Failed Fourth Out Time Play in Toronto vs Boston

[Lindsay]

Boston scored a run during Ceddanne Rafaela's sacrifice fly despite Red Sox runner R3 Anthony Seigler failing to tag up, bringing Blue Jays manager John Schneider out of Toronto's dugout as Umpire Crew Chief Chris Guccione explained a cavalcade of rules from time play to fourth out, appeal, and retouch. BOSS Operator & scoreboard factors played a key role in the confusion and we review it all here.

The play: With runners on first and third and one out, Red Sox batter Rafaela hit a fly ball to Blue Jays CF Brett Bateman as baserunners and R1 Nick Sogard and R3 Anthony Seigler ran the bases as if there were two outs, failing to tag up. Toronto appealed R1 Sogard's failure to tag up at first base and ran off the field as the inning ended on the fly out-appeal out double play.

The controversy: Umpires ruled that R3 Seigler's run counted, despite Seigler failing to tag or retouch third base, as required by rule on a caught fly ball.

The confusion: Toronto's Ball-Out-Strike System (BOSS) operator mistakenly keyed two outs on the scoreboard, instead of one, erroneously attributing a second out to the prior play which featured a close catch/no catch call with Blue Jays 1B Vladimir Guerrero Jr. short-hopping Sogard's sharp line drive, ruled no catch (safe) by 1B Umpire Nestor Ceja. The BOSS operator then changed the scoreboard's displayed "2" outs during Rafaela's fly ball, which occurred on the first pitch of the at-bat. The Red Sox baserunners may have falsely relied on the scoreboard's erroneous "2" out display and ran the bases as if there had been two outs.

The rules review: First and foremost, we visit Official Baseball Rule 5.08(a) regarding how a team scores: "One run shall be scored each time a runner legally advances to and touches first, second, third and home base before three players are put out to end the inning." When a play occurs during which a runner may or may not have touched home plate prior to the third out occurring at another base on another runner, a time play occurs in which the plate umpire must determine if the touch of home plate occurred prior to the third out or not.

There is an exception to time plays in OBR 5.08(a): "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 they touch first base; (2) by any runner being forced out; or (3) by a preceding runner who is declared out because they failed to touch one of the bases."

Toronto may have argued that exception (2) regarding force plays applied, but this is incorrect: "A FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses their right to occupy a base by reason of the batter becoming a runner. (Force Play) Comment: Confusion regarding this play is removed by remembering that frequently the “force” situation is removed during the play."

Accordingly, R1 Sogard may have been forced to advance at the beginning of the play, but the force situation was removed when the batter was retired on the fly out to CF. An approved ruling in OBR 5.08 further reinforces that failing to retouch a base is not a force play.

The definition of appeal play thus becomes a factor: "Any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when: (1) After a fly ball is caught, they fail to retouch their original base before they are or their original base is tagged."

Because R3 Seigler touched home plate prior to the appeal play third out on R1 Sogard at first place, R3 Seigler's run counts due to the time play. In order for R3 Seigler's run not to count, the Blue Jays would have to appeal that R3 failed to retouch third base after the caught fly ball. Toronto did not.

Although the third out was the appeal on R1 at first base, R3 could still be appealed under OBR 5.09(c)'s fourth out rule: "If the third out is made during a play in which an appeal play is sustained on another runner, the appeal play decision takes precedence in determining the out. If there is more than one appeal during a play that ends a half-inning, the defense may elect to take the out that gives it the advantage."

Appeals must be made before the next pitch, play, or attempted play, but because the appeal on R1 ended the inning, a fourth out appeal on R3 would have to occur before the defensive team leaves the field, defined as the pitcher and all infielders crossing the foul line/leaving fair territory on the way to the bench.

With no appeal, we revert to a time play, meaning that R3's run counts and the inning is over.

Video as follows:
Alternate Link: Rules review of Toronto's failed fourth out and time play as Boston scores

View the full article

[beerguy55]

I was screaming at the TV that night.  Idiot announcers.    The live broadcast wasn't clear in real time if the third out was appealed at first or third, so I asked my wife that during the commercial...and let her know, assuming the appeal was made at first, exactly what was going to happen after the commercials ended.  Best part was, the next day she went to work and schooled a couple of colleagues on how the fourth out appeal works.

 

Not only did the team leave the field on their own - it's clear that some of them also thought the fly ball was the third out, and are leaving the field even before the third out appeal.

 

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

I was screaming at the TV that night.  Idiot announcers.    The live broadcast wasn't clear in real time if the third out was appealed at first or third, so I asked my wife that during the commercial...and let her know, assuming the appeal was made at first, exactly what was going to happen after the commercials ended.  Best part was, the next day she went to work and schooled a couple of colleagues on how the fourth out appeal works.

 

Not only did the team leave the field on their own - it's clear that some of them also thought the fly ball was the third out, and are leaving the field even before the third out appeal.

 

Need a coach opinion. PU waved off the run incorrectly but Schneider had from the out at 1B to that point to tell his fielders to appeal. The PU did not do the usual mechanic to score the run on a time play. Would you and should Schneider know that that run scored and a fourth out appeal was needed. 

[beerguy55]

4 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Need a coach opinion. PU waved off the run incorrectly but Schneider had from the out at 1B to that point to tell his fielders to appeal. The PU did not do the usual mechanic to score the run on a time play. Would you and should Schneider know that that run scored and a fourth out appeal was needed. 

A couple of things to unpack:

In my opinion Schneider should know that rule.  This is a trivia question almost every Little League kid is taught when he's 12 years old.  Any club team that's been on a bus for any length of time plays these trivia games.  Just like the "make three outs with the ball never touching a fielder or the ground" one.  We got good at music and movie trivia, and baseball rules trivia.  I'm disappointed so many players, or color commentators who used to players - I'm talking to you, Caleb Joseph (who is normally pretty damned good) - didn't have a clue here.

I think problem one is, as I go through the verbal history of the event, Max Scherzer was literally the only person on either team who knew the rule.  If Schneider had known the rule, then it comes down to whether or not he noticed that R3 also left early.

As to the ump's actions and the timing of everything, PU waved off the run, which is such an odd mistake for a pro, but by then the defense was off the field (or within a few inches of it).  I don't think he factors in here.  He certainly didn't wave the team off the field.

Ideally, I'd want that indication from Blue that the run is counting, and then MAYBE it gives a coach a chance to notice that R3 crossed the plate, and lets him do a little math in his head to figure out R3 must have left early.  But realistically, Toronto's defense was off the field so fast that PU could easily have given the "run scores" mechanic and not been done before they were off the field.  

Also realistically, if PU does give the proper mechanic here, I'm betting that Schneider's reaction is "wtf?" and then going out to argue or get an explanation...NOT stopping his defense from leaving the field and appealing at third...because he didn't know the rule.

Sure, I can see a coach who fully knows the rule still losing track of R3 here - R1 leaving early was so blatant it could easily draw focus away from R3. Except for not knowing which base Toronto appealed as I watched it live, I saw all this in real time - I can tell you if I'm the coach/manager I'm yelling at them to throw to three, and then I'm yelling at them if they went to one and are coming off the field...I probably even come out of the dugout waving my arms and doing everything I can but physically grabbing them to get someone to step on third base before leaving fair territory.

btw - can a coach physically assist a defensive player??

[Catch18]

A couple of things to unpack:
In my opinion Schneider should know that rule.  This is a trivia question almost every Little League kid is taught when he's 12 years old.  Any club team that's been on a bus for any length of time plays these trivia games.  Just like the "make three outs with the ball never touching a fielder or the ground" one.  We got good at music and movie trivia, and baseball rules trivia.  I'm disappointed so many players, or color commentators who used to players - I'm talking to you, Caleb Joseph (who is normally pretty damned good) - didn't have a clue here.
I think problem one is, as I go through the verbal history of the event, Max Scherzer was literally the only person on either team who knew the rule.  If Schneider had known the rule, then it comes down to whether or not he noticed that R3 also left early.
As to the ump's actions and the timing of everything, PU waved off the run, which is such an odd mistake for a pro, but by then the defense was off the field (or within a few inches of it).  I don't think he factors in here.  He certainly didn't wave the team off the field.
Ideally, I'd want that indication from Blue that the run is counting, and then MAYBE it gives a coach a chance to notice that R3 crossed the plate, and lets him do a little math in his head to figure out R3 must have left early.  But realistically, Toronto's defense was off the field so fast that PU could easily have given the "run scores" mechanic and not been done before they were off the field.  
Also realistically, if PU does give the proper mechanic here, I'm betting that Schneider's reaction is "wtf?" and then going out to argue or get an explanation...NOT stopping his defense from leaving the field and appealing at third...because he didn't know the rule.
Sure, I can see a coach who fully knows the rule still losing track of R3 here - R1 leaving early was so blatant it could easily draw focus away from R3. Except for not knowing which base Toronto appealed as I watched it live, I saw all this in real time - I can tell you if I'm the coach/manager I'm yelling at them to throw to three, and then I'm yelling at them if they went to one and are coming off the field...I probably even come out of the dugout waving my arms and doing everything I can but physically grabbing them to get someone to step on third base before leaving fair territory.
btw - can a coach physically assist a defensive player??

Just using the NFHS since I’ve got it handy:

Section 3 - Bench & Field Conduct
Art 1…A coach, player, substitute, blah blah blah, shall not -
a. Leave the dugout during live ball for unauthorized purposes.

So can they? No. What’s the 1st penalty? A warning. Whoopie.

f-4…”behave in any manner not in accordance with fair play.” Do we have something? Maybe, maybe not. Sure, the rules explicitly prohibit offensive coaches from assisting players. Doesn’t seem fair that one half of an inning I can pull a player to a spot on the field, then the next half I can’t, all in the name of assisting to get a benefit.

And in “i” it’s basically the same as Art 1, a. However, the penalty in “i” can be 1 of 3 things: verbal warning, written warning (so he’s restricted), or EJ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk