Game Ending Situation or not?

[Guest AVL Ump]

Here's the situation:

 

Bases loaded, bottom of the 7th inning of a high school game (7 inning games), two outs.

 

Batter either gets walked or is hit by a pitch.  

 

Batter goes to first and touches the bag.

 

Runner from third advances and touches home.

 

Runner from first does not go to second to touch the base.

 

Questions:

1.  Does the runner on first and second have to touch the next base?  Or, is the game over?

2.  If they must touch the next base, and there is an appeal, the runner out. If the runner is out (third out), do the runners go back to third and second, and we start the 8th inning?

 

Thanks in advance for anyone who replies.  

 

Wayne

[Richvee]

FED rules are clear. All runners must touch the next base or are subject to appeal. A successful appeal will nullify the run. Continue with top 8. 

9-1-1 notes

2. When the winning run is scored in the last half inning of a regulation game, or in the last half of an extra inning, as the result of a base on balls, hit batter or any other play with the bases loaded which forces the runner on third base to advance, the umpire shall not declare the game over until all runners have advanced to the next base.

[grayhawk]

Agree with @Richvee that all runners must advance.  However, appeals are for missed bases or bases left too soon, not for bases not yet reached.  If you want to grab an out, it would be for abandonment.

[Guest AVL Ump]

Thanks...I like Richvee answer.  If no appeal, game over.  

 

Grayhawk has an interesting point.  If you go for abandonment, then there is no appeal, and the umpire just declares the runner out?  Hmmm....

 

Either case, you are going to have a big discussion.  

[grayhawk]

Don't get me wrong.  I am most likely just walking off the field.

[Richvee]

Agree with @Richvee that all runners must advance.  However, appeals are for missed bases or bases left too soon, not for bases not yet reached.  If you want to grab an out, it would be for abandonment.

Actually, I haven't thought of that. I just assumed it would be an appeal situation. Abandonment may be correct. I don't see a case ruling on such a play. 

 

In reality, I'm with @grayhawk.  If the BR, or the other two runners don't touch, I'm not calling abandonment, and nobody will question it....IF the defense questions it before we leave the field, isn't that's technically a dead ball appeal?...We would have to enforce the "no touch" in this case. Weather we call it abandonment or an appeal is semantics at that point. 

[Richvee]

It is interesting that FED makes the rule to touch abundantly clear yet gives no guidance on how to call/enforce it. 

[Senor Azul]

Here's a casebook play from Carl Childress' BRD (2014 edition):

 

In the home half of the final inning of the conference championship game, the score is tied and the bases are loaded with 2 outs when B1 receives ball four. He hurries to first and R3 crosses the plate, but R1 and R2 immediately join the victory celebration. RULING: In Fed/NCAA, on appeal either R1 or R2 is out (both failed to touch the next base). Since it is a force out, the run is canceled and play continues into extra innings. In OBR, the game is over.

 

 

Also, under Fed rules if the defense wants to make an appeal on the last play of the game they must do so while an umpire is still on the field of play.

[grayhawk]

IF the defense questions it before we leave the field, isn't that's technically a dead ball

The ball would be dead on a HBP, but what makes the ball dead on a walk?

[Richvee]

 

IF the defense questions it before we leave the field, isn't that's technically a dead ball

The ball would be dead on a HBP, but what makes the ball dead on a walk?

 

We can get into when the ball becomes dead..when R3 touches home? When all 4 baserunners have touched their advance base? If that's the case and the runners haven't touched 2nd or 3rd, are we leaving the field during a live ball? But that wasn't my point. 

 

My point was if, like you say, you most likely wouldn't call abandonment and you would probably start heading off the field, you most certainly would have to acknowledge the DC saying, "Hey wait! The runner on 1st never touched 2nd!" At this point, you would have to rule the runner out, no run scores, games continues , top 8. If we call it a dead ball appeal, or abandonment really doesn't matter at that point. 

[Senor Azul]

A FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses his right to occupy a base by reason of the batter becoming a runner.

 

In the OP situation R1 is forced leave first base by virtue of the fact the batter received a base on balls. Even though it is a game ending award, by Fed/NCAA rule R1 is forced to second base. So, if he does not go to second base he is liable to be put out on appeal and the appeal would be a force out. That is what the casebook play I posted says and I completely agree with it. It's a force out appeal--not abandonment.

[Replacematt]

A FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses his right to occupy a base by reason of the batter becoming a runner.

 

In the OP situation R1 is forced leave first base by virtue of the fact the batter received a base on balls. Even though it is a game ending award, by Fed/NCAA rule R1 is forced to second base. So, if he does not go to second base he is liable to be put out on appeal and the appeal would be a force out. That is what the casebook play I posted says and I completely agree with it. It's a force out appeal--not abandonment.

