Does the run score?

[Guest GMGM]

2 out runners at 2nd and 3rd.

Ground ball to 3rd. Runner from 3rd crosses the plate before runner from 2nd is tagged going to 3rd.

Umpire said because batter had not got to 1st base before tag, run does not score. 

[Senor Azul]

The run counts in your scenario because it was scored before the third out was recorded on a tag out which was not a force play. Here’s the applicable rule—OBR rule 5.08(a)

5.08 How a Team Scores 

(a) One run shall be scored each time a runner legally advances to and touches first, second, third and home base before three men are put out to end the inning.

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.

Your umpire was also wrong about the batter-runner because he is considered to have reached first base on the play. His at-bat would be scored as a fielder’s choice (FC) and he would be counted as a runner left on base (LOB) per rule 9.02(g)--

9.02(g) Number of runners left on base by each team. This total shall include all runners who get on base by any means and who do not score and are not put out. The Official Scorer shall include in this total a batter-runner whose batted ball results in another runner being retired for the third out.

[Lou B]

So what happened after the Protest? 

 

[noumpere]

10 hours ago, Guest GMGM said:

2 out runners at 2nd and 3rd.

Ground ball to 3rd. Runner from 3rd crosses the plate before runner from 2nd is tagged going to 3rd.

Umpire said because batter had not got to 1st base before tag, run does not score. 

Was a play made on BR after R2 was tagged?

[Jimurray]

24 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Was a play made on BR after R2 was tagged?

Wouldn't you want to know the code if you get an answer to your question?

[Velho]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

Was a play made on BR after R2 was tagged?

Wouldn't you want to know the code if you get an answer to your question?

Is there any code that allows for 4th out on BR @ 1B?

[Jimurray]

5 minutes ago, Velho said:

Is there any code that allows for 4th out on BR @ 1B?

Why would I ask that question? 

[Guest Tomuic]

There can be no fourth out appeal  for missing a base or not going to a base AFTER THE THIRD OUT ENDS AN INNING. In the offensive play shown here, the third out of the inning  was made before the BR REACHED OR PASSED first base, hence no such FOURTH OUT APPEAL EXISTS.

[Guest Tomuic]

What I said earlier can be misconstrued. To be more clear, if a base is missed or not gone to after the third out of an inning, there is no appeal because that missing of a base does not exist theoretically.

[Velho]

40 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

46 minutes ago, Velho said:

Is there any code that allows for 4th out on BR @ 1B?

Why would I ask that question? 

[Senor Azul]

All of the following can be found in the 2016 BRD (section 3, p. 15)—this is what Mr. Jimurray and Mr. noumpere are referring to…

Play 2-3:  R3, R2, 2 outs. B1 singles to the outfield but injures himself coming out of the box. He cannot continue. R3 scores easily, but R2 is thrown out at home: 3 outs. The catcher then fires to F3, who tags first in advance of BR. Ruling:  In FED/NCAA, cancel R3’s run. In OBR, the run scores, as per OBR official interpretation 4-3…

Wendelstedt:  Play 2-3 does not qualify to become an apparent (advantageous) fourth out. It is made on a runner who has not yet reached a base, not on one who has missed a base or has not properly tagged up from one.

Here’s the official interpretation for FED:

Hopkins:  If the defense gains a third out during play but the batter-runner has not yet reached first at the time of the out, the defense may play on him at first for an advantageous fourth out.

In addition, the 2019-2020 College Baseball Rules Study Guide by George Demetriou states the following…

“Also, if the defense gains a third out during play and the batter-runner has not reached first at the time of the out, a fourth out appeal can negate all runs scored on the play.”

Play 4-89 With runners on second and third and two out, B1 singles to right, but pulls his groin and cannot advance. R3 scores, but R2 is thrown out at the plate for the third out. Ruling:  A fourth out appeal on B1 will cancel the run.

 

Here’s the actual announcement the NCAA made in 2014 concerning this interpretation--

NCAA Baseball Playing Rules Interpretations

March, 2014

13. 8-5j, A.R. 1—in the situation where the third out is recorded at any base other than first base, no run may score if the fourth out is due to the batter-runner not reaching first base before he has been put out.

Example: Two outs, bases loaded, base hit, R3 scores, R2 is thrown out at the plate. B/R has not touched first base due to a leg injury. F2 throws to F3 and the B/R is tagged out.

This is a special situation that would fall under the “fourth-out” appeal process and would allow the defense to take any of the last two outs they would choose for the third out. This interpretation is supported by a response from Jim Evans as to how it is interpreted at the professional level.

