Comments on: Crazy weird “fourth out” rule rears its head in Dodgers victory http://umpbump.com/press/2009/04/12/crazy-weird-fourth-out-rule-rears-its-head-in-dodgers-victory/ In-your-face baseball commentary Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:44:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jeffrey Resnick http://umpbump.com/press/2009/04/12/crazy-weird-fourth-out-rule-rears-its-head-in-dodgers-victory/comment-page-1/#comment-58986 Jeffrey Resnick Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:59:13 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/?p=5412#comment-58986 Perry I've been talking until I'm blue in the face about what a force play is. Thanks. You did a great job. I would also like to say to Nick that a runner can leave the base as soon as a fielder touches the ball, not catches the ball. Perry I’ve been talking until I’m blue in the face about what a force play is. Thanks. You did a great job. I would also like to say to Nick that a runner can leave the base as soon as a fielder touches the ball, not catches the ball.

Report this comment

]]> By: Perry Barber http://umpbump.com/press/2009/04/12/crazy-weird-fourth-out-rule-rears-its-head-in-dodgers-victory/comment-page-1/#comment-58969 Perry Barber Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:18:44 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/?p=5412#comment-58969 Vincent, you're correct that there are several rules directly applicable to the situation under discussion. But when you say "If the D-backs had put out Juan Pierre at 2nd base (which is a force play) than (sic) the “preceding” run by Ethier would have been negated," you are making a common mistake which I have tried to clarify in my previous comments. Putting out Pierre by stepping on the second base bag rather than tagging him would NOT have been a FORCE PLAY!!! it is an technically an APPEAL play, and Pierre's out would have negated Ethier's run ONLY because the act of stepping on the bag (implying an appeal that Pierre did not tag up before he left the base) would have happened before Ethier crossed the plate. This is a TIME PLAY, not a force play. A force play, by definition, can happen only when a runner is forced to ADVANCE because he legally loses his right to the base by reason of the batter becoming a runner. When you have a catch of a fly ball or line drive, the batter is out, therefore there can be no force play subsequent to the catch because the runners are not forced to advance. They are, however, required to tag up if the ball is caught, and if they don't they must go back or risk being put out by being tagged or having the base they left too soon tagged by a fielder who has secure possession of the ball. These types of plays, as I said, are colloquially referred to as "force plays" or "a force" in the sense that runners are forced to GO BACK, but they are technically NOT FORCE PLAYS. No run may score when the third out is the result of a force play; that is one of the immutable rules of baseball. (4.09.) But a run certainly may score when the third out is the result of a runner being forced to retouch a base, because this is not a "force play": it's an appeal. An implied appeal, not the kind where the fielder actually steps on the base or tags the runner and says "I'm appealing that the runner left too soon." If the runner attempting to score has crossed the plate before the runner or the base is tagged, his run counts. If he crosses it after the runner or the base is tagged, it doesn't. There is no "force play" involved in this scenario! I'm trying to make this as simple as possible, because I know from having attended umpire school six times how confusing the concept can be to people who are wedded to the idea that a runner going back to retouch after a catch is a "force play." That is announcer's jargon, nothing more, and has little to do with the actual application of the rules to the situation Nick describes. If Lopez had stepped on the bag instead of taking five or six additional steps to reach Pierre, Ethier's run would not have counted, not because the act of "stepping on the bag" would have been a force play - it would NOT! - but because it would have happened before Ethier crossed the plate, negating his run. That is clear from watching the sequence of events on the replay. Those extra steps are what cost the Diamondbacks a run. It's a time play, not a force play. Vincent, you’re correct that there are several rules directly applicable to the situation under discussion. But when you say “If the D-backs had put out Juan Pierre at 2nd base (which is a force play) than (sic) the “preceding” run by Ethier would have been negated,” you are making a common mistake which I have tried to clarify in my previous comments. Putting out Pierre by stepping on the second base bag rather than tagging him would NOT have been a FORCE PLAY!!! it is an technically an APPEAL play, and Pierre’s out would have negated Ethier’s run ONLY because the act of stepping on the bag (implying an appeal that Pierre did not tag up before he left the base) would have happened before Ethier crossed the plate. This is a TIME PLAY, not a force play. A force play, by definition, can happen only when a runner is forced to ADVANCE because he legally loses his right to the base by reason of the batter becoming a runner. When you have a catch of a fly ball or line drive, the batter is out, therefore there can be no force play subsequent to the catch because the runners are not forced to advance. They are, however, required to tag up if the ball is caught, and if they don’t they must go back or risk being put out by being tagged or having the base they left too soon tagged by a fielder who has secure possession of the ball. These types of plays, as I said, are colloquially referred to as “force plays” or “a force” in the sense that runners are forced to GO BACK, but they are technically NOT FORCE PLAYS.

