Does the run score?

This was a question bantied around a few years ago. I believed, as many did, that this was not an appeallable play. A guy from Texas got PBUC to make a ruling that said it was appeallable. I still say no. My logic is the runner sees his batted ball caught for an out, so why would he worry about running it out. If this was true, you would have appeals all over the place.

PBUC, MLB, Jm Evans, Rick Roder all agree, this is a clssic use of the advantageous fourth out, Run does not score.

Smart B/R's are not watching fielders.

Fielder did not catch the ball for an out, he had to make a play. There was plenty of time for B/R to touch first.

Wow I'm no ump so I've never heard of the advantageous 4th out.

I would have thought the 3rd out would have made the ball dead.

Sometimes this game sure throws some tough curve balls at me.

Jimmy:
I'm reading the play by the F5 as a catch in the air. Then they want to go back and get the advantagous fourth out. I'm not going to allow that appeal. Am I missing something?

quote:

Originally posted by bkekcs:
Wow I'm no ump so I've never heard of the advantageous 4th out.

I would have thought the 3rd out would have made the ball dead.

Sometimes this game sure throws some tough curve balls at me.

The fourth out is when you make the third out on a timing play and the run scores. However, the are times where a runner misses a base that would be a force. You can go back and get that out to kill off the run.

quote:

PBUC, MLB, Jm Evans, Rick Roder all agree, this is a clssic use of the advantageous fourth out, Run does not score.

Smart B/R's are not watching fielders.

Fielder did not catch the ball for an out, he had to make a play. There was plenty of time for B/R to touch first.

Well, I've never entertained this scenario before,
a good thought provoker for sure. I would be inclined to not "reward" the D for making a poor decision (tag of R2 for the 3rd out).

I've smoked the pages of both my PBUC and J/R, I see no reference/s in either for this scenario.

I could easily visualize a BR getting no where near first base on a play like this. I would not require the BR to run to 1B after the 3RD out is recorded.

Appeals are for running violations, IMO, not running "after the 3rd out" is not a running violation.

The BR could not get credit for reaching the base, why should he be penalized when he doesn't.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
Jimmy:
I'm reading the play by the F5 as a catch in the air. Then they want to go back and get the advantagous fourth out. I'm not going to allow that appeal. Am I missing something?

The OP states " R2, R3, 2 outs.

B hits a shot to F5, F5 gloves the ball, runs at and tags the oncoming R2 for the third out,"

When the debate first raged on the internet, I was in your corner as the only real mention of the 4th out referred to "an appeal."

As I recall, PBUC stated that failing to touch first was akin to missing first, thus, in this case, qualified for the fourth out. Others seem to fall in line, relunctantly.

Ground ball to F5. Sorry I did't specify, it's a "one hop" shot to F5..

I don't get it..does the run count?

No. The advantageous 4th out becomes the 3rd out of the inning, and no runs can score when the 3rd out is made by the batter/runner before he touches 1st base.

The defense can appeal at the end of a half inning so long as the pitcher and all infielders have not left fair territory.

So let me see if I have this correctly..you can make the 3rd out on the tag of the runner, making the run scoring a timing play, but if you realize this you can change your mind and say you want to appeal and just get the guy out at first as if nothing had happened?

Yes.

I don't think that's right.

The "4th out" play works only when you make the 4th out on the guy who scored, e.g., when you appeal that he left early on a fly ball.

In this scenario, first of all, R2 was not forced, therefore the tag play is a time play. If R3 scored before the third out was recorded, his run counts.

And once R2 is out, the inning is over. There is no longer a play to be made at first, so you can't get the "4th out" there. It's OK for the batter to pull up without ever reaching first in this situation.

IMHO, the run counts.

quote:

Originally posted by Midlo Dad:
I don't think that's right.

The "4th out" play works only when you make the 4th out on the guy who scored, e.g., when you appeal that he left early on a fly ball.

In this scenario, first of all, R2 was not forced, therefore the tag play is a time play. If R3 scored before the third out was recorded, his run counts.

IMHO, the run counts.

You are incorrect. The advantageous fourth out can be made on any baserunning error, if it will negate a run scoring.

Fitz, as mentioned before, speaking for PBUC recognized a runner failing to touch first as the same as missing first, a baserunning error. FED followed suit.

Check the BRD.

An appeal play occurs when a runner violates a base running rule, misses a base, leaves a base early. .
And the Defense "goes back in time if you will" for an appeal.
Same play and R2 prolongs the rundown long enough for BR to reach 2nd base but; BR missed 1B.
The tag of R2 is still the 3rd out, score the run.
But now, the D can appeal a base running violation that occured prior to the 3RD out, and get the advantageous 4th out. Which happens to be the BR at 1B, take the run off..

Everyone seems caught up on this being a running violation.
Why would it be, there are 3 outs, the BR can't get credit for reaching 1B so why should he be required too.

The defense knows as well as everybody else, you choose the tag, you risk allowing the run to score.

You risk the throw across, you risk a bad throw and allowing R2 to score as well.

You make the throw across no run can score.

I would not reward the D for making the wrong choice, well, that's not a fair statement either. Could have been a smart choice, say R2 is the tying or winning run, then it might be a very smart choice to tag the runner and not risk the throw.

With that said, as an umpire I'm not going to ring up R2 on the tag, then reward F5 with a "run deleting" put out at first when he strolls across the diamond and touches 1B.

I just doesn't seem any simpler to me, the "third out" was the tag of R2, not "on a forced runner or
the BR". Score the run.

I need someone to recognize me as an authoritive figure, so I can end this misery; very simple, runners are not required to "advance" after three are out.
If your not required to do something, then you can't be punished for not (in baseball, that doesn't always work in marriage).

Please make a stand, lets all come to our senses; allow the run on the timing play..

Or, show me something in writing that etches this very scenario in stone, I've been educated before.
But I'll confess, my heels are dug in..

Don't know what to tell you. Check your BRD. Both PBUC and FED have this play in writing and they honor the fourth out, no run scores. MLB, Evans and Roder have agreed.

You can either be known as an umpire who follows the rulings given, or as an umpire who makes up his own. Your choice.

quote:

Please make a stand, lets all come to our senses; allow the run on the timing play..

Or, show me something in writing that etches this very scenario in stone, I've been educated before.
But I'll confess, my heels are dug in..

quote:

JJK, Hopefully the below helps......

I don't think that's right.

The "4th out" play works only when you make the 4th out on the guy who scored, e.g., when you appeal that he left early on a fly ball.

In this scenario, first of all, R2 was not forced, therefore the tag play is a time play. If R3 scored before the third out was recorded, his run counts.

And once R2 is out, the inning is over. There is no longer a play to be made at first, so you can't get the "4th out" there. It's OK for the batter to pull up without ever reaching first in this situation.

IMHO, the run counts.

Midlo,
You have shown great insight and evident study into the rules with your recent postings........however you must go further to get the full interpretations and mechanics to round out your education.....

Unfortunately your response is not correct, but from the rule book alone you would not know that....

The BRD (which is one of the definative additional resources needed to understand an apply the rules) states.....

And all 3 codes agree.......(along with Jim Evans, PBUC and MLB)

Official Interp 2-3 HOPKINS- If the defense gains a third out during the 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.

Run does not score.......

Truly impressed with your recent posts.

I am not all that familiar with other rule books, but by NFHS rules the run absolutely does score. Here are the rules that govern the situation:

9-1: Run scores if the runner touches home before the third out is made (time play rule). Exceptions listed include when batter-runner is forced at 1st for the 3d out, and when a runner other than the batter runner is forced out for the 3d out. Note that the exception refers only to the 3d out, not to any prospect of a "4th out".

In the absence of an exception, the general rule is that it is a time play. Since in the example in question the runner touched home before the 3d out was made, the run scores.

