odd D3K, Time play?

[Guest Matt]

I had an odd situation this weekend that I'd like to hear thoughts on and provide any criticism.  Situation

 

12U FED rules

R2 and R3

2 outs

D3k passed ball, the defense tries to get R3 out at the plate but he was safe.  Batter/runner was standing at the plate watching the play offense team dugout and stands yelling for him to run; defense dugout and stands yelling through it to first.  Batter/runner starts to run to first, by this time R2 has rounded 3rd and is headed home.  The offense explainably makes the play on R2 getting the 3rd out.  Here's the kicker.. The 3rd out was made before the Batter reached 1st base.  

 

I ruled that the run counted as the 3rd out wasn't the batter/runner rather it was R2 so that it was a time play.  DC argued that since it was a strikeout and the batter didn't reach 1st before the 3rd out that the run shouldn't count.  Talked with my partner and he felt that since it was a strikeout and the runners were R2 and R3 at TOP and at the strikeout that they shouldn't count.  I don't think that it matters but after R2 was the 3rd out the batter/runner kept going and did reach 1st base.  I stuck with my original call and counted the run.  Did I kick it? 

[Guest roothog66]

The run counts. This is the infamous fourth out situation. If the defense, even after getting R2 for out #3, had continued to throw to first for what was effectively out #4 on the strikeout DK3, the run would not have counted.

[Richvee]

As long as BR eventually gets to 1st before being put out, or abandoning his effort to reach 1st , you got it right. Had BR entered the dugout without reaching 1st (FED), or put out before reaching first at any point during the play, the run(s) would not score. 

[noumpere]

I agree with roothog.

 

I don't have the FED rules handy, but all codes say something to the effect of "unless the third out is on the BR before the BR reaches first."

[Guest roothog66]

Additionally, it does matter that the batter/runner kept going to first. If he had not completed the run to first, the srikeout would have been recorded and would have effectively ended the inning before any runs could count.

[Guest roothog66]

As long as BR eventually gets to 1st before being put out, or abandoning his effort to reach 1st , you got it right. Had BR entered the dugout without reaching 1st (FED), or put out before reaching first at any point during the play, the run(s) would not score. 

Woops. I posted my last as you were posting. Didn't mean to repeat.

[Rich Ives]

As long as BR eventually gets to 1st before being put out, or abandoning his effort to reach 1st , you got it right. Had BR entered the dugout without reaching 1st (FED), or put out before reaching first at any point during the play, the run(s) would not score. 

 

How can you call abandonment after three outs? With three outs there is no obligation to continue running the bases. You could get a 4th out on appeal, but no way you can legitimately call abandonment.

[goody14]

Isn't this just a variation of the play that was on the college exam that was debated in the spring (I think that one had R3 scoring, R2 put out at home for out 3 and the BR pulling up lame with an injury before scoring)?

 

IIRC, the (OBR) consensus was the run scored because the 3rd out was not on a the BR before he reached 1st base.  Also, BR could not be appealed for a 4th out since it was not a missed base or leaving early situation.  I think FED/NCAA allow the appeal.

 

Older Thread: http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/55855-100-challenge/

[Richvee]

 

As long as BR eventually gets to 1st before being put out, or abandoning his effort to reach 1st , you got it right. Had BR entered the dugout without reaching 1st (FED), or put out before reaching first at any point during the play, the run(s) would not score. 

 

How can you call abandonment after three outs? With three outs there is no obligation to continue running the bases. You could get a 4th out on appeal, but no way you can legitimately call abandonment.

 

My bad. Abandonment is the wrong term. That doesn't apply here. My point was This is FED, so if the batter enters the dugout (leaves the dirt circle in OBR), he's out on the strikeout, he never reaches 1st and no runs score. 

[Rich Ives]

 

 

As long as BR eventually gets to 1st before being put out, or abandoning his effort to reach 1st , you got it right. Had BR entered the dugout without reaching 1st (FED), or put out before reaching first at any point during the play, the run(s) would not score. 

