Now, this is a way to end the game!

[stkjock]

You guys are misunderstanding the wording in 4.09(b). It gives the *necessary* but not *sufficient* conditions to end the game. It precisely, exactly, unambiguously states that the game cannot end until R3 crosses home and BR reaches first. It does not say those events are all that are necessary. The wording *means* those events are not sufficient. There is no doubt about this, given the structure of the wording of the rule.

Perfect example of why the game cannot be over just because R3 crossed home and BR reached 1B, given by @Jimurray: If the batter had grounded to F5 who then stepped on 3B and threw to F4 for a force at 2B, you would not be arguing that R3 reaching home and the BR reaching first had ended the game!

I see, thank you for the added information

[ElkOil]

Wow

It can't be THAT much of a "wow" moment, can it?  I mean, four MLB umps apparently thought the same thing and I'm in my first year of doing this.

Okay, so for my purposes, I think I'd understand the rule better if the language included something like:

4.09
HOW A TEAM SCORES. 
(b) All other criteria notwithstanding, 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 full which forces the runner on third to advance, the umpire shall not declare the game ended until the runner forced to advance from third has touched home base and the batter-runner has touched first base.

[Jimurray]

Let's disregard the security guard throwing the ball...

Based on the video, does Hamilton tag second base after catching the ball?  If he does, R1 may have been forced out for out two, but the force is then removed on R2 so the tag of third base means nothing (the tag of first obviously means nothing because BR clearly touched first).

Vanover's explanation is incoherent.

Again, disregarding the authorized person deliberate interference, and disregarding the possibility of the BR being called out for passing, I have a legal appeal and out at 3B. R2 turned the corner at 3B and MISSED it. While the live action out at second base removed the force at that time, R2 had already passed and missed 3B. The force existed at the time of miss and order of appeals does not matter in OBR at least according to Wendelstedt.

 

Edited August 10, 2015 by Jimurray

[Richvee]

we need to do something to shut Byrnes up .......he's a flipping baffoon!!!!!!!!

What would be so hard about hiring a retired MLB umpire, or some other authoritative rules guys so MLB network could get this stuff right? It's embarrassing to the game and MLB that they let these baffoons pretend they know what they're talking about when it comes to rules interps. The sad part is, the general public hears it and thinks they're getting correct rulings from these guys. 

[noumpere]

You guys are misunderstanding the wording in 4.09(b). It gives the *necessary* but not *sufficient* conditions to end the game. It precisely, exactly, unambiguously states that the game cannot end until R3 crosses home and BR reaches first. It does not say those events are all that are necessary. The wording *means* those events are not sufficient. There is no doubt about this, given the structure of the wording of the rule.

Perfect example of why the game cannot be over just because R3 crossed home and BR reached 1B, given by @Jimurray: If the batter had grounded to F5 who then stepped on 3B and threw to F4 for a force at 2B, you would not be arguing that R3 reaching home and the BR reaching first had ended the game!

On a walk or a HBP, BR and R3 advancing *is* all that is needed, in OBR.  Even if there are two outs and R1 and R2 go directly to the dugout, the game is over.

On a ball put in play, all must advance.  If R1 and R2 are declared out for abandoning, these are not force outs, but the defense can appeal to make them force outs.

 

I think Gil has it right, above.  But, I'm just skimming the threads to try to get them all in in the few minutes I have access.

[jkumpire]

According to my 2009 copy of the MLBUM (all I have), on p. 31, discussing 4.11 it says:

"OBR (sic) 4.09.b provides that when the winning run is scored, as a result of a base on balls, hit batter, or any other play with the bases full that forces the runner on third to advance, the umpire shall not declare the game ended until the runner forced to advance from third has touched home base and the batter has touched third base." 

I interpret that as saying the umpire can call the game over when both of those thing occur, as others have said above. In the game we are talking about the crew saw Cincinnati players walking off, nobody going for the ball, and so when both the batter and R3 advanced a base, that was it. You can see the PU see the touch and walk toward the dugout. Then the Cincinnati players get the ball from the field guy, whoever he is, appeal something at 2B, something at 1B, and something else at 3B. what they appealed I don;t know, and the crew is off the field when they did appeal, so I assume the crew used the note here to end the game, probably too soon, but used their interp. of 4.09 to get it right.  And Cincinnati did not protest officially so they bought it too.