Also see Rule 8-2-6-a governing appeals on runners. Appeals are discussed only in the contexts of a runner who either misses a base as he advances, or leaves a base early on a caught fly ball. The term "appeal" thus has no application to a force play situation. All appeals are therefore time plays and runs come off the board only if you make the out on either a runner who scored or someone who scored after him on the play.

When you look at Rule 8-2-6-i, which is the "Fourth-Out Appeal" rule, you must understand that since you can appeal only on missed bases and on runners leaving early, you can therefore only get the 4th out in those situations. You cannot get a fourth out by force play.

See also Rule 2-20-2, which states, "A Half-inning ends when there is a third out or when, in the last inning, the winning run is scored. In either case, if there is a delayed out declared by the umpire for a baserunning infraction, a fourth out may be recognized (9-1-1d, 3)."

Understand that the batter-runner's not having gotten as far as first base when the third out was made is in no way, shape or form a "baserunning infraction". Again, the reference is to mistakes by the runner such as missing a base, leaving too soon, or committing an act of interference.

In the absence of an "infraction" or an "appeal", there is no opportunity to make a "fourth out", and the "half inning" ends when the third out is made, with no other play possible. Since in the example we were dealing with a time play and the run scored before the third out was made, it counts.

Sorry to go all lawyer on you guys, but the terms placed in quotes above are terms specifically defined in the rule book and thus, are not necessarily read the way Noah Webster would suggest. You have to plug in the rulebook definitions properly or you can misunderstand the rule involved.

PIAA, thanks for the kind words, hope I've earned your confidence!

quote:

Originally posted by Midlo Dad:
I am not all that familiar with other rule books, but by NFHS rules the run absolutely does score. Here are the rules that govern the situation:

9-1: Run scores if the runner touches home before the third out is made (time play rule). Exceptions listed include when batter-runner is forced at 1st for the 3d out, and when a runner other than the batter runner is forced out for the 3d out. Note that the exception refers only to the 3d out, not to any prospect of a "4th out".

In the absence of an exception, the general rule is that it is a time play. Since in the example in question the runner touched home before the 3d out was made, the run scores.

Also see Rule 8-2-6-a governing appeals on runners. Appeals are discussed only in the contexts of a runner who either misses a base as he advances, or leaves a base early on a caught fly ball. The term "appeal" thus has no application to a force play situation. All appeals are therefore time plays and runs come off the board only if you make the out on either a runner who scored or someone who scored after him on the play.

When you look at Rule 8-2-6-i, which is the "Fourth-Out Appeal" rule, you must understand that since you can appeal only on missed bases and on runners leaving early, you can therefore only get the 4th out in those situations. You cannot get a fourth out by force play.

See also Rule 2-20-2, which states, "A Half-inning ends when there is a third out or when, in the last inning, the winning run is scored. In either case, if there is a delayed out declared by the umpire for a baserunning infraction, a fourth out may be recognized (9-1-1d, 3)."

Understand that the batter-runner's not having gotten as far as first base when the third out was made is in no way, shape or form a "baserunning infraction". Again, the reference is to mistakes by the runner such as missing a base, leaving too soon, or committing an act of interference.

In the absence of an "infraction" or an "appeal", there is no opportunity to make a "fourth out", and the "half inning" ends when the third out is made, with no other play possible. Since in the example we were dealing with a time play and the run scored before the third out was made, it counts.

Sorry to go all lawyer on you guys, but the terms placed in quotes above are terms specifically defined in the rule book and thus, are not necessarily read the way Noah Webster would suggest. You have to plug in the rulebook definitions properly or you can misunderstand the rule involved.

PIAA, thanks for the kind words, hope I've earned your confidence!

What you continue to fail to understand is that Elliot Hopkins (FED) and Fitzpatrick (OBR)have specifically ruled on this play, and in those rulings have stated that the fourth out will be honored and the run will not count.

They trump your lawyerly skills.

