MLB Rule Fiasco

[CochiseCowbell]

This seems to be an Order of Operations issue, but seems like semantics to me. It's also an issue of when you can make an appeal. This whole play is just a cluster 17. This rule needs to be tweaked. There's no way that run, which I think was the difference in the game, should count. Help us out, Engie.*




This guy's voice is a little hard to take, but he dives in deep with the rules:




I await Jomboy's Breakdown.

 

[CochiseCowbell]

Furthermore, a team/coach shouldn't have to appeal a specific runner. Why can they not appeal the entire triple play, especially since it all happened around 1 bag?

 

[missouridawg]

I fail to see what's confusing about this.

A line drive was caught. Neither runner tagged up. One was tagged before they returned back to 2nd base. And 3rd base was touched before the runner who started at third got back to the bag. This is a triple play.

I guess the confusion is that the umps didn't see all the non-tagging up?

 

[CochiseCowbell]

I believe it's due to the fact that the "run scored" before the third out was made via tag and not a force out to end the inning. But that runner shouldn't be allowed to score without tagging up regardless of timing. To me throwing to a bag behind the runner on a catch is tantamount to a force out, but apparently the rules don't see it that way?

Then there's the issue of leaving the field and not being able to appeal the call/rule. A pitch hasn't been thrown, and therefore the next "play" hasn't started, so an appeal should still be viable; just as it is BEFORE the next pitch after none, 1, or 2 outs. It's simply a matter of the next pitch/play happening in an opposite jersey.

 

[missouridawg]

I believe it's due to the fact that the "run scored" before the third out was made via tag and not a force out to end the inning. But that runner shouldn't be allowed to score without tagging up regardless of timing. To me throwing to a bag behind the runner on a catch is tantamount to a force out, but apparently the rules don't see it that way?

If the rule book sees it this way, it needs an immediate change. You have to tag up to advance to the next base. No way this run should count.

Then there's the issue of leaving the field and not being able to appeal the call/rule. A pitch hasn't been thrown, and therefore the next "play" hasn't started, so an appeal should still be viable; just as it is BEFORE the next pitch after none, 1, or 2 outs. It's simply a matter of the next pitch/play happening in an opposite jersey.

This needs to be changed too.

Also - the "running down the first base line in fair territory on a bunt" rule where they call guys out needs to be changed also. If the base is in fair territory, the natural running lane is just inside the line. You either need to add the safety bag in foul territory or throw the rule in the trash.

 

[dawgless]

Why not just throw, or walk over and tag 2nd base? Would have ended the inning right there.

 

[00Dawg]

Yeah, the leaving the field thing is a little bonkers.

If there's zero outs when this happens, this never happens, because the Nationals will formally appeal once they realize it's still needed.
Also, while I understand stepping on a base while holding the ball isn't truly formally appealing, the reality is an appeal is what the 3rd baseman intended, and everyone playing, watching in the stands, or watching at home knew it.

 

[DAWGS1.sixpack]

This should have been a Triple play in my opinion.
The runner at 3rd didn’t tag up after the catch was made and then the 3rd baseman tags the runner out coming from second and steps on the bag at the to get that runner going home out.
Triple play.

 

[Cousin Jeffrey]

This should have been a Triple play in my opinion.
The runner at 3rd didn’t tag up after the catch was made and then the 3rd baseman tags the runner out coming from second and steps on the bag at the to get that runner going home out.
Triple play.

There was already one out in the inning.

 

[CochiseCowbell]

The issue is that there was already one out. The third out was the tag on, not necessarily a force, and the run crossed the plate before the tag, therefore it counts...apparently. The "4th out" was stepping on 3rd. If he had stepped on third first, and then tagged the runner standing on third, the run wouldn't have counted....I think.

It appears the ruling treats this scenario like the following:

Runners on first and third, one down. Ground ball to 1B who fields it close to the bag, he steps on the bag for the 1st out of the double play (but 2nd out of the inning). Then throws to 2nd for 2nd out of the double play (but 3rd out of the inning) which needs to now be a tag. Runner on third crosses home before the tag. That run counts.

We can all agree why this counts, the 3rd out was not a force, it needs to be made before the runner crosses the plate in order to avoid that run.

The fact that the rule book apparently treats both of these completely different scenarios the same is asinine (jeez that's a hard word to spell, two esses makes more sense).


On top of all this, the appeal process is ridiculous. There needs to be some serious adjustment to this rule already being addressed.

 

[Cousin Jeffrey]

A few things:
1. Holy crap, that voice.
2. How is this an "appeal"? It's a live ball. The runner was tagged out for leaving 2B early on a ball caught for an out.
3. How can the run possibly count? He advanced without tagging.

 

[Cousin Jeffrey]

We can all agree why this counts, the 3rd out was not a force, it needs to be made before the runner crosses the plate in order to avoid that run.

But we can also agree that the runner on third advanced illegally because he left the bag early on a ball caught for an out. So why should it count?

 

[CochiseCowbell]

But we can also agree that the runner on third advanced illegally because he left the bag early on a ball caught for an out. So why should it count?

I completely agree with you. I should have made myself more clear in that sentence. In the scenario I brought up, with the tag at second, is where we can all agree why that tag must be made before the runner crosses.

ETA: That Pirate run should absolutely not count.

 

[HomeBoyDawg]

Same reason it would count (in a more normal situation where the 3rd out was not made) in the event the team in the field didn't realize that the runner left early and either tag 3rd or appeal and tag 3rd.

 

[HomeBoyDawg]

The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is why does the 3rd baseman touching the runner and then touching 3rd base not result in the runner from 2nd and the runner from 3rd not being called, respectively. These don't seem like appeals to me but, rather, just baseball plays.

 

[Cooterpoot]

The 4th out rule.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

This goes back to the post I did about Buck and the Mets and the 1st and 3rd situation in that game and knowing how to do appeals. That's why the runner took off to cause another play to occur and protect the run by not allowing the appeal to happen.

All that had to happen was when the third baseman stepped on the bag he could have said I am appealing the runner leaving third early. That would have negated the run. There was 1 out. The catch was 2. Tagging the incorrectly tagging up runner was 3 and it does not matter if he was on the base. You have to appeal the 4th out.

Now if he stepped on the third base bag first, which is what I was taught, then it's not an issue.

 

[CochiseCowbell]

You have to appeal the 4th out.

Now if he stepped on the third base bag first, which is what I was taught, then it's not an issue.

1) Which they could've done, but the whole leaving the field issue negated that.

2) This is correct, which is why in the OP I mentioned the order of operations bit. This feels way too pedantic.

 

[MSU Fan.sixpack]

This is fascinating to me. I understand 1) out 3 was made by the tag and 2) the run will count because the runner leaving early wasn't appealed. But what I'm curious about is that the Nats could've challenged the runner not tagging up, even with the tag being the third out, but would have to wait till the play was over to challenge? And because they ran off the field they couldn't challenge?

 

[CochiseCowbell]

The latter. They couldn't challenge the "4th Out" because they left the field.

It has nothing to do with "the play" being over. In baseball that's not really a thing unless time is called or the next pitch is thrown.

Think of our pitcher, Pilkington maybe?, at UTenn a few years ago that tossed the ball towards the dugout from the mound because he wanted a new ball. Ump took it upon himself to award both runners 2 bases...or at least the runner on 3rd HOME. No appeal was made. UTenn didn't know what was happening. Ump took it upon himself to do that. I guess he was technically right, IF time was not granted AND no pitch was thrown.