[Jimurray]

30 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

All of the following can be found in the 2016 BRD (section 3, p. 15)—this is what Mr. Jimurray and Mr. noumpere are referring to…

Play 2-3:  R3, R2, 2 outs. B1 singles to the outfield but injures himself coming out of the box. He cannot continue. R3 scores easily, but R2 is thrown out at home: 3 outs. The catcher then fires to F3, who tags first in advance of BR. Ruling:  In FED/NCAA, cancel R3’s run. In OBR, the run scores, as per OBR official interpretation 4-3…

Wendelstedt:  Play 2-3 does not qualify to become an apparent (advantageous) fourth out. It is made on a runner who has not yet reached a base, not on one who has missed a base or has not properly tagged up from one.

Here’s the official interpretation for FED:

Hopkins:  If the defense gains a third out during play but the batter-runner has not yet reached first at the time of the out, the defense may play on him at first for an advantageous fourth out.

In addition, the 2019-2020 College Baseball Rules Study Guide by George Demetriou states the following…

“Also, if the defense gains a third out during play and the batter-runner has not reached first at the time of the out, a fourth out appeal can negate all runs scored on the play.”

Play 4-89 With runners on second and third and two out, B1 singles to right, but pulls his groin and cannot advance. R3 scores, but R2 is thrown out at the plate for the third out. Ruling:  A fourth out appeal on B1 will cancel the run.

 

Here’s the actual announcement the NCAA made in 2014 concerning this interpretation--

NCAA Baseball Playing Rules Interpretations

March, 2014

13. 8-5j, A.R. 1—in the situation where the third out is recorded at any base other than first base, no run may score if the fourth out is due to the batter-runner not reaching first base before he has been put out.

Example: Two outs, bases loaded, base hit, R3 scores, R2 is thrown out at the plate. B/R has not touched first base due to a leg injury. F2 throws to F3 and the B/R is tagged out.

This is a special situation that would fall under the “fourth-out” appeal process and would allow the defense to take any of the last two outs they would choose for the third out. This interpretation is supported by a response from Jim Evans as to how it is interpreted at the professional level.

The NCAA cite of support from Jim Evans in OBR is probably from earlier interps circa my 2011 BRD citing Fitzpatrick as agreeing that you can make a fourth out on the BR. But things change and now Wendelstedt does not agree. @TOMUIC might have to check with Jim again. 

[noumpere]

3 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Wouldn't you want to know the code if you get an answer to your question?

First, I'd want to know if the OP was in reference to baseball, softball, kickball, calving ball, or something else.

[Guest Tomuic]

All of these different interpretations are losing sight of what  an appeal by the defense  is intended for. Wendelstadt’s interpretation is correct because he is correctly stating that A MISSED BASE CAN ONLY OCCUR PRIOR TO THE THIRD OUT OF AN INNING. Put another way, no offensive action can occur after the third out of an inning. That is why the MLBUM clearly states that a base runner cannot return to a base after the third out of an inning! Both Wendelstadt and Evans interpretations are obviously correct regarding this situation. In fact all of the other references that were listed here NCAA etc. really seem to miss the fact that an inning is over for the OFFENSE when three outs occur. The defense can still properly appeal if there are apparent fourth or fifth outs to obtain. (that is not in question here), but those apparent fourth or fifth outs must be the result of an appeal for missing a base ( or leaving too soon on a caught fly ball). Now imagine second and third and two outs. A slow grounder is fielded by the shortstop who chases  R2 and tags him out before he gets to third, while R3 has already crossed the plate at the time of the third out. The BR (who is 20 feet short of first) simply turns  and  heads for the dugout to get his equipment, knowing that there are now three outs. Other than Wendelstadt, all the other interpretations cited here treat this action as an “appealable” base running infraction occurring AFTER THE INNING IS OVER. (Which would cancel a legally scored run). The logic in all of these interpretations is faulty because the inning ended when R2 was retired AND THERE WAS NO BASE RUNNING INFRACTION BEFORE THE THIRD OUT OCCURRED.

 

 

[Jimurray]

39 minutes ago, Guest Tomuic said:

All of these different interpretations are losing sight of what  an appeal by the defense  is intended for. Wendelstadt’s interpretation is correct because he is correctly stating that A MISSED BASE CAN ONLY OCCUR PRIOR TO THE THIRD OUT OF AN INNING. Put another way, no offensive action can occur after the third out of an inning. That is why the MLBUM clearly states that a base runner cannot return to a base after the third out of an inning! Both Wendelstadt and Evans interpretations are obviously correct regarding this situation. In fact all of the other references that were listed here NCAA etc. really seem to miss the fact that an inning is over for the OFFENSE when three outs occur. The defense can still properly appeal if there are apparent fourth or fifth outs to obtain. (that is not in question here), but those apparent fourth or fifth outs must be the result of an appeal for missing a base ( or leaving too soon on a caught fly ball). Now imagine second and third and two outs. A slow grounder is fielded by the shortstop who chases  R2 and tags him out before he gets to third, while R3 has already crossed the plate at the time of the third out. The BR (who is 20 feet short of first) simply turns  and  heads for the dugout to get his equipment, knowing that there are now three outs. Other than Wendelstadt, all the other interpretations cited here treat this action as an “appealable” base running infraction occurring AFTER THE INNING IS OVER. (Which would cancel a legally scored run). The logic in all of these interpretations is faulty because the inning ended when R2 was retired AND THERE WAS NO BASE RUNNING INFRACTION BEFORE THE THIRD OUT OCCURRED.

 

 

Doesn't the 2014 NCAA interp cite Evans as agreeing with them as opposed to Wendestedt? In fact in 2011 the BRD still had OBR's Fitzpatrick 2001 cite as that fourth out could happen. Maybe Evans was still of that persuasion in 2014. But I agree with you, the NCAA and FED interps don't make sense but they did seem to agree with OBR at some point in time in the past. Childress says this in 2011; "Of all the interpretations I've encountered over the years, this is the most non-intuitive." 

[Guest Tomuic]

Mr. Jim Murray, I am glad that we agree that Federation and NCAA make no sense in this matter. In fact I am convinced that the “higher-ups” in these organizations latch on to some phrase (such as forth out appeal in this case) and expound on situations that do not fit the phrase or rule that they are citing , or more importantly actually CONTRADICT other rules related to the subject, which is exactly what I think has occurred with this “fourth out appeal concept” over the years.

[Guest Tomuic]

Here is another example illustrating how absurd it is to think that a BR has committed an “appealable” base running infraction for not running all the way to first base AFTER THREE OUTS have been recorded.

R1 and R3, 2 out. The first baseman fields a grounder and throws to second for what will be an inning ending force out. However, R1 is safe and then is tagged out after oversliding second, allowing R3 to score a run (time play). The BR, who never really ran hard  out of the box, stops running 20 feet short of first base when the tag is made on R1, ENDING THE INNING. Once again, nothing offensively can happen after the third out of an inning, and no offensive player is obligated to run after the third out of an inning nor be penalized for not continuing to run! By following the absurd interpretation of NCAA and Federation, one is creating new requirements on runners which simply do not exist under any rules code. I hope that Federation  and the NCAA will revisit this thinking and realize their mistakes.

 

[noumpere]

This has been argues since the internet was invented (and probably before).  Arguments can be made for both sides.  Those at a higher pay grade than I made a decision; and as those have been replaced the decision has been changed (probably multiple times).

 

All we can do is apply the rule as it has been decided; not as we wish it had been decided.

[Guest Tomuic]

Your point is well taken. However, the Premise for the argument in support of the NCAA and Federation interpretation is NOT sound. To support their interpretation the definition of an appeal play,and when an inning is over, along with new requirements for base runners would be needed. 
Good solid interpretations come from applying available rules along with sound reasoning which in many cases can be found in already existing rule interpretations in other rule codes.(provided one is Open minded enough to explore and research those various options)

[Jimurray]

57 minutes ago, Guest Tomuic said:

Your point is well taken. However, the Premise for the argument in support of the NCAA and Federation interpretation is NOT sound. To support their interpretation the definition of an appeal play,and when an inning is over, along with new requirements for base runners would be needed. 
Good solid interpretations come from applying available rules along with sound reasoning which in many cases can be found in already existing rule interpretations in other rule codes.(provided one is Open minded enough to explore and research those various options)

You seem to be ignoring the fact that NCAA and FED did agree with an earlier OBR interp that seems to been in effect until 2011 and maybe 2014 if NCAA is correct that Jim Evans said that was the professional interp. We need to know when Wendelstedt published a different interp and whether all in OBR agreed with it and whether NCAA was made aware that they now differed from OBR.

[Guest Tomuic]

Your point is well taken. However, the Premise for the argument in support of the NCAA and Federation interpretation is NOT sound. To support their interpretation the definition of an appeal play,and when an inning is over, along with new requirements for base runners would be needed. 
Good solid interpretations come from applying available rules along with sound reasoning which in many cases can be found in already existing rule interpretations in other rule codes.(provided one is Open minded enough to explore and research those various options)

I guess what I’m saying is that at the present time any interpretation that is not aligned with a OBR regarding this matter can’t  possibly be correct from an overall rules standpoint. I realize what you are saying regarding interpretations in the past with a OBR and NCAA, but I would think that the NCAA has really not bothered to stay up-to-date with regard to the sensible interpretation currently in the OBR.