 

And I'll say the same thing anyone brings this up--show where a runner can be appealed for not advancing.

[Senor Azul]

I believe I already have shown it. Have you not read the casebook play I posted earlier? Let me provide the full attribution: the play can be found on page 35 of the 2014 edition of the BRD under the heading: Awards to: Runner: Forced to advance following: Base on balls.

 

And here is more from that section--the Fed interpretation:

 

Even in a game-ending situation, as on a walk to a batter with the bases loaded in the bottom of the last inning of a tied game, all runners forced to advance on an award must advance and touch the next base or be liable to appeal. (8-2-1; 9-1-1 Nt 2; Website 2012, #18)

 

NCAA: Same as Fed. (8-1a; 8-1a AR)

 

 

[Replacematt]

I believe I already have shown it. Have you not read the casebook play I posted earlier? Let me provide the full attribution: the play can be found on page 35 of the 2014 edition of the BRD under the heading: Awards to: Runner: Forced to advance following: Base on balls.

 

And here is more from that section--the Fed interpretation:

 

Even in a game-ending situation, as on a walk to a batter with the bases loaded in the bottom of the last inning of a tied game, all runners forced to advance on an award must advance and touch the next base or be liable to appeal. (8-2-1; 9-1-1 Nt 2; Website 2012, #18)

 

NCAA: Same as Fed. (8-1a; 8-1a AR)

 

I don't view the BRD as authoritative.

[blue23ll]

 

I believe I already have shown it. Have you not read the casebook play I posted earlier? Let me provide the full attribution: the play can be found on page 35 of the 2014 edition of the BRD under the heading: Awards to: Runner: Forced to advance following: Base on balls.

 

And here is more from that section--the Fed interpretation:

 

Even in a game-ending situation, as on a walk to a batter with the bases loaded in the bottom of the last inning of a tied game, all runners forced to advance on an award must advance and touch the next base or be liable to appeal. (8-2-1; 9-1-1 Nt 2; Website 2012, #18)

 

NCAA: Same as Fed. (8-1a; 8-1a AR)

 

I don't view the BRD as authoritative.

 

Say What?

[noumpere]

 

 

 

I don't view the BRD as authoritative.

 

Neither do I, but if you follow the cite you get:

 

SITUATION 18: In the bottom of the eighth inning, the score is tied, with the bases loaded and two outs. B6 draws a walk and runs and touches first base. B1 trots in from third and touches home plate. B2, however, begins celebrating and never touches third base. RULING: All runners must legally touch the next base in advancing. If the defense legally appeals while at least one umpire is still on the field of play, B2 is declared out for the third out. Since this out would be a “force†out, no runs would score and the game would continue into the ninth inning. (8-2-1, 8-2-6j, 9-1-1a and d)

 

And, if we change the OP to be OBR, and a single, you get the same kind of answer -- the umpire can declare the out for abandonment, but it's a time play; if the defense appeals then it becomes a force.

[grayhawk]

My problem with that cite is if you read the rules that it references, none of them actually back it up. The only way you can get there is by saying "missing a base" is the exact same thing as "not advancing to a base." 8-2-6a is clear that there are only 2 types of appeals.

[Senor Azul]

Here's the appeal rule--7.10(b) (sorry, do not have an NFHS rule book):

 

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.

 

 

The Fed rule has to be pretty similar, right?  I really do not see how this rule precludes a forced runner from being appealed for not advancing (abandonment)--especially considering the fact that in Fed and NCAA the forced runner is required by rule to advance in game-ending awards. Yes, the moment a runner is determined to have abandoned his effort he is out--and for matters involving runs scoring is now a time play. But in the OP the runner did fail to touch each base in order. The defense can certainly appeal the failure to advance and the appeal would be upheld and it would be a force out negating the run.

[Replacematt]

No, he didn't fail to touch each base in order. Nor can he be appealed for missing a base while advancing, since he never missed a base.

[maven]

7.10(b) and its FED correlate pertain to missed bases. I agree with Matt about that.

 

The FED case play uses the unfortunate term 'appeal', but I would treat that as a request for a ruling rather than treating it — impossibly — as either a missed base or retouch appeal.

 

For example, on a check swing, we "appeal" in this same sense to the BU for a ruling. That's not a missed base or retouch issue either. It's just a request for a call.

 

I would not treat this as abandonment, which would require me to go fishing if the defense did not "appeal." I'm not going looking for this call.

 

If they play on the runners who failed to complete their required advance, then I will rule on the safe/out.

[grayhawk]

7.10(b) and its FED correlate pertain to missed bases. I agree with Matt about that.

 

The FED case play uses the unfortunate term 'appeal', but I would treat that as a request for a ruling rather than treating it — impossibly — as either a missed base or retouch appeal.

