You Make The Call

[littlebeast13]

With the score tied and the bases loaded with one out in the bottom of the 10th inning, the batter hits the ball over the centerfielder's head for the game winning hit. However, the defensive team notices that the runners on first and second both fail to advance to the next base before joining the celebratory dogpile that always ensues whenever there is a walk off win these days. While the home team celebrates, the visiting team retrieves the ball and tags third base then second for what they claim is an inning ending double play... which would seemingly nullify the winning run scoring. However, the umpire confer and conclude that since there were less than two outs, only the batter and the runner on third are obligated to touch first and home respectively for the hit and run to count...

http://espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=350809129

This actually happened in the Reds/Dbacks game yesterday... and I don't understand this line of thinking at all. With no outs, sure... the two trail runners failing to do their job don't matter. But with one out, that seems like a legitimate inning ending, "D'oh!" inspiring double play... so long as the Reds tagged the bases in the proper order to keep the force plays alive. If this happened in a non-walkoff situation where the runners on first and second, let's say, both blew out their hammies and couldn't reach the next base before becoming victims of a crazy 8-5-4 double play, the run would have to be wiped from the board.

The funny thing is, I always envisioned a crazy scenario like this happening... especially after Todd Pratt cost Robin Ventura a walkoff grand slam in that NLCS game in 1999. What would happen if neither of the non-factor runners touched their next base and there was only one out? Well, now I guess I know how it would be ruled... the umpires wouldn't care if the baserunners derelicted their duties...

lb13

[smilergrogan]

The problem is, the Reds outfielders ran off the field without retrieving the ball. The ball was only retrieved after a grounds crew guy had picked it up, thinking (reasonably) that the game was over. He then threw it to Brandon Phillips (Reds 2nd baseman) after Phillips asked for it. So I think the play has to be considered dead at that point, and I think the umpires have the discretion to award the runners the next base. If a Reds outfielder had retrieved the ball before running off the field, I think it should have been a double play and no run scoring.

[silverscreenselect]

The problem is, the Reds outfielders ran off the field without retrieving the ball. The ball was only retrieved after a grounds crew guy had picked it up, thinking (reasonably) that the game was over. He then threw it to Brandon Phillips (Reds 2nd baseman) after Phillips asked for it. So I think the play has to be considered dead at that point, and I think the umpires have the discretion to award the runners the next base. If a Reds outfielder had retrieved the ball before running off the field, I think it should have been a double play and no run scoring.

You've got it right there. Rule 3.15 says "In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein authorized to be on the playing field (except members of the offensive team participating in the game, or a coach in the coach’s box, or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play. If the interference is intentional, the ball shall be dead at the moment of the interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.

Once the ball is dead, play is over and there are no more force plays. The umpire could have called one or both runners out if, for example, an outfielder was trying to chase down the ball and the runners had left the field. However, no one at the time was making an effort to get the ball, so the umpires felt that there was no need for a compensatory penalty (since to do so would apparently reward one team when both of them were apparently ignorant of the situation). In fact, it's possible one or both runners might have noticed the outfielders trying to make a play on the ball and not acted the way they did.

[Bob78164]

With the score tied and the bases loaded with one out in the bottom of the 10th inning, the batter hits the ball over the centerfielder's head for the game winning hit. However, the defensive team notices that the runners on first and second both fail to advance to the next base before joining the celebratory dogpile that always ensues whenever there is a walk off win these days. While the home team celebrates, the visiting team retrieves the ball and tags third base then second for what they claim is an inning ending double play... which would seemingly nullify the winning run scoring. However, the umpire confer and conclude that since there were less than two outs, only the batter and the runner on third are obligated to touch first and home respectively for the hit and run to count...

http://espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=350809129

This actually happened in the Reds/Dbacks game yesterday... and I don't understand this line of thinking at all. With no outs, sure... the two trail runners failing to do their job don't matter. But with one out, that seems like a legitimate inning ending, "D'oh!" inspiring double play... so long as the Reds tagged the bases in the proper order to keep the force plays alive. If this happened in a non-walkoff situation where the runners on first and second, let's say, both blew out their hammies and couldn't reach the next base before becoming victims of a crazy 8-5-4 double play, the run would have to be wiped from the board.

