Would have kicked this one.

[rampro]

Going through case plays from Wendelstedt and found this one. I would have missed (a) but would have got (b).

R2 (a) one out (b) two outs.  The batter hits a ball to right, scoring R2. The BR misses first base and is thrown out at second. The defense then throws the ball to first base to appeal the BR missing it.

Ruling: In (a) the appeal will not be allowed.  In (b) the BR is out for the apparent fourth out before first base and no run scores.

[Rich Ives]

In a) BR is already out. Now two outs. Exchanging the tag out for an out at 1B still ends up with two outs. So the appeal at 1B doesn't mean anything.

What would you have kicked?

 

[maven]

The reason for disallowing the appeal in (a) is that it confers no advantage. The BR is out at 2B, and the run will score whether he is put out at 1B or 2B for the second out.

In (b) OTOH, we grant the appeal because it takes a run off the board (BR making 3rd out before touching 1B = no runs score). Remember that an "apparent" 4th out must always be an advantageous 4th out.

[noumpere]

Agreed with the above reasoning.  On the other hand, if you do "allow" the appeal, there's no real harm, either.

[Replacematt]

This would be very interesting in a no-hitter or perfect game. The defense may want to get the appeal out to nullify a hit, yet they can't do that by rule.

[Rich Ives]

25 minutes ago, Matt said:

This would be very interesting in a no-hitter or perfect game. The defense may want to get the appeal out to nullify a hit, yet they can't do that by rule.

I claim it was an advantageous 4th out .

[Replacematt]

33 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

I claim it was an advantageous 4th out .

By rule, that requires a situation to nullify a run.

[ricka56]

21 minutes ago, Matt said:

By rule, that requires a situation to nullify a run.

Rule citation, please. The advantageous 4th out rule gives an example of a run being nullified, but I don't see where a run nullification is a criteria for this rule application as you claim.

But, I don't think that there is any advantageous 2nd out rule option (OP(a)). 

[Rich Ives]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

By rule, that requires a situation to nullify a run.

I don't think tere;s such a rule and it would be advantageous.

[maven]

3 hours ago, Matt said:

By rule, that requires a situation to nullify a run.

Matt, I think that's by interpretation, not by rule. 5.09(c) does not define "advantage."

2 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

I don't think there's such a rule; and it would be advantageous.

It would not be advantageous with respect to a team winning or losing the game, but only with respect to a player's stats. The rule permits a 4th out when it gives the defense the advantage.

If it were "advantageous" in the sense you propose, then the appeal should be granted for the first or second out of an inning, which is just as likely to affect a no-hitter or perfect game. Yet by interpretation (in the OP), such an appeal is disallowed. So evidently benefiting individual players does not constitute 'advantage' in the relevant sense.

[Rich Ives]

2 hours ago, maven said:

Matt, I think that's by interpretation, not by rule. 5.09(c) does not define "advantage."

It would not be advantageous with respect to a team winning or losing the game, but only with respect to a player's stats. The rule permits a 4th out when it gives the defense the advantage.

If it were "advantageous" in the sense you propose, then the appeal should be granted for the first or second out of an inning, which is just as likely to affect a no-hitter or perfect game. Yet by interpretation (in the OP), such an appeal is disallowed. So evidently benefiting individual players does not constitute 'advantage' in the relevant sense.

I said I'd claim it. I'd probably try a missed base appeal with less than two outs. No harm in trying. Might even protest so it would get reviewed and the rule re-interpreted. That worked for George Brett.

[maven]

1 hour ago, Rich Ives said:

I said I'd claim it. I'd probably try a missed base appeal with less than two outs. No harm in trying. Might even protest so it would get reviewed and the rule re-interpreted. That worked for George Brett.

Good luck with that. But your comment would be more suitable for coach-empire.com.

[Richvee]

6 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

I said I'd claim it. I'd probably try a missed base appeal with less than two outs. No harm in trying. Might even protest so it would get reviewed and the rule re-interpreted. That worked for George Brett.

Love the George Brett analogy. KC literally protested a written rule that was ruled correctly on the field, and won the protest by getting the rule changed.  However,  a protest for such a missed base to preserve a no hitter would not be upheld because the ruling would have nothing to do the result of the game.....and there's no way they'd replay this gave from the point of the missed base.......It could though,get the "powers that be" to review the interp.