No run may score when the third out is the result of a force play; that is one of the immutable rules of baseball. (4.09.) But a run certainly may score when the third out is the result of a runner being forced to retouch a base, because this is not a “force play”: it’s an appeal. An implied appeal, not the kind where the fielder actually steps on the base or tags the runner and says “I’m appealing that the runner left too soon.” If the runner attempting to score has crossed the plate before the runner or the base is tagged, his run counts. If he crosses it after the runner or the base is tagged, it doesn’t. There is no “force play” involved in this scenario!

I’m trying to make this as simple as possible, because I know from having attended umpire school six times how confusing the concept can be to people who are wedded to the idea that a runner going back to retouch after a catch is a “force play.” That is announcer’s jargon, nothing more, and has little to do with the actual application of the rules to the situation Nick describes. If Lopez had stepped on the bag instead of taking five or six additional steps to reach Pierre, Ethier’s run would not have counted, not because the act of “stepping on the bag” would have been a force play – it would NOT! – but because it would have happened before Ethier crossed the plate, negating his run. That is clear from watching the sequence of events on the replay. Those extra steps are what cost the Diamondbacks a run. It’s a time play, not a force play.

Report this comment

]]> By: Vincent Kapur http://umpbump.com/press/2009/04/12/crazy-weird-fourth-out-rule-rears-its-head-in-dodgers-victory/comment-page-1/#comment-58965 Vincent Kapur Tue, 14 Apr 2009 06:53:10 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/?p=5412#comment-58965 Nick, you identified the applicable portion of rule 7.10, but equally important in this case is rule 7.12, which states: "If such third out is the result of a force play, neither preceding nor following runners shall score." If the D-backs had put out Juan Pierre at 2nd base (which is a force play) than the "preceding" run by Ethier would have been negated. Rule 7.12 explicitly allows Ethier's run because Pierre was TAGGED out between bases due to the common assumption that there was no difference. Nick, you identified the applicable portion of rule 7.10, but equally important in this case is rule 7.12, which states: “If such third out is the result of a force play, neither preceding nor following runners shall score.”

If the D-backs had put out Juan Pierre at 2nd base (which is a force play) than the “preceding” run by Ethier would have been negated. Rule 7.12 explicitly allows Ethier’s run because Pierre was TAGGED out between bases due to the common assumption that there was no difference.

Report this comment

]]> By: Perry Barber http://umpbump.com/press/2009/04/12/crazy-weird-fourth-out-rule-rears-its-head-in-dodgers-victory/comment-page-1/#comment-58964 Perry Barber Tue, 14 Apr 2009 02:34:44 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/?p=5412#comment-58964 Nick, you live in Japan! I umpired a couple of games, Daiei Hawks @ Orix Braves (now the Blue Wave, or is it Buffaloes?) at Nishinomiya, and Orix @ Hanshin Tigers at Kobe Green Stadium many moons ago (1989,) and have very fond memories of my time over there. How is the young lady currently pitching for an independent league team doing? Cooler Head, in your play, if the runner from first who left "on contact" (I'm assuming you mean when the ball made contact with the bat) did not pass the runner on second who was waiting to tag up - in which case he would be called out as soon as he passed the runner in front of him - and was thrown out or tagged out going back to first after the runner from second, who had legally tagged up, crossed the plate, THE RUN SCORES. In this play, the third out is NOT a force play, therefore a run may score if it crosses the plate before the third out is made. This is a "time play." In your scenario, the plate umpire would signal the pressbox that the run scores by doing what I described earlier. Wow, I'd love to see a runner from second tag up and score before a runner on first who didn't tag up gets thrown out retreating to the bag. That would be an exciting play! More often, it occurs when a runner on first leaves early and a runner on THIRD tags up and crosses the plate as the runner from first is being tagged for the third out, or the bag to which he is retreating is touched by a fielder with the ball securely in his hand or glove (neither of which are force plays; these are both technically "appeal" plays, the kind where the continuous action speaks for itself rather than the fielders having to actually state that they are appealing that a particular runner left too soon.) Baseball is intricate, yet simple; that's one of its beautiful mysteries. The rules are baseball's "Rosetta Stone"; deciphering and understanding them can lead not only to the occasional run, but to a deeper appreciation of the game itself as well as of the role umpires play out there. Nick, you live in Japan! I umpired a couple of games, Daiei Hawks @ Orix Braves (now the Blue Wave, or is it Buffaloes?) at Nishinomiya, and Orix @ Hanshin Tigers at Kobe Green Stadium many moons ago (1989,) and have very fond memories of my time over there. How is the young lady currently pitching for an independent league team doing?