MidloDad,
Your understanding of the FED written rule is fine and the rules in FED, OBR, and NCAA all read the same. But...
As a number of umpires here have told you, authoritative opinion and interpretation allow the fourth out against B/R when he doesn't reach first base.

Here's the history as I understand it. In early 2001, a huge debate occurred on Internet message boards about this problem. One side followed a literal interpretaion of the rule (the run scores) and the other followed the example play given by Rick Roder in the Jaksa/Roder manual. The J/R manual is based on the teaching notes of one of the two professional umpiring schools, and it is reasonable to expect that a significant fraction of today's MLB umpires would follow the dictates of J/R. One of the key debaters was Carl Childress, who is the author of the BRD (Baseball Rule Differences). [In the second post of this thread, MST made an inside joke by referring to CC as "a guy from Texas".] He (CC) argued strongly for a literal interpretation of the OBR rule. However, he was good enough to ask Mike Fitzpatrick, the director of the PBUC (minor league umpires) what his ruling would be, and the answer was to allow the fourth out. Writing about it later in the BRD, Childress said "Color me ... surprised. I mean astonished."

He followed up with the NCAA, leading to the following interp, which makes fairly loose usage of the term "force out": NCAA Rule Clarification

4/18/01 8-6-a, b
PLAY: Two outs, runners on second base and third base. The batter singles to the outfield, but injures himself coming out of the box and cannot continue to first base. R3 scores easily. R2 is thrown out at the plate for the third out. The catcher then throws to first base for a fourth out on the batter-runner. RULING: This would be considered a live ball appeal. The out at first base would be considered an advantageous out for the defense and the very fact that they made the play would indicate their choice of this fourth out. Since the batter-runner was out on a force out at first base, R2’s run would not count."

In May, 2001, Elliot Hopkins, Rules Interpreter for NFHS, made the same ruling.

So far as I know, none of the rule sets have explicitly included these interpretations in the rules, or casebooks. Nor have I read any opinion from Jim Evans, the head of the other umpire school, although he surely has an opinion.

I don't like the interpretations, and I don't like having clearly written rules which are at variance from accepted practice. But variance between written rules and actual practice is common in baseball, and we need to accept that which is commonly accepted. Fortunately, fourth out situation are rare.

There are more important rules which need rectification. Anybody want to sign a petition to abolish the DH?

3FG - thanks for the history lesson. Interesting stuff indeed. (Did NCAA really say the B/R was "forced" at 1B?)

A related question - suppose the B/R had missed 1B instead of never reaching it. Would he be allowed to correct his baserunning error (thereby precluding a successful appeal for the 4th out) after the 3rd out was recorded?

A while back there was considerable debate about a play where a runner crossed (but missed) the plate just before the 3rd out was made on another runner at 2B. The question was whether the runner could correct his baserunning error (by touching the plate) after the 3rd out was recorded.

The recognized experts disagreed. I believe Wendelstedt opined that as soon as the runner touched the plate, he changed the timing of the run to after the 3rd out, and the run was immediately disallowed without an appeal. Others (it might have been Rick Roder or Evans, I can't remember) said that the runner could come back and correct his error after the 3rd out (to preclude an appeal), with no effect on the timing of the run, i.e., score the run because the plate was "acquired" before the 3rd out.

Thanks again.

BTW: I'll be the first to sign your petition about the DH. I would also sign one to get rid of non-wood bats. I prefer the game to be played as Mr. Doubleday originally intended.

3finger:
The Texas guy that I referenced was actually Steve Friex. He pushed for a couple of stupid rulings, including getting PBUC to say the running lane was in effect on a play from anywhere in the infield. I can't remember if he contacted PBUC or if he got Carl to do it.
If you remember, I was part of the obstruction war that resulted in the over night purging of many posts at Eteamz.

There is a provision allowing the defensive team to opt for a more advantageous out, and maybe that's what they were aiming at in the interpretation, though I think if you read that provision it doesn't really apply. It would be more persuasive if they would provide a citation to a specific rule that they were relying upon, instead of saying, "This is what I think, this is what we're teaching folks, so you'll have to live with it."