 

For example, on a check swing, we "appeal" in this same sense to the BU for a ruling. That's not a missed base or retouch issue either. It's just a request for a call.

 

I would not treat this as abandonment, which would require me to go fishing if the defense did not "appeal." I'm not going looking for this call.

 

If they play on the runners who failed to complete their required advance, then I will rule on the safe/out.

 

I think this is a perfectly reasonable way of looking at it, and Fed clearly wants us to make a ruling on the runner(s) that didn't complete their advance.  I just think they don't really have any rule they can point to for us to make the call.  "Ruling on safe/out" is a problem because those runners are legally able to advance without being in jeopardy of being put out.  There's nothing (other than abandonment) that says they must complete their advance in a certain time or without taking a detour.

 

The appeal doesn't work, as we have already discussed.  However, if there were to be a protest, then I would think we could reference Situation 18 and nobody would think twice.  If it ever happens and they are able to get my attention before I get off the field, I'll just call the out, take the run off the board and start up the next inning.

[noumpere]

From JEA (and because it's OBR it applies only on a hit as opposed to a base on balls, HBP etc) to support the idea of an appeal (emphasis added):

 

(1) If the winning run is forced in as the result of a batted ball, all runners including the batter-runner are

obligated to touch their next bases. The BR must advance to and touch 1st base, and any other runner forced

must advance to and touch his next base. If any such forced runner fails to do so, a force out appeal play is in

order; and if it is sustained for the third out, no run shall count since the third out was, in effect, a force out. If

this appeal force out is not the third out, the runner shall be declared out but the winning run scores.

[Replacematt]

From JEA (and because it's OBR it applies only on a hit as opposed to a base on balls, HBP etc) to support the idea of an appeal (emphasis added):

 

(1) If the winning run is forced in as the result of a batted ball, all runners including the batter-runner are

obligated to touch their next bases. The BR must advance to and touch 1st base, and any other runner forced

must advance to and touch his next base. If any such forced runner fails to do so, a force out appeal play is in

order; and if it is sustained for the third out, no run shall count since the third out was, in effect, a force out. If

this appeal force out is not the third out, the runner shall be declared out but the winning run scores.

 

I wouldn't even call it an appeal--I think like what was stated a couple posts back, this is an improper use of the word. The reason they are liable to be put out is because they have both an obligation to advance due to being forced and they have no immunity from being put out. It's not an appeal, because there is no infraction; they simply did not complete their obligations when they had liability to be put out.

[noumpere]

We're getting deep into semantics here, but I think he means a 2.00 Appeal and a 7.08(e) putout; and not a 7.10 appeal.

 

I'd use the same logic in FED, even if they don't have that definition.

 

As long as we all agree that (a) the umpire shouldn't do anything initially, but (b) if the defence brings it to the umpire's attention, the umpire should rule on the action.

[Richvee]

We're getting deep into semantics here, but I think he means a 2.00 Appeal and a 7.08(e) putout; and not a 7.10 appeal.

 

I'd use the same logic in FED, even if they don't have that definition.

 

As long as we all agree that (a) the umpire shouldn't do anything initially, but (b) if the defence brings it to the umpire's attention, the umpire should rule on the action.

Exactly. It's what I was trying to say back in post 6. maybe it wasn't real clear. 

[Jimurray]

From JEA (and because it's OBR it applies only on a hit as opposed to a base on balls, HBP etc) to support the idea of an appeal (emphasis added):

 

(1) If the winning run is forced in as the result of a batted ball, all runners including the batter-runner are

obligated to touch their next bases. The BR must advance to and touch 1st base, and any other runner forced

must advance to and touch his next base. If any such forced runner fails to do so, a force out appeal play is in

order; and if it is sustained for the third out, no run shall count since the third out was, in effect, a force out. If

this appeal force out is not the third out, the runner shall be declared out but the winning run scores.

 

I wouldn't even call it an appeal--I think like what was stated a couple posts back, this is an improper use of the word. The reason they are liable to be put out is because they have both an obligation to advance due to being forced and they have no immunity from being put out. It's not an appeal, because there is no infraction; they simply did not complete their obligations when they had liability to be put out.

Let's go back to the OP which is a BOB. FED and NCAA require all runners to touch their advance base. OBR requires The BR and R3 to touch their advance base, 1B and HP. In OBR if one or the other does not do that and they "refuse to do that" they will be called out. No appeal necessary. No abandonment call.

Should we apply the same logic in FED/NCAA? Require the runner to advance and if they don't call them out? Only in a base on balls or HBP situation of course.

It gets more confusing in OBR with a batted ball. Wendelstedt circa 2012 does not agree with PBUC about runner abandoning on a batted ball depending on where they abandoned. The most current PBUC I have waffles with it's examples and has no runner being forced and abandoning. Are you as confused as I am?