The funny thing is, I always envisioned a crazy scenario like this happening... especially after Todd Pratt cost Robin Ventura a walkoff grand slam in that NLCS game in 1999. What would happen if neither of the non-factor runners touched their next base and there was only one out? Well, now I guess I know how it would be ruled... the umpires wouldn't care if the baserunners derelicted their duties...

lb13

You just can't get good help nowadays. --Bob

[Bob78164]

According to mlb.com, the Reds took the force at second for the second out and then tried to record the third out at third via an appeal play. My connectivity is limited here so I can't pull up video to see for myself. --Bob

[littlebeast13]

According to mlb.com, the Reds took the force at second for the second out and then tried to record the third out at third via an appeal play. My connectivity is limited here so I can't pull up video to see for myself. --Bob

Ouch. That would nullify the whole debate if they did that... and explain why they're such a lousy team this year...

But assuming they did the appeal correctly, I'd still argue that even if the ball was "interfered with," the runners never attempting to touch the bases they were required to should still result in outs so long as the Reds players hadn't all conceded to their dugout (I've always heard once the infielders leave the playing field, no appeal plays can be made after that point). The explanation that was given to the Reds manager seems to center on the appeals being a moot point simply because there were less than two outs... and I don't buy that explanation...

lb13

[mrkelley23]

According to mlb.com, the Reds took the force at second for the second out and then tried to record the third out at third via an appeal play. My connectivity is limited here so I can't pull up video to see for myself. --Bob

Ouch. That would nullify the whole debate if they did that... and explain why they're such a lousy team this year...

But assuming they did the appeal correctly, I'd still argue that even if the ball was "interfered with," the runners never attempting to touch the bases they were required to should still result in outs so long as the Reds players hadn't all conceded to their dugout (I've always heard once the infielders leave the playing field, no appeal plays can be made after that point). The explanation that was given to the Reds manager seems to center on the appeals being a moot point simply because there were less than two outs... and I don't buy that explanation...

lb13

Having heard Bryan Price talk about controversial calls in the past, I would strongly doubt he got the story right. However, if the play was dead because someone picked the ball up, then the "home run" rule would apply and only the batter-runner and the scoring runner would have to touch. Given the scenario, however, I'd guess the appeal was no a proper one, especially given it was apparently Brandon Phillips who tried to execute it.

[Jeemie]

Having heard Bryan Price talk about controversial calls in the past, I would strongly doubt he got the story right. However, if the play was dead because someone picked the ball up, then the "home run" rule would apply and only the batter-runner and the scoring runner would have to touch. Given the scenario, however, I'd guess the appeal was no a proper one, especially given it was apparently Brandon Phillips who tried to execute it.

I know a stadium worker threw the ball back into the infield so the Reds could start their appeal, but that didn't appear to be part of the umpires' ruling.

The ruling seemed clearly predicated on the fact there was only one out. Had there been two, the Reds would have had a case for appeal.

Although I have also seen other commentary that because the grounds worker touched the ball, that would have invalidated any appeal even with two outs.

[Jeemie]

The rule in question is 4.09(b)- here's what it says:

When the winning run is scored in the last half-inning of a regulation game, or in the last half of an extra inning, as the result of a base on balls, hit batter or any other play with the bases full which forces the runner on third to advance, the umpire shall not declare the game ended until the runner forced to advance from third has touched home base and the batter-runner has touched first base.

The highlighted is a fancy way of saying the game is over in this situation as soon as the runner from third touches home and the batter touches first.

[BackInTex]

The rule in question is 4.09(b)- here's what it says:

When the winning run is scored in the last half-inning of a regulation game, or in the last half of an extra inning, as the result of a base on balls, hit batter or any other play with the bases full which forces the runner on third to advance, the umpire shall not declare the game ended until the runner forced to advance from third has touched home base and the batter-runner has touched first base.

The highlighted is a fancy way of saying the game is over in this situation as soon as the runner from third touches home and the batter touches first.

