No error?

I didn't see the play. As a life long Red Sox fan tonight was 'challenging' given the 18-3 result. Fortuntely, my daughter's HS softball team was walking off in the bottom of the 7th at about the time 'this' happened.

Very interesting question and I'm not up to an expansive rule search, so I'll do this off the cuff.

The scorer scored FC and persumably RBI. I have no issue with the FC which is how this should be scored. The RBI rubs me the wrong way but since there is no error (given the FC), however I think this is most likely the right call given the inputs provided and the abundance of hockey games to take my attention away from bad baseball games.

You could also argue SF for the batter if the ball is deep enough but again, I didn't see it...

I think this is one of those plays that may satisfy all the written requirements for not scoring it as an error -- but the fact is that the fielder flat out muffed the ball. It bounced off his glove after he was standing there waiting for it. It was truly an error in every sense of the word -- except for how it was officially scored. I guess that's baseball!

I know it seems somehow wrong that a fielder flat out drops a ball and no error is scored, but really the SK had no choice in how to score it, as you can see in 10.12(d)(4). The RBI is given because of 10.04(a)(1).

OBR
10.12 ERRORS
(d) The official scorer shall not charge an error against:
(4) any fielder when, after fumbling a ground ball or dropping a batted ball that is in flight or a thrown ball, the fielder recovers the ball in time to force out a runner at any base; or

10.04 RUNS BATTED IN
A run batted in is a statistic credited to a batter whose action at bat causes one or more runs to score, as set forth in this Rule 10.04.
(a) The official scorer shall credit the batter with a run batted in for every run that scores
(1) unaided by an error and as part of a play begun by the batter’s safe hit (including the batter’s home run), sacrifice bunt, sacrifice fly, infield out or fielder’s choice, unless Rule 10.04(b) applies;

If the outfielder drops it and still forces a runner -- I get that part of it. No error -- makes sense.

But in this case the runner scored from third base -- BECAUSE HE DROPPED IT.

This is a portion of a rule that sure seems like it needs to be re-written (which I'm sure will never happen).

quote:

Originally posted by RPD:
If the outfielder drops it and still forces a runner -- I get that part of it. No error -- makes sense.

But in this case the runner scored from third base -- BECAUSE HE DROPPED IT.

This is a portion of a rule that sure seems like it needs to be re-written (which I'm sure will never happen).

It actually makes perfect sense. To start with, it doesn’t matter if the fielder dropped it. It wasn’t an error by rule because he recovered in time to force a runner. Then, its an RBI by rule too, because the at bat caused a run to score on the fielder’s choice.

Think of it this way. There are 3 parts to every at bat. There’s what happens before the at bat takes place, like a runner steals, is thrown out, or perhaps a runner advances because of a wild pickoff throw. Those things have absolutely nothing to do with the batter or the at bat, other than they happened to take place while he was at the plate.

Then you have the actual at bat. This what happens to the batter, no one else. He can make an out, or he can reach base. If he puts the ball in play and reaches 1st, say on an error, that’s the extent of the at bat.

Then you have what takes place after the at bat. This is the runners moving and the fielders. Assume the bases are loaded and the batter gets a single. He’s gonna be credited with an RBI because the at bat forced the runners to move, and one of them was forced to score. If after that force was reconciled, something else happened, that’s something that takes place after the play. FI, the runner from 2nd was forced to go to 3rd, and if because of the hit ball he was able to score, the batter will be given another RBI. But, if the runner scores because the OFr booted the ball or there was a bad throw, there’s no RBI, but the run still counts.

What happened here is, the batter hit the ball, and when it hit the ground safely, the runners were forced to move. During the play, the batter Reached on a FC, and the run scored because the force was at 3rd not home.

There are gonna be times when you have to break things down and look at them not as one continuous play, but rather as a series of events. It like a ground ball an IFr makes a tremendous play on, then gets up in plenty of time to easily get the runner with a good throw, but throws the ball away. He may be the only guy in the would able to have made the play to get the ball, but once he’s done that, that part is over, and he still has to make a decent throw.

Stats, you've obviously been around a while -- and so have I. Using a phrase like "makes perfect sense" when it comes to OBR can be a slippery slope. We both know that it's an imperfect document, and not everything about it makes perfect sense.

You're absolutely right that it states you don't charge an error if the fielder forces a runner -- and that indeed happened in this play.

But it also states:

10.12 (a) "The official scorer shall charge an error against any fielder: (1) whose misplay (fumble, muff or wild throw) ... permits a runner to advance one or more bases."

That's exactly what happened in the play.

And it states:

Rule 10.12(a)(1) "Comment: ... The official scorer shall charge an outfielder with an error if such outfielder allows a fly ball to drop to the ground if, in the official scorer’s judgment, an outfielder at that position making ordinary effort would have caught such fly ball."

That's also exactly what happened.

So was it an error? I'm guessing you'll claim that the part you stated trumps the other two references. And if it makes "perfect sense" to you, that's fine. But let's face it - OBR is not a perfect document and not everything about it "makes perfect sense." But hey, that's what gives baseball some of it's charisma.

Vision of the Bob Newhart skit where he described=s the rules of baseball over the telephone are dancing on my head.....

quote:

Originally posted by RPD:
Stats, you've obviously been around a while -- and so have I. Using a phrase like "makes perfect sense" when it comes to OBR can be a slippery slope. We both know that it's an imperfect document, and not everything about it makes perfect sense.

True, there are anomalies in the rules that sometime make it difficult to interpret them correctly.

quote:

You're absolutely right that it states you don't charge an error if the fielder forces a runner -- and that indeed happened in this play.

But it also states:

10.12 (a) "The official scorer shall charge an error against any fielder: (1) whose misplay (fumble, muff or wild throw) ... permits a runner to advance one or more bases."

That's exactly what happened in the play.

And that would be fine if there were nothing else in the rules. But when they put “…(4) any fielder when, after fumbling a ground ball or dropping a batted ball that is in flight or a thrown ball, the fielder recovers the ball in time to force out a runner at any base …” into the book, they took care of this precise situation.

quote:

And it states:

Rule 10.12(a)(1) "Comment: ... The official scorer shall charge an outfielder with an error if such outfielder allows a fly ball to drop to the ground if, in the official scorer’s judgment, an outfielder at that position making ordinary effort would have caught such fly ball."

That's also exactly what happened.

Again, the precise play that took place was stated in the rules.

quote:

So was it an error? I'm guessing you'll claim that the part you stated trumps the other two references. And if it makes "perfect sense" to you, that's fine. But let's face it - OBR is not a perfect document and not everything about it "makes perfect sense." But hey, that's what gives baseball some of it's charisma.

I won’t claim anything trumps anything else. But I will say again, that when there’s a statement in the rules that covers a precise event, that’s what was intended to be used. Many time people only read down to where they think their question has been answered, then they quit reading. That’s the mistake, not that there’s confusing language in the document.

For the most part, it’s a matter of perspective, just as much as it is a matter of the written word. It may well be that if I was there, I would have seen the entire play differently, i.e. the depth of the ball and the conditions, wind, sun etc., which may have influenced whether the ball was actually misplayed, and someone watching on TV or up in the nosebleed seats may have had a much different perspective.

In the end, all a scorer can do is to score the game by the rules and using his/her experience to make judgments.

Well, that does fly in the face of how I assumed that play would be scored, so I will file this one away for future reference for sure. Thanks for the illuminating discussion on this one folks!