 

How can you call abandonment after three outs? With three outs there is no obligation to continue running the bases. You could get a 4th out on appeal, but no way you can legitimately call abandonment.

 

My bad. Abandonment is the wrong term. That doesn't apply here. My point was This is FED, so if the batter enters the dugout (leaves the dirt circle in OBR), he's out on the strikeout, he never reaches 1st and no runs score. 

 

 

It happened AFTER the third out. Moot. Not applicable.

[Richvee]

 

 

 

As long as BR eventually gets to 1st before being put out, or abandoning his effort to reach 1st , you got it right. Had BR entered the dugout without reaching 1st (FED), or put out before reaching first at any point during the play, the run(s) would not score. 

 

How can you call abandonment after three outs? With three outs there is no obligation to continue running the bases. You could get a 4th out on appeal, but no way you can legitimately call abandonment.

 

My bad. Abandonment is the wrong term. That doesn't apply here. My point was This is FED, so if the batter enters the dugout (leaves the dirt circle in OBR), he's out on the strikeout, he never reaches 1st and no runs score. 

 

 

It happened AFTER the third out. Moot. Not applicable.

 

Are you trying to say that in the OP if the batter never runs to 1st after the D3K and heads to the dugout you're scoring a run? Because that's what sounds like to me. Otherwise you're looking to pick an argument where there is none. 

[Rich Ives]

 

 

 

 

As long as BR eventually gets to 1st before being put out, or abandoning his effort to reach 1st , you got it right. Had BR entered the dugout without reaching 1st (FED), or put out before reaching first at any point during the play, the run(s) would not score. 

 

How can you call abandonment after three outs? With three outs there is no obligation to continue running the bases. You could get a 4th out on appeal, but no way you can legitimately call abandonment.

 

My bad. Abandonment is the wrong term. That doesn't apply here. My point was This is FED, so if the batter enters the dugout (leaves the dirt circle in OBR), he's out on the strikeout, he never reaches 1st and no runs score. 

 

 

It happened AFTER the third out. Moot. Not applicable.

 

Are you trying to say that in the OP if the batter never runs to 1st after the D3K and heads to the dugout you're scoring a run? Because that's what sounds like to me. Otherwise you're looking to pick an argument where there is none. 

 

 

He didn't continue because there were three out.  Why should he? Not necessary. Moot. Not applicable.

[grayhawk]

 

 

 

 

 

As long as BR eventually gets to 1st before being put out, or abandoning his effort to reach 1st , you got it right. Had BR entered the dugout without reaching 1st (FED), or put out before reaching first at any point during the play, the run(s) would not score. 

 

How can you call abandonment after three outs? With three outs there is no obligation to continue running the bases. You could get a 4th out on appeal, but no way you can legitimately call abandonment.

 

My bad. Abandonment is the wrong term. That doesn't apply here. My point was This is FED, so if the batter enters the dugout (leaves the dirt circle in OBR), he's out on the strikeout, he never reaches 1st and no runs score. 

 

 

It happened AFTER the third out. Moot. Not applicable.

 

Are you trying to say that in the OP if the batter never runs to 1st after the D3K and heads to the dugout you're scoring a run? Because that's what sounds like to me. Otherwise you're looking to pick an argument where there is none. 

 

 

He didn't continue because there were three out.  Why should he? Not necessary. Moot. Not applicable.

 

 

I agree with Rich Ives.  If the third out is recorded before the BR enters the dugout (Fed) or leaves the dirt circle with no intention of running to first (OBR), then why would you make any call on the BR at all?  The inning is over.

 

Also, the 4th out appeal in this situation is anything but settled science.  We've discussed that in other threads, and authoritative opinions vary.

[ricka56]

 

He didn't continue because there were three out.  Why should he?

Why ? Because there is a possibility of an advantageous 4th out. I'm not sure if you're hanging your hat on the OP play at 1B NOT being an appeal play or a strict interp of 4.09(a) (in which a third out is made).

