Fourth out must be appeal in OBR? Is there an official ruling?

[beerguy55]

I've seen this debated in many places, but the debates I'm finding are a few years old.  Just curious if the fourth out where BR hasn't reached first yet would be allowed in MLB?  Is there an official ruling...or is everyone kind of morbidly waiting to see if it ever arises in an MLB game?

I know it's allowed in NCAA, but my understanding is the argument/debate from detractors is there is no basis in the rules for the interpretation.

The scenario I can see happening:

R2/R3, slow ground ball to F6.  F6 assumes he has no shot at BR.  R3 touches plate, F6 touches R2 for third out, then realizes that BR has tripped, and is only now getting up and advancing to first - throws to F3 for fourth out.  In this case there isn't even an injury, and you can't make any argument for abandonment.

I would agree that the rule book wouldn't allow this fourth out, because it's not an appeal.  It's a fielder's choice, G6 unassisted, inning over, run scores.  Or on a single to CF, R2 thrown out at home - FC 8-2, inning over, run scores.

To me, if we really don't want the run to count, it is resolved by re-wording this rule - and thereby removing any need for a post-third out action:

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.

To something like this:

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

 

 

 

[Rich Ives]

16 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I've seen this debated in many places, but the debates I'm finding are a few years old.  Just curious if the fourth out where BR hasn't reached first yet would be allowed in MLB?  Is there an official ruling...or is everyone kind of morbidly waiting to see if it ever arises in an MLB game?

I know it's allowed in NCAA, but my understanding is the argument/debate from detractors is there is no basis in the rules for the interpretation.

The scenario I can see happening:

R2/R3, slow ground ball to F6.  F6 assumes he has no shot at BR.  R3 touches plate, F6 touches R2 for third out, then realizes that BR has tripped, and is only now getting up and advancing to first - throws to F3 for fourth out.  In this case there isn't even an injury, and you can't make any argument for abandonment.

I would agree that the rule book wouldn't allow this fourth out, because it's not an appeal.  It's a fielder's choice, G6 unassisted, inning over, run scores.  Or on a single to CF, R2 thrown out at home - FC 8-2, inning over, run scores.

To me, if we really don't want the run to count, it is resolved by re-wording this rule - and thereby removing any need for a post-third out action:

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.

To something like this:

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

 

 

 

Why reward the defense for a dumb move by F6?

[maven]

I just saw this in the BRD the other day. Wendelstedt has a ruling disallowing this "appeal" on the grounds that (baserunning) appeals are only for missed bases and failures to retouch, and the BR not having reached 1B is neither. I don't have my book here; someone can post it (it's in the first 10 sections somewhere).

As FED has the same appeal provisions (explicitly for missed base or retouch per 8-2-6a), and because the "fourth out appeal" appears in the same exact rule (8-2-6i), I would rule the same in FED.

I'm aware that there's an old e-mail from Hopkins from 2000 or something that has a contrary ruling. So sue me.

[maven]

Just now, Rich Ives said:

Why reward the defense for a dumb move by F6?

That's not a rule.

[Rich Ives]

3 minutes ago, maven said:

That's not a rule.

Coach rule.

 

[beerguy55]

41 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Coach rule.

 

Depends on the coach - defensive coach or offensive coach.

I do however, agree.  It should be a simple fielder's choice, and the run should score.

In all seriousness, I wouldn't call it a dumb move by the shortstop...if BR hadn't tripped, it's the right move.  If my SS is aware enough to know that this ground ball is moving too slow to throw a typical runner out at first (without having to get the ball, look up and then make a decision), and also aware enough to see he has another option to get an out, I want him to make that move every day of the week.  I'd rather have three out with a run scored, over two out a run scored and runners on 1st and 3rd, and with few exceptions I'll take the sure out over risking missing the third out at first.

Ideally, you hope someone is communicating, but even then...he is going to hear "one, one" on almost any ground ball he gets, and also, there's a high chance that nobody will notice the runner is on the ground before it's too late - because everybody is watching the ball.

[basejester]

I feel like this is like the debating the number of angels who can dance on pinhead.  It's interesting from an academic perspective, but is so rare that it doesn't justify the level of attention it gets.  (Just my opinion.)

That said, I don't think you can have a 4th out appeal on a play that isn't an appeal.   This discussion is the problem with creating new rules with interpretations.

 

 

[Rich Ives]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Depends on the coach - defensive coach or offensive coach.

I do however, agree.  It should be a simple fielder's choice, and the run should score.