It could also be remedied by amending the rules books to include the standard practice as a specific rules provision.

As far as relying on umpires to instruct as to the rules, it's one thing to fill in a blank when there's no rule at all, but another to "interpret" away specific governing rules.

It ends up sounding like the modern MLB strike zone. It's supposed to go up to the midpoint between shoulders and waist (around the base of the rib cage), but thanks to Bruce Froemming & Co., it seems to end around the belt buckle. Personally, if I were Commissioner for a day, I'd call an umpires' meeting, read the rule to them, and then let them know that failure to enforce the rule book as written would be grounds for discharge.

By which I mean, I don't think it's right just because an umpire wants it to be that way. At most it might be fair warning that he might choose to impose his personal opinion on a given game, rule book be d a m n e d. But that's not an attitude I'd like to see encouraged.

MST,
My apologies for putting words in your mouth. I don't know if Freix asked for a ruling, but in post #26 in the below link, Childress claims to have asked Fitzpatrick for a ruling on the J/R play.

By the way, I don't "remember" any of this. In 2001, I was completely uninterested in the vagaries of baseball rules. One of the great aspects of Internet message boards is that they can be years after the original posting date.
http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=2023&page=2

quote:

Originally posted by Midlo Dad:
There is a provision allowing the defensive team to opt for a more advantageous out, and maybe that's what they were aiming at in the interpretation, though I think if you read that provision it doesn't really apply.

The problem with this is that Elliot Hopkins has said it does apply.

quote:

It would be more persuasive if they would provide a citation to a specific rule that they were relying upon...

He did. It's the same provision you're talking about.

quote:

It ends up sounding like the modern MLB strike zone. It's supposed to go up to the midpoint between shoulders and waist (around the base of the rib cage), but thanks to Bruce Froemming & Co., it seems to end around the belt buckle.

No, that was something that evolved from the bottom up. This is a definitive ruling from the top.

From re-reading the thread you supplied the link to, it appears as though Carl did get the interp from Fitzpatrick. Steve Friex and BFLAIR are the same person. He was one that disagreed with Carl just to disagree. Warren Wilson would agree with anything Carl said. I prefered to read each thread and make up my own mind. It layed the groundwork for a lot of what I know today. I belong to a private email list where there are many that know way more than I do. It has made me much more knowledgable than anything.

Ah, first off thanks for all the good info, I'm am now convinced: OP, score the run.

Reading the original posts from 01 and the quotes below, I gather that this ruling was made on a "specific play" in which the BR "cannot" (NCAA)) and "unable" (J/R) to continue. I can live with that.

Not an all inclusive, ruling/interp that a BR "must touch" 1B after there are 3 outs.
So if the runner can or could have continued, rule the "timing play" and leave it at that.

Be sure and have all copies to prove you were correct for the PC's ruling. Simply state in your report "the BR runner, was not injured or could not have continued" he was just to slow, D opted for the timing play, allowing the run to score.

And more importanty hash this out with your association, state/district UIC's or who ever, lets get this across the board.

From NCAA:
4/18/01 8-6-a, b
PLAY: Two outs, runners on second base and third base. The batter singles to the outfield, but injures himself coming out of the box and "cannot continue" to first base. R3 scores easily. R2 is thrown out at the plate for the third out. The catcher then throws to first base for a fourth out on the batter-runner. RULING: This would be considered a live ball appeal. The out at first base would be considered an advantageous out for the defense and the very fact that they made the play would indicate their choice of this fourth out. Since the batter-runner was out on a force out at first base, R2’s run would not count."

From J/R:
Not an appeal: Bases loaded, two outs. The batter singles and R2 is thrown out at home for the third out. The batter has been injured and is "unable" to advance to first prompting the defense to throw to first against him: this is an advantageous fourth out and supersedes the former third out, and no run can score.