 

There isn't much written about the advantageous 4th out in the rulebook. It is only mentioned in conjunction with an appeal play. Though an advantageous 4th out is only mentioned with an appeal play. I think it is incorrect to restrict it to only appeal plays.

 

Weren't we always taught to "run it out". It is not too much to ask of BR to touch 1B to avoid a run-denying 3rd or advantageous 4th out. ... Run it out, dummy.

[grayhawk]

It is not too much to ask of BR to touch 1B to avoid a run-denying 3rd or advantageous 4th out. ... Run it out, dummy.

 

 

Is it too much to ask of the defense to play on the BR since it's the best way to prevent a run from scoring with 2 outs?  Throw it to first, dummy.

[Rich Ives]

 

 

He didn't continue because there were three out.  Why should he?

Why ? Because there is a possibility of an advantageous 4th out. I'm not sure if you're hanging your hat on the OP play at 1B NOT being an appeal play or a strict interp of 4.09(a) (in which a third out is made).

 

There isn't much written about the advantageous 4th out in the rulebook. It is only mentioned in conjunction with an appeal play. Though an advantageous 4th out is only mentioned with an appeal play. I think it is incorrect to restrict it to only appeal plays.

 

Weren't we always taught to "run it out". It is not too much to ask of BR to touch 1B to avoid a run-denying 3rd or advantageous 4th out. ... Run it out, dummy.

 

 

Get real.

[Sut'n Blue]

This topic could serve as the Kobayashi Maru of umpire training.

 

Just for yuks let's assume R2 in the OP was tagged out after a run down during which time BR made it to second. Also assume that after R2 is tagged out and while BR is standing on second, F2 throws to first where F3 appeals BR missed the bag (which he did). Don't we now we have a bona fide appeal allowing the advantageous fourth out so R3's run is scratched? If so, it seems contradictory that in this scenario we don't score the run but do score the run if the BR is thrown out at first or makes no attempt to advance on the D3K.

 

My two and a half cents on the OP: if BR makes it to first, score R3, if BR is thrown out or does not attempt to advance on the D3K, do not score R3. 

[Replacematt]

Don't we now we have a bona fide appeal allowing the advantageous fourth out so R3's run is scratched? If so, it seems contradictory that in this scenario we don't score the run but do score the run if the BR is thrown out at first or makes no attempt to advance on the D3K.

 

It's not contradictory. In one, the runner committed an infraction. In the other, he didn't.

[Replacematt]

 BLUF: If you make the claim you can get a fourth out here, then a runner would always be liable for a fourth out at the end of the inning, because he's got to go somewhere besides the base.

 

Let me put out a situation here that shows the absurdity of claiming you can have a fourth out for abandonment (or that you can get one on a force.) Bases loaded, 2 out. Single to left, scoring R3. All runners advance, but R2 makes a wide turn and slips. Defense throws behind him for the third (non-force) out as he's attempting to get back to 3B. A split second before the tag, R1 sees R2 dead to rights and steps off 2B towards 1B to get ready to get his stuff. You are seriously going to allow the defense to throw to 2B to get a (reinstated) force out or ring up R1 on abandonment? Are you going to allow it if R1 steps off after the third out?

[Sut'n Blue]

Matt: Your point is a good one in that it demonstrates there must be an end to the half inning at some sensible point in time. That being said the issue here is limited to whether or not a run can score during a series of play in which the final out of the half inning is due to the batter's failure to obtain first base.

[Rich Ives]

Matt: Your point is a good one in that it demonstrates there must be an end to the half inning at some sensible point in time. That being said the issue here is limited to whether or not a run can score during a series of play in which the final out of the half inning is due to the batter's failure to obtain first base.

 

It wouldn't if the batter's out at 1B was the final out.

 

What you are missing is that it was NOT the final out.

[Richvee]

I know we can and have gone on forever on this, but I still think I've got rule support for a 4th out here.

 

 

7.10 Any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when—

(read (b) without the "ors" and it reads...)