The 2015 WRIM contains the present interpretation, but as I’ve indicated in the past, they are still selling 2015 editions in 2022 (which is when I was able to purchase one), a very unfortunate fact.

[Jimurray]

14 minutes ago, Guest Tomuic said:

Your point is well taken. However, the Premise for the argument in support of the NCAA and Federation interpretation is NOT sound. To support their interpretation the definition of an appeal play,and when an inning is over, along with new requirements for base runners would be needed. 
Good solid interpretations come from applying available rules along with sound reasoning which in many cases can be found in already existing rule interpretations in other rule codes.(provided one is Open minded enough to explore and research those various options)

I guess what I’m saying is that at the present time any interpretation that is not aligned with a OBR regarding this matter can’t  possibly be correct from an overall rules standpoint. I realize what you are saying regarding interpretations in the past with a OBR and NCAA, but I would think that the NCAA has really not bothered to stay up-to-date with regard to the sensible interpretation currently in the OBR.

The 2015 WRIM contains the present interpretation, but as I’ve indicated in the past, they are still selling 2015 editions in 2022 (which is when I was able to purchase one), a very unfortunate fact.

The question is did Jim Evans call them, NCAA, in 2015 to let them know the interp he told them was the professional interp in 2014 no longer was the professional interp. 

[Guest Tomuic]

I really don’t know the answer to that question, but I also think it’s possible that the NCAA in 2014 thought that Jim Evans agreed with them, but he might’ve been saying something different than what they thought he was saying. I’m not trying to make more problems, but we just don’t know how knowledgeable the people who might’ve been in touch with Jim at that time really were.

[Guest TOMUIC]

The following email from Randy Bruns, Secretary for the Rules Committee for NCAA Baseball, should clear up any confusion regarding what is and is not a fourth out appeal in NCAA Baseball. 

On Aug 24, 2022, at 3:22 PM, Randy Bruns <rbruns11@gmail.com> wrote:
 



Tom:

 

I don’t usually do very many “interpretations” this time of year because of the amount of work being done getting ready for next year’s NCAA season, but I have looked at your question regarding this unusual situation. I have not found any reference to this type of play in either the current versions of OBR or the MLB Umpire Manual.  I did see a reference in an old copy (2015) of a Baseball Rules Differences  book compiled by Carl Childress that quotes Jim Paronto.

 

Respectively, In my opinion, this type of play is not a “fourth out appeal” as there is not a baserunning infraction.  The batter-runner should not be penalized for stopping before reaching first base if the third out has already been called which would end the inning.  The defense cannot be expected to continue to play on another runner after the third out has been called, nor should the offense be expected to continue to run the bases after the inning is over due to the third out being called.  

 

I hope that is helpful.

 

Randy Bruns

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

Randy’s email and phone number are listed in the NCAA Rulebook for anyone who needs rule interpretations.

 

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, Guest TOMUIC said:

The following email from Randy Bruns, Secretary for the Rules Committee for NCAA Baseball, should clear up any confusion regarding what is and is not a fourth out appeal in NCAA Baseball. 

On Aug 24, 2022, at 3:22 PM, Randy Bruns <rbruns11@gmail.com> wrote:
 



Tom:

 

I don’t usually do very many “interpretations” this time of year because of the amount of work being done getting ready for next year’s NCAA season, but I have looked at your question regarding this unusual situation. I have not found any reference to this type of play in either the current versions of OBR or the MLB Umpire Manual.  I did see a reference in an old copy (2015) of a Baseball Rules Differences  book compiled by Carl Childress that quotes Jim Paronto.

 

Respectively, In my opinion, this type of play is not a “fourth out appeal” as there is not a baserunning infraction.  The batter-runner should not be penalized for stopping before reaching first base if the third out has already been called which would end the inning.  The defense cannot be expected to continue to play on another runner after the third out has been called, nor should the offense be expected to continue to run the bases after the inning is over due to the third out being called.  

 

I hope that is helpful.

 

Randy Bruns

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

Randy’s email and phone number are listed in the NCAA Rulebook for anyone who needs rule interpretations.

 

It's not that helpful unless it ends up on the NCAA test, reversing their ruling in 2014 which I believe was espoused by Tom Hiler and supported by Jaska-Roder. You can read up on it here:$100 Challenge - Page 8 - Rules - Umpire-Empire

 

[BigBlue4u]

"Good solid interpretations come from applying available rules along with sound reasoning which in many cases can be found in already existing rule interpretations in other rule codes. (provided one is Open minded enough to explore and research those various options)"

 

Amen!!