From PBUC: C/R date 04, I got it early 07..
Section 3.4 APPEAL PLAYS-APPROVED RULINGS
No such play, or similar, all appeals addressed concern the normal "missing bases and failing to retouch".

As I am sure most of us here already know.......right now this situation is being considered on just about all the serious Umpire boards.

I am hoping that we will see some update from the major rules interpreters. I believe someone was going to contact Jim Evans and/or Rick Roder....

until then.......

quote:

Originally posted by piaa_ump:
As I am sure most of us here already know.......right now this situation is being considered on just about all the serious Umpire boards.

I am hoping that we will see some update from the major rules interpreters. I believe someone was going to contact Jim Evans and/or Rick Roder....

until then.......

1. Unless NFHS (Hopkins) and the new head of PBUC specifically disavow their organizations rulings on this matter, what Roder and Evans might say will be interesting, but not relevant to those of us who have to enforce the rulings.

2. No one should confuse the the willingess of umpires to enforce these rulings with being content or in agreement with these rulings.

Just for general information, the new head of PBUC is Justin Klem. A good guy and a good umpire.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
Just for general information, the new head of PBUC is Justin Klem. A good guy and a good umpire.

Also an Evans grad. But, in my opinion, he seriously erred by implementing Fitzy's deal with the Coastal Plain League.

That deal hurt some very good amateur umpires and may put the pro schools at risk.

I think Justin felt both trapped and intimidated by Fitzy, who remains in an active role with PBUC/Minor League Baseball.

I'm not familar with the deal you mention. I do know he's an excellent instructor.

MST,
PBUC entered into a working agreement to provide its reserve umpires to the Coastal Plain League. The agreement allows reserve list umpires to continue to work games,while waiting for the call from PBUC to work Minor League Baseball games.

The Coastal Plain League is a collegiate summer league, so this agreement basically eliminated the college umpires that were calling this league.......

Hopefully Poosey can add as to why the Pro schools would be adversly effected as I am not familar with that aspect of the contoversy

quote:

Originally posted by piaa_ump:
MST,
PBUC entered into a working agreement to provide its reserve umpires to the Coastal Plain League. The agreement allows reserve list umpires to continue to work games,while waiting for the call from PBUC to work Minor League Baseball games.

The Coastal Plain League is a collegiate summer league, so this agreement basically eliminated the college umpires that were calling this league.......

Hopefully Poosey can add as to why the Pro schools would be adversly effected as I am not familar with that aspect of the contoversy

Poosey didn't post this, I did.

Part of the arrangement allows for the PBUC umpires who do get real jobs to return to PBUC the following year without returning to Pro-school. This will reduce the number of spots to PBUC for the Pro-schools and, very possibly, eliminate better umpires from getting a shot at PBUC.

With reduced spots, the Pro-school may see a reduction in applications.

sorry about that Jimmy........thanks for the update....that completes the picture

I see your point but it may just a step to the travel for a MiLB umpire. In other words, the guys that return to PBUC from the league you mention may get a job, so the new guy takes his place in the other league. It may just change the number they allow at PBUC.

There is a pretty good discussion about the same topic going on here: http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=46813

From what I can surmise, outside of the BRD, there doesn't appear to be a published interpretation from PBUC supporting the advantageous 4th out on this situation.

As 3Fingered pointed out though, the 4th out appeal is pretty rare so hopefully this becomes nothing more than an esoteric rules discussion for all of us.

quote:

Originally posted by Welpe:
There is a pretty good discussion about the same topic going on here: http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=46813

From what I can surmise, outside of the BRD, there doesn't appear to be a published interpretation from PBUC supporting the advantageous 4th out on this situation.

As 3Fingered pointed out though, the 4th out appeal is pretty rare so hopefully this becomes nothing more than an esoteric rules discussion for all of us.

1. However, the written ruling from PBUC DOES exist, has been published, and has not been recinded.

2. More pertinent to this site, a high school site, Elliot Hopkins has also issued a written ruling covering FED's acceptance of the 4th out in this case.