 

 

 

(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.

 

(He's failed to touch 1st base. I see nothing in this rule that says this rule does not apply to first base.)

 

 

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.

[Replacematt]

I know we can and have gone on forever on this, but I still think I've got rule support for a 4th out here.

 

 

7.10 Any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when—

(read (b) without the "ors" and it reads...)

 

 

 

(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.

 

(He's failed to touch 1st base. I see nothing in this rule that says this rule does not apply to first base.)

 

 

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.

 

I added the bold. How did he not touch a base in order? He didn't touch any base, let alone bases not in order. By this logic, if he doesn't score, he can be appealed at any base he didn't reach.

[afaber12]

I know we can and have gone on forever on this, but I still think I've got rule support for a 4th out here.

 

 

7.10 Any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when—

(read (b) without the "ors" and it reads...)

 

 

 

(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.

 

(He's failed to touch 1st base. I see nothing in this rule that says this rule does not apply to first base.)

 

 

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.

 

Whether it should be allowable or not, I don't think you can apply your interpretation to get an out here without opening up a huge problem.

 

Let's assume for the sake of argument that in this situation appealing that the BR had failed to touch first is valid, so can be used to get a fourth out. The OHC argues with you that it shouldn't be allowed, but you explain the rule that the BR failed to touch the base so he's out and the run stays off the board. Next half inning the lead-off batter draws a walk and trots up to first. The now-DHC (or possibly the AC because you already tossed the HC), the one who had the argument with you, calls out to his F1 to throw to second and appeal that the lead-off failed to touch second base.

 

If you call an out because you employ the same interpretation from the previous play you'll ensure no runs score for the rest of the game, but it will stop being a game of baseball. If you don't call an out, you'll have an ejection when its argued that you're applying two different sets of rules to the two teams.

 

There's a difference between failing to touch a base and failing to get around to touching it. As @Matt pointed out, the phrase in question is "...fails to touch each base in order...". A base can't have been missed until its been passed or makes it clear that he's heading for the next base after it (or the one before it if going in reverse). Runner steps over a base: appeal-able. Runner cuts the corner and heads for the next one: appeal-able. Runner runs diagonally across the diamond completely bypassing the base: appeal-able. (And really funny/stupid depending on which dugout you're in.) Runner hasn't reached the base yet: not appeal-able.

[Richvee]

 

I know we can and have gone on forever on this, but I still think I've got rule support for a 4th out here.

 

 

7.10 Any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when—

(read (b) without the "ors" and it reads...)

 

 

 

(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.

 

(He's failed to touch 1st base. I see nothing in this rule that says this rule does not apply to first base.)

 

 

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.

 

I added the bold. How did he not touch a base in order? He didn't touch any base, let alone bases not in order. By this logic, if he doesn't score, he can be appealed at any base he didn't reach.

 

He's obligated to touch first  for run(s) to score. "In order" simply means 1st would be the first base he touches when running the bases. We're not talking about running multiple bases on this play, just touching the base he's obligated to touch for runs to count. 

 

We're not going to convince each other either way. 

[Rich Ives]

 

 

I know we can and have gone on forever on this, but I still think I've got rule support for a 4th out here.

 

 

7.10 Any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when—

(read (b) without the "ors" and it reads...)

 

 

 

(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.

 

(He's failed to touch 1st base. I see nothing in this rule that says this rule does not apply to first base.)

 

 

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.

 

I added the bold. How did he not touch a base in order? He didn't touch any base, let alone bases not in order. By this logic, if he doesn't score, he can be appealed at any base he didn't reach.

 

He's obligated to touch first  for run(s) to score. "In order" simply means 1st would be the first base he touches when running the bases. We're not talking about running multiple bases on this play, just touching the base he's obligated to touch for runs to count. 

 

We're not going to convince each other either way. 

 

 

WHAT?

 

Where does anything say that?

 

There are three out. The inning is over. Over as in over. That's over. As in  over.

 

Get a 4th out appeal or live with it.