Does the run count?

[Guest deorio99]

Man on 2nd and third two outs.  Ball hit to third base.  Runner going from second to third get tagged after the runner from third cross the plate.  Does the run count?

[maven]

Yes. R2 is not forced to advance, so this is a time play. As the run scored before the third out was made, it counts. Same in all codes.

[Richvee]

This is not a force play. It's a time play, and if R3 crosses the plate before the tag, the run counts.

 

[Guest deorio99]

Does the runner going to first have to make it to first before the third out happens?

[maven]

1 minute ago, Guest deorio99 said:

Does the runner going to first have to make it to first before the third out happens?

No, why would he? He doesn't make the 3rd out, and he's not scoring a run.

The only question on a time play is whether the runner touches the plate before another runner makes the third out.

If the batter-runner or any runner forced to advance makes the third out, then it's not a time play: no run scores in those cases. Perhaps you're running them together.

[Richvee]

1 minute ago, Guest deorio99 said:

Does the runner going to first have to make it to first before the third out happens?

No. The batter runner was not put out for the 3rd out before reaching 1B. The rule reads as follows...

EXCEPTION: A run is not scored if the runner
advances to home base during a play in which the third
out is made (1) by the batter-runner before he touches
first base; (2) by any runner being forced out; or (3) by
a preceding runner who is declared out because he
failed to touch one of the bases.

[stkjock]

If the defense then threw to first to retire the BR, would it matter, I think no, however the advantageous forth out thought naws at me ( I know, I think,I know anyway, that's  usually on an appeal).  There by retiring the BR b4 he reaches and taking the run off the board.  

[Richvee]

1 minute ago, stkjock said:

If the defense then threw to first to retire the BR, would it matter, I think no, however the advantageous forth out thought naws at me ( I know, I think,I know anyway, that's  usually on an appeal).  There by retiring the BR b4 he reaches and taking the run off the board.  

This is similar to a discussion we had here a while ago where we had R3,R2 2 outs, clean hit to RF. R3 scores, F9 fires home and gets R2 at the plate, however  BR pulls up lame running to first and falls down before reaching first. F2 then throws to F3 for an apparent 4th out. Does R3's run count?

[Jimurray]

14 minutes ago, Richvee said:

This is similar to a discussion we had here a while ago where we had R3,R2 2 outs, clean hit to RF. R3 scores, F9 fires home and gets R2 at the plate, however  BR pulls up lame running to first and falls down before reaching first. F2 then throws to F3 for an apparent 4th out. Does R3's run count?

Yes in OBR. but no in NCAA. I don't know in FED.

[maven]

10 hours ago, Richvee said:

This is similar to a discussion we had here a while ago where we had R3,R2 2 outs, clean hit to RF. R3 scores, F9 fires home and gets R2 at the plate, however  BR pulls up lame running to first and falls down before reaching first. F2 then throws to F3 for an apparent 4th out. Does R3's run count?

Yes in FED.

An advantageous 4th out must be the result of an appeal (8-2-6i). The relevant kind of appeal is one of two kinds: missed base, or retouch (8-2-6a). Playing on the BR at 1B is neither kind of appeal: obviously not retouch, and he cannot miss a base without passing it (at least once, 8-2-6l).

Because no appeal is possible, no apparent 4th out is possible, and thus the BR cannot be retired on this play after 3 are out. So the time play remains, and the run counts.

[Senor Azul]

From the Baseball Rule Differences by Carl Childress (2016 edition, section 3, p. 15:

Federation Official Interpretation 2-3: HOPKINS:  If the defense gains a third out during play but the batter-runner has not reached first at the time of the out, the defense may play on him at first for an advantageous fourth out. (9-1-1d) (website 2010 Situation 20)

In addition, NCAA uses this same interpretation but OBR does not.

[Replacematt]

9 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

From the Baseball Rule Differences by Carl Childress (2016 edition, section 3, p. 15:

 

Federation Official Interpretation 2-3: HOPKINS:  If the defense gains a third out during play but the batter-runner has not reached first at the time of the out, the defense may play on him at first for an advantageous fourth out. (9-1-1d) (website 2010 Situation 20)

 

In addition, NCAA uses this same interpretation but OBR does not.

 

One of the dumbest F*#King interpretations ever.

[Senor Azul]

Good news, Mr. Matt. Carl Childress agrees with you concerning this interpretation. Only he states his displeasure with it much more elegantly and diplomatically:

"Of all the interpretations I've encountered over the last 61 years, this is the most irrational." 

[basejester]

Advantageous 4th out appeal was kind of dumb in the first place.  This is just an extension of that dumbness.

 

[James88]

So now I'm confused and need to have this straight.

In FED for the example given by stkjock (tags runner for 3rd out, then throws to first for a 4th out), we're saying the run would NOT count?  Force out for advantageous fourth out would negate the run?

That's the way I'm reading the Childress citation but want to be sure.

Thanks.

[noumpere]

12 hours ago, James88 said:

So now I'm confused and need to have this straight.

In FED for the example given by stkjock (tags runner for 3rd out, then throws to first for a 4th out), we're saying the run would NOT count?  Force out for advantageous fourth out would negate the run?

That's the way I'm reading the Childress citation but want to be sure.

Thanks.

That is the interp.  IT was debated extensively on some predecessor board to this (maybe McGriff's; maybe even rec.sport.officiating).  Most, prior to the interp, came down on the other side of it.

[maven]

35 minutes ago, noumpere said:

That is the interp.  IT was debated extensively on some predecessor board to this (maybe McGriff's; maybe even rec.sport.officiating).  Most, prior to the interp, came down on the other side of it.

I think @lawump must already be on page 7 of his to do list....

[James88]

Thanks.

[Replacematt]

3 hours ago, noumpere said:

That is the interp.  IT was debated extensively on some predecessor board to this (maybe McGriff's; maybe even rec.sport.officiating).  Most, prior to the interp, came down on the other side of it.

I think it was RSO about 1999. I don't remember this on McGriff's--even in the pre-Wild West.