 

 

Edited August 11, 2015 by jkumpire

[JHSump]

I interpret that as saying the umpire can call the game over when both of those thing occur, as others have said above. 

You may wish to interpret 4.09(b) that way, but that is not what 4.09(b) says. It does not say the umpire *can* declare the game over when those two things occur. The wording of 4.09(b) does not support your interpretation. It ambiguously means something else, as I have explained before.

[Jimurray]

According to my 2009 copy of the MLBUM (all I have), on p. 31, discussing 4.11 it says:

"OBR (sic) 4.09.b provides that when the winning run is scored, as a result of a base on balls, hit batter, or any other play with the bases full that forces the runner on third to advance, the umpire shall not declare the game ended until the runner forced to advance from third has touched home base and the batter has touched third base." 

I interpret that as saying the umpire can call the game over when both of those thing occur, as others have said above. In the game we are talking about the crew saw Cincinnati players walking off, nobody going for the ball, and so when both the batter and R3 advanced a base, that was it. You can see the PU see the touch and walk toward the dugout. Then the Cincinnati players get the ball from the field guy, whoever he is, appeal something at 2B, something at 1B, and something else at 3B. what they appealed I don;t know, and the crew is off the field when they did appeal, so I assume the crew used the note here to end the game, probably too soon, but used their interp. of 4.09 to get it right.  And Cincinnati did not protest officially so they bought it too.

 

 

I don't have a current BRD but a poster on another site quoted this from the BRD:

"In such a game-ending situation, where runners advance without peril of an out, only the runner from third and the batter-runner are required to advance and touch the next base (4.09b). - page 36."

My 2010 WUM on page 81 has this:

"This requirement for only the runner from third and the batter-runner to advance to their bases, only applies in this situation. With bases full, if runners are forced to advance by reason of the batter putting the ball in play, or because of an uncaught third strike, all runners will be required to advance and touch their next base in order for the game to be ended. If they do not advance to their next bases before defense puts them out...for the third out, no runs will score."

The first sentence refers the situation of a winning run walked in or by HBP.

Whether the current PBUC umpire school agrees with Wendelstedt and whether Wendelstedt still teaches it I don't know.

[BillKen]

What does the rulebook say about defensive abandonment?

[Jimurray]

What does the rulebook say about defensive abandonment?

Without the security guard, this actually could have turned into a time play. I think the run would score timing wise in the OP and this crew did not pick up that stick. From the MLBUM:

 

In the OP R1 abandons and is called out, R2 abandons and is called out. R3 scores before the third out in the OP. So now the defense has to appeal the lack of touching forced bases. Again, my thanks to the security guard.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Jimurray

[Jimurray]

And, to thicken the plot, the security guard may not have taken them off the hook. The lack of a protest might be the save. The guard interference would be a dead ball award and this is what Wendelstedt has to say about that:

 

[grayhawk]

Without the security guard, this actually could have turned into a time play. I think the run would score timing wise in the OP and this crew did not pick up that stick. From the MLBUM:

 

In the OP R1 abandons and is called out, R2 abandons and is called out. R3 scores before the third out in the OP. So now the defense has to appeal the lack of touching forced bases. Again, my thanks to the security guard.

"Lack of touching" is not appealable.  Only bases "missed" or bases left too soon on a ball caught in flight.  "Never reaching a base" cannot be appealed.  The outs for abandonment would have to stand as is.

[Jimurray]

"Lack of touching" is not appealable.  Only bases "missed" or bases left too soon on a ball caught in flight.  "Never reaching a base" cannot be appealed.  The outs for abandonment would have to stand as is.

You might be right. The BRD has quoted Jaska-Roder that an appeal of an abandoned base can a force. But I don't know if PBUC rules that way.  But in the OP you might make a case that R2 missed 3B and turned toward home.

[Jimurray]

You might be right. The BRD has quoted Jaska-Roder that an appeal of an abandoned base can a force. But I don't know if PBUC rules that way.  But in the OP you might make a case that R2 missed 3B and turned toward home.

I think that Wendelstedt agrees that PBUC agrees with you but he doesn't like it: