 2nd, or 3rd, a force out or throwing a batter out at 1st after two outs TRUMPS all other plays.  I wouldn't even WORD it the 4th out ... or advantageous 4th out ... I'd just say nothing happened prior to the 3rd out being "like" a force at 1B.

 

Those who would argue misunderstand two things:

Just because we don't call the out at 1B a force ... It looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and it's in fact treated like a duck.

Just because the most oft quoted example of the advantageous 4th out is an appeal, it simple does not declare that the advantageous 4th out must be an appeal.

 

And by the way ... the advantagous 5th out is very possible ... why does no one talk about it?????

[VolUmp]

 

[Replacematt]

Of COURSE this is a valid play.  No, It's not an appeal ... it is a play.

 

Although someone screwed the game up years ago by misdefining the term "force" ... which left us with the adage, "There is no force at 1B ..." the rules work just like a force at 1st base.  Whether the injured runner failed to advance to 1st, to 2nd, or 3rd, a force out or throwing a batter out at 1st after two outs TRUMPS all other plays.  I wouldn't even WORD it the 4th out ... or advantageous 4th out ... I'd just say nothing happened prior to the 3rd out being "like" a force at 1B.

 

Those who would argue misunderstand two things:

Just because we don't call the out at 1B a force ... It looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and it's in fact treated like a duck.

Just because the most oft quoted example of the advantageous 4th out is an appeal, it simple does not declare that the advantageous 4th out must be an appeal.

 

And by the way ... the advantagous 5th out is very possible ... why does no one talk about it?????

 

Where does it say it can be something other than an appeal?

[Haid D' Salaami]

Of COURSE this is a valid play.  No, It's not an appeal ... it is a play.

 

Although someone screwed the game up years ago by misdefining the term "force" ... which left us with the adage, "There is no force at 1B ..." the rules work just like a force at 1st base.  Whether the injured runner failed to advance to 1st, to 2nd, or 3rd, a force out or throwing a batter out at 1st after two outs TRUMPS all other plays.  I wouldn't even WORD it the 4th out ... or advantageous 4th out ... I'd just say nothing happened prior to the 3rd out being "like" a force at 1B.

 

Those who would argue misunderstand two things:

Just because we don't call the out at 1B a force ... It looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and it's in fact treated like a duck.

Just because the most oft quoted example of the advantageous 4th out is an appeal, it simple does not declare that the advantageous 4th out must be an appeal.

 

And by the way ... the advantagous 5th out is very possible ... why does no one talk about it?????

Please provide an example of an 5th appeal?...

[noumpere]

 

Please provide an example of an 5th appeal?...

 

 

R1, R3 two outs.  Batter hits one to the fence and is thrown out at home, but R1 and BR miss all the bases.  R3 properly touches home.

 

Defense appeals R1 missing home: 4th out, advantage (R1 does not score)

Defense appeals Br missing third: 5th out, no advantage

defense appeals BR missing second: 6th out, no advantage

Defense appeals BR missing first: 7th out, advantage (no runs score)

[VolUmp]

While I won't argue with noumpere's Third World Play, there is a much more reasonable and likely example:

 

Bases loaded 1 out.

Gapper to right center.

All 3 runners off on the pitch on a dead sprint thinking it's gonna drop.

F9 makes a diving catch, and comes up firing to F3 - to F6 - to F5.

"OUT" at 1B on appeal.

"OUT" at 2B on appeal.

"OUT" at 3B on appeal.

 

Only the apparent 5th out saved the run from scoring.  Not even the 4th out did.

[grayhawk]

While I won't argue with noumpere's Third World Play, there is a much more reasonable and likely example:

 

Bases loaded 1 out.

Gapper to right center.

All 3 runners off on the pitch on a dead sprint thinking it's gonna drop.

F9 makes a diving catch, and comes up firing to F3 - to F6 - to F5.

"OUT" at 1B on appeal.

"OUT" at 2B on appeal.

"OUT" at 3B on appeal.

 

Only the apparent 5th out saved the run from scoring.  Not even the 4th out did.

 

Of course, if they just throw to F5 first, they can save the run and avoid all the other throws.

[VolUmp]

Of course ... and if they just threw to 3rd initially in the rule book's "apparent 4th out" appeal, there would be no need for the fourth out appeal ruling ...

 

If we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs ... if we had some eggs ...

[Haid D' Salaami]

of course once the appel the 4th out.. that is all your going to have.... there will be no more appeals.

[VolUmp]

of course once they appeal the 4th out.. that is all your going to have.... there will be no more appeals.

 

FALSE. The coach can continue to appeal.  There is nothing in the rule book to the contrary. 

You can appeal a runner leaving early, missed bases, etc. until you get one that benefits you ... or not ... but just saying there are no appeals beyond the apparent 4th out is pure false.

The rulebook shows this as an example.  That doesn't mean that an apparent fifth out (or sixth or 7th) could not exist.

[UmpTTS43]

Off topic. The number of "fourth out" appeals is irrelevant to this topic. Only thing that matters is if this appeal should be recognized in the op.

[Haid D' Salaami]

I'll stop arguing with people who dont want to listen or use common sense.... holy SH*#.

[BalkHawk]

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."

[BalkHawk]

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.