So if the defense turned a double play, say 3-5-4 but the batter and runner on 3rd were significantly faster than the runner on 1st and both had completed their 90 feet before the second baseman got the tag on 2nd base (which was before the runner got there), Game Over? That makes no sense since in every other situation the run doesn't count including if that run would tie the game (home team was behind by 1).

So this rule would seem to allow them to win if they are tied, but lose if they are behind (the only difference being the score before the ball is pitched).

I think the interpretation of the rule is that the both the 3rd base runner and 1st base runner must reach base to end the game, but that is not the only requirement, just two. It does not say the game IS over "when", but only that it can't be over "until".

[Jeemie]

The rule in question is 4.09(b)- here's what it says:

When the winning run is scored in the last half-inning of a regulation game, or in the last half of an extra inning, as the result of a base on balls, hit batter or any other play with the bases full which forces the runner on third to advance, the umpire shall not declare the game ended until the runner forced to advance from third has touched home base and the batter-runner has touched first base.

The highlighted is a fancy way of saying the game is over in this situation as soon as the runner from third touches home and the batter touches first.

So if the defense turned a double play, say 3-5-4 but the batter and runner on 3rd were significantly faster than the runner on 1st and both had completed their 90 feet before the second baseman got the tag on 2nd base (which was before the runner got there), Game Over? That makes no sense since in every other situation the run doesn't count including if that run would tie the game (home team was behind by 1).

So this rule would seem to allow them to win if they are tied, but lose if they are behind (the only difference being the score before the ball is pitched).

I think the interpretation of the rule is that the both the 3rd base runner and 1st base runner must reach base to end the game, but that is not the only requirement, just two. It does not say the game IS over "when", but only that it can't be over "until".

Maybe- but that's the rule they cited.

In any event, everything the Reds did was invalidated anyway when the stadium worker touched the ball.

Had Hamilton actually made a try for the ball and fired it in to get the runners that didn't advance, maybe they would have had a case.

[mrkelley23]

Did they really say 4.09(b)?

I'm surprised MLB let them get away with that. The reorganized and renumbered the rules for 2015. Makes me crazy. The new numbered rule is 5.08(b). But the pertinent comment is this one, underneath the rule: "following runners are not affected by the act of a preceding runner unless two are out." The example they give is very similar to what actually happened.

This would appear to prevent the Reds from making a successful double appeal, even if the worker had not picked up the ball.

BiT, in your hypothetical case, I believe the run would count, as it would in any other inning. Unless I'm misreading you, what you're saying is that with the bases loaded and 1 out, the first baseman fields a grounder and instead of throwing home to get the lead runner, or to second to attempt the double play, or even to touch first to get the batter out, he for some reason throws to third base, gets one force out, and then the third baseman throws to second to get another force out, but that both runner from third and the batter-runner achieve their respective bases before the third out is made? That's just a regular time play, and the run would count, no matter what inning or what the score is. And then the first baseman would be running lots of laps, at least in high school.

[Bob78164]

The rule in question is 4.09(b)- here's what it says:

When the winning run is scored in the last half-inning of a regulation game, or in the last half of an extra inning, as the result of a base on balls, hit batter or any other play with the bases full which forces the runner on third to advance, the umpire shall not declare the game ended until the runner forced to advance from third has touched home base and the batter-runner has touched first base.

The highlighted is a fancy way of saying the game is over in this situation as soon as the runner from third touches home and the batter touches first.

I think this is the applicable rule on a bases-loaded walk when no play at the other bases is possible. The rule does not say that once the scoring runner and the batter-runner have touched their respective bases the game is over. It just says that until they've done what they need to do, the game isn't over. --Bob

[BackInTex]

BiT, in your hypothetical case, I believe the run would count, as it would in any other inning. Unless I'm misreading you, what you're saying is that with the bases loaded and 1 out, the first baseman fields a grounder and instead of throwing home to get the lead runner, or to second to attempt the double play, or even to touch first to get the batter out, he for some reason throws to third base, gets one force out, and then the third baseman throws to second to get another force out, but that both runner from third and the batter-runner achieve their respective bases before the third out is made? That's just a regular time play, and the run would count, no matter what inning or what the score is. And then the first baseman would be running lots of laps, at least in high school.

I don't believe the timing of the runner touching home matters in a forced third out. No run. A slight chance I could be wrong but I've never seen one counted.

[littlebeast13]

BiT, in your hypothetical case, I believe the run would count, as it would in any other inning. Unless I'm misreading you, what you're saying is that with the bases loaded and 1 out, the first baseman fields a grounder and instead of throwing home to get the lead runner, or to second to attempt the double play, or even to touch first to get the batter out, he for some reason throws to third base, gets one force out, and then the third baseman throws to second to get another force out, but that both runner from third and the batter-runner achieve their respective bases before the third out is made? That's just a regular time play, and the run would count, no matter what inning or what the score is. And then the first baseman would be running lots of laps, at least in high school.

I don't believe the timing of the runner touching home matters in a forced third out. No run. A slight chance I could be wrong but I've never seen one counted.

I was hoping mrk would chime in on this since I believe he knows the rules and their interpretations better than anyone else on this Bored. I was always led to believe so long as there were force outs that could be made, no run could legally score until all of the runners in those force situations had reached their bases. In fact, I still believe this should be the case, regardless of what the official rules say. But it seems in mrk's interpretation, once the batter-runner reaches first, the run can score regardless of what the other two runners are doing, so long as they aren't both out before the run scores. However, that doesn't seem to allow the Reds a valid appeal in the actual situation, even had there been two outs...

lb13

[mrkelley23]

Nah, I brainfarted on Bit's case. Of course no run scores on a force play. I was too focused on the poor play by the first baseman. But the way I"m reading the rule (which is 7.12 in the old book) they could have gotten the second out on appeal, but not the third, because the third out would be a following runner as per the rule. So no third out on the force, as there would be on the hypothetical double play.

In MLB's view, the batter-runner is the most important. Once he reaches first base, the others are all forced to the next base. That implies the runner from third is going to cross home plate, but he has to actually do it before the run actually counts. Everything else is kind of superfluous in a way.

I do believe (and I still haven't seen video of this, so I don't know how it progressed) that if the outfielder had chased the ball down, thrown it in immediately, and the infielders had made it clear they were going for the double play, they might have had something. But as it was (or as I've heard it described ) the umps did what's sometimes called "common sense" umpiring. I may change my mind once I've seen the tape.

[BackInTex]

Full text of the 2015 rules:
5.08(b) [was 4.09]

(b) When the winning run is scored in the last half-inning of a regulation
game, or in the last half of an extra inning, as the result
of a base on balls, hit batter or any other play with the bases
full which forces the runner on third to advance, the umpire
shall not declare the game ended until the runner forced to
advance from third has touched home base and the batter-runner
has touched first base.

emphasis mine.....

This does NOT say the run scores if those two runners reach base. It just says the game isn't over.

Here is the rule I am holding on to.

5.08 [formerly 4.09]

(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.

emphasis mine.....

[mrkelley23]

Okay, I just watched the replay. I'm thinking the umps just went with the simplest explanation, which is the 4.09b/5.08b/7.12 rule. But the Reds tried to appeal by first tagging second, then first, then third, and that was after the grounds crew worker was clearly seen on camera throwing the ball into an empty infield. The Reds had left the field. To make a proper appeal, you have to go to the base you want to appeal, tag it, and say that you're appealing that a particular runner did not legally touch or retouch. Int he interpretation manual, it's made quite clear that a team cannot just tag every bag, hoping one appeal will be accepted. So 1, their appeal was not proper, because they were just tagging bags; 2, they tagged second base first, which would have removed the force play; 3, the defensive team had left the field after the umpires had indicated game over, which would also prevent a proper appeal; and 4. the groundskeeper interfered. But after all that, it's easier to explain the verbatim rule, than to try to lay the blame on the Reds for not making a proper appeal or interference.

I do think your instinct is right, lb. If it's one continuous play, and the umps are still on the field along with at least one defensive player, they might get the call. But once it becomes appeals, that other rule kicks in. And that may answer BiT's point best of all -- there is a distinct difference between an appeal play and a "live" play, which can make a difference, especially for game-ending plays.

[BackInTex]

What I found interesting in my research of the rules is the importance of the batter/runner getting to first and not being the third out.