In all seriousness, I wouldn't call it a dumb move by the shortstop...if BR hadn't tripped, it's the right move.  If my SS is aware enough to know that this ground ball is moving too slow to throw a typical runner out at first (without having to get the ball, look up and then make a decision), and also aware enough to see he has another option to get an out, I want him to make that move every day of the week.  I'd rather have three out with a run scored, over two out a run scored and runners on 1st and 3rd, and with few exceptions I'll take the sure out over risking missing the third out at first.

Ideally, you hope someone is communicating, but even then...he is going to hear "one, one" on almost any ground ball he gets, and also, there's a high chance that nobody will notice the runner is on the ground before it's too late - because everybody is watching the ball.

If the ball is getting there too slowly to get the B-R then R2 will not be close enough to catch and tag (or go home with it).

What decision does he have to make with two out. Throw the ball to 1B.

[beerguy55]

15 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

If the ball is getting there too slowly to get the B-R then R2 will not be close enough to catch and tag (or go home with it).

What decision does he have to make with two out. Throw the ball to 1B.

Unless R2 is napping or indecisive, and is right beside him so he can see R2 is there for the easy tag. 

[beerguy55]

6 hours ago, basejester said:

I feel like this is like the debating the number of angels who can dance on pinhead.  It's interesting from an academic perspective, but is so rare that it doesn't justify the level of attention it gets.  (Just my opinion.)

That said, I don't think you can have a 4th out appeal on a play that isn't an appeal.   This discussion is the problem with creating new rules with interpretations.

 

 

Wait, this was on Final Jeopardy last week...the answer is four.

I do agree with you...I just find it interesting (and I'm sure you will question my definition of interesting) that the OBR has several examples and "approved rulings" for situations that are just as unlikely as this one...situations that you and I likely have never seen, nor will ever see, but felt the need (or had the foresight) to document them...but didn't address this one.

To me that is just one more piece of evidence that the fourth out is only for appeals.

[basejester]

40 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Wait, this was on Final Jeopardy last week...the answer is four.

I do agree with you...I just find it interesting (and I'm sure you will question my definition of interesting) that the OBR has several examples and "approved rulings" for situations that are just as unlikely as this one...situations that you and I likely have never seen, nor will ever see, but felt the need (or had the foresight) to document them...but didn't address this one.

To me that is just one more piece of evidence that the fourth out is only for appeals.

The 4th out AR is a fairly recent addition to the rules.  So it now too requires interpretation.

 

[Richvee]

Wasn't there a similar NCAA question on a test a few years back?

Something like R3 R2, two outs, base hit to RF, R3 scores, F9 throws home and gets R2, meanwhile BR comes up lame, limping to 1B, F2 fires to F3 ahead of BR for an apparent 4th out. Does R3's run count?

[Jimurray]

8 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Wasn't there a similar NCAA question on a test a few years back?

Something like R3 R2, two outs, base hit to RF, R3 scores, F9 throws home and gets R2, meanwhile BR comes up lame, limping to 1B, F2 fires to F3 ahead of BR for an apparent 4th out. Does R3's run count?

Yes, last year or two, NCAA will allow the limping BR to be put out at 1B for the fourth out and negate the run. Head scratching.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

Yes, last year or two, NCAA will allow the limping BR to be put out at 1B for the fourth out and negate the run. Head scratching.

 

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

Wasn't there a similar NCAA question on a test a few years back?

Something like R3 R2, two outs, base hit to RF, R3 scores, F9 throws home and gets R2, meanwhile BR comes up lame, limping to 1B, F2 fires to F3 ahead of BR for an apparent 4th out. Does R3's run count?

Found this:

https://ncaabaseball.arbitersports.com/Groups/105039/Library/files/14 March Interps.pdf

Item 13

[Stk004]

1 minute ago, beerguy55 said:

 

Found this:

https://ncaabaseball.arbitersports.com/Groups/105039/Library/files/14 March Interps.pdf

Item 13

Interesting. Good find, coach 

[maven]

8 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

 

Found this:

https://ncaabaseball.arbitersports.com/Groups/105039/Library/files/14 March Interps.pdf

Item 13

This ruling dates back to Paronto deciding to follow the Hopkins ruling. The bad news is, NCAA guys pretty much have to abide by this "interp."

The good news is that most of us will go for our entire careers without ever seeing this.

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, maven said:

This ruling dates back to Paronto deciding to follow the Hopkins ruling. The bad news is, NCAA guys pretty much have to abide by this "interp."

The good news is that most of us will go for our entire careers without ever seeing this.

It was also the OBR ruling at the time (based on whatever "expert" preceded Wendlestedt becoming so popular).  I remember discussing this on McGriff's about 100 years ago (or so it seems)

 

Maybe we can get them all to change.

[BretMan]

I think that this 4th out interp (allow it) was in the old Jaska/Roder manual.