One example was men on second and third, one out. Batter hits a grounder, runner on third scores, runner on second tries to score and is thrown out at the plate for the second out. But the batter/runner missed first and the catcher throws to first on the appeal. He's out. He's the third out. The run does not score even though the second out was not a force.

If the batter/runner had been thrown out initially and been the second out, the the run would score as the third out was not a force. So not all outs have to be a force, just the third out.

[mrkelley23]

What I found interesting in my research of the rules is the importance of the batter/runner getting to first and not being the third out.

One example was men on second and third, one out. Batter hits a grounder, runner on third scores, runner on second tries to score and is thrown out at the plate for the second out. But the batter/runner missed first and the catcher throws to first on the appeal. He's out. He's the third out. The run does not score even though the second out was not a force.

If the batter/runner had been thrown out initially and been the second out, the the run would score as the third out was not a force. So not all outs have to be a force, just the third out.

I actually ran into that rule in live action, and screwed up the call. I felt marginally better when I gave the situation at two gatherings of high school umpires, and more than half of them would have called it the same way I did.

I was behind the plate, there was a runner on third, and two outs. 2-2 count on the batter. Pitcher is long and lanky with a painfully slow delivery to the plate, and is in the windup position. Runner from third takes off as the pitcher begins his motion, slides safely across the plate before the ball even reaches the plate. I call strike three on the batter. After discussing it with my partner, I count the run, because after all, he scored before the out was made. Wrong call, because of the rule you cite here. A strike out, for the purposes of runs scoring, is considered a force out at first base.

[Bob78164]

Okay, I just watched the replay. I'm thinking the umps just went with the simplest explanation, which is the 4.09b/5.08b/7.12 rule. But the Reds tried to appeal by first tagging second, then first, then third, and that was after the grounds crew worker was clearly seen on camera throwing the ball into an empty infield. The Reds had left the field. To make a proper appeal, you have to go to the base you want to appeal, tag it, and say that you're appealing that a particular runner did not legally touch or retouch. Int he interpretation manual, it's made quite clear that a team cannot just tag every bag, hoping one appeal will be accepted. So 1, their appeal was not proper, because they were just tagging bags; 2, they tagged second base first, which would have removed the force play; 3, the defensive team had left the field after the umpires had indicated game over, which would also prevent a proper appeal; and 4. the groundskeeper interfered. But after all that, it's easier to explain the verbatim rule, than to try to lay the blame on the Reds for not making a proper appeal or interference.

I do think your instinct is right, lb. If it's one continuous play, and the umps are still on the field along with at least one defensive player, they might get the call. But once it becomes appeals, that other rule kicks in. And that may answer BiT's point best of all -- there is a distinct difference between an appeal play and a "live" play, which can make a difference, especially for game-ending plays.

I'm not sure all the Reds had, in fact, left the field but they clearly went to second base before third base, and a nonplayer had clearly handled the ball. --Bob

[Jeemie]

Did they really say 4.09(b)?

I'm surprised MLB let them get away with that. The reorganized and renumbered the rules for 2015. Makes me crazy. The new numbered rule is 5.08(b). But the pertinent comment is this one, underneath the rule: "following runners are not affected by the act of a preceding runner unless two are out." The example they give is very similar to what actually happened.

This would appear to prevent the Reds from making a successful double appeal, even if the worker had not picked up the ball.

BiT, in your hypothetical case, I believe the run would count, as it would in any other inning. Unless I'm misreading you, what you're saying is that with the bases loaded and 1 out, the first baseman fields a grounder and instead of throwing home to get the lead runner, or to second to attempt the double play, or even to touch first to get the batter out, he for some reason throws to third base, gets one force out, and then the third baseman throws to second to get another force out, but that both runner from third and the batter-runner achieve their respective bases before the third out is made? That's just a regular time play, and the run would count, no matter what inning or what the score is. And then the first baseman would be running lots of laps, at least in high school.

MrKelley:

I saw 4.09(b) mentioned in the articles about the story- but the stories have been so confusing who knows what the umps really ruled?

Edited- reading the relevant rules that BiT quoted verbatim, it appears BiT is correct in his scenario.