Cooler Head, in your play, if the runner from first who left “on contact” (I’m assuming you mean when the ball made contact with the bat) did not pass the runner on second who was waiting to tag up – in which case he would be called out as soon as he passed the runner in front of him – and was thrown out or tagged out going back to first after the runner from second, who had legally tagged up, crossed the plate, THE RUN SCORES. In this play, the third out is NOT a force play, therefore a run may score if it crosses the plate before the third out is made. This is a “time play.” In your scenario, the plate umpire would signal the pressbox that the run scores by doing what I described earlier. Wow, I’d love to see a runner from second tag up and score before a runner on first who didn’t tag up gets thrown out retreating to the bag. That would be an exciting play! More often, it occurs when a runner on first leaves early and a runner on THIRD tags up and crosses the plate as the runner from first is being tagged for the third out, or the bag to which he is retreating is touched by a fielder with the ball securely in his hand or glove (neither of which are force plays; these are both technically “appeal” plays, the kind where the continuous action speaks for itself rather than the fielders having to actually state that they are appealing that a particular runner left too soon.)

Baseball is intricate, yet simple; that’s one of its beautiful mysteries. The rules are baseball’s “Rosetta Stone”; deciphering and understanding them can lead not only to the occasional run, but to a deeper appreciation of the game itself as well as of the role umpires play out there.

Report this comment

]]> By: Nick Kapur http://umpbump.com/press/2009/04/12/crazy-weird-fourth-out-rule-rears-its-head-in-dodgers-victory/comment-page-1/#comment-58952 Nick Kapur Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:39:28 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/?p=5412#comment-58952 Russ, I actually don't know what you mean when you say tagging up should be a force play. How could you force a runner to run on a fly ball? And even if you would some how make it a force play, are you saying the catcher would then not have to tag the runner, but just step on home plate? Would the runner then not be allowed to run back to third? It all makes no sense. I actually have no problem with this rule. It makes sense. It's not actually a fourth out, and in a sense it's not even actually a new rule. It's just saying that if a guy leaves early, you actually have to put him out before you leave the field if you don't want any run he scores to count. In baseball, the onus is always on the fielders to make outs, and the Diamondbacks never put Ethier out. And just because most inning ending double plays end on force outs doesn't mean they all do. Every player knows under normal situations that tagging up is not a force - you don't see catchers forgetting they have to tag runners normally. There's not really any excuse for not knowing basic baseball rules just because certain situations don't come up that often. Russ, I actually don’t know what you mean when you say tagging up should be a force play. How could you force a runner to run on a fly ball? And even if you would some how make it a force play, are you saying the catcher would then not have to tag the runner, but just step on home plate? Would the runner then not be allowed to run back to third? It all makes no sense.

I actually have no problem with this rule. It makes sense. It’s not actually a fourth out, and in a sense it’s not even actually a new rule. It’s just saying that if a guy leaves early, you actually have to put him out before you leave the field if you don’t want any run he scores to count.

In baseball, the onus is always on the fielders to make outs, and the Diamondbacks never put Ethier out.

And just because most inning ending double plays end on force outs doesn’t mean they all do. Every player knows under normal situations that tagging up is not a force – you don’t see catchers forgetting they have to tag runners normally. There’s not really any excuse for not knowing basic baseball rules just because certain situations don’t come up that often.

Report this comment

]]> By: Russ http://umpbump.com/press/2009/04/12/crazy-weird-fourth-out-rule-rears-its-head-in-dodgers-victory/comment-page-1/#comment-58951 Russ Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:02:04 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/?p=5412#comment-58951 tagging up should be a force play. that would fix this ludicrous rule. tagging up should be a force play. that would fix this ludicrous rule.

Report this comment

]]> By: Sarah Green http://umpbump.com/press/2009/04/12/crazy-weird-fourth-out-rule-rears-its-head-in-dodgers-victory/comment-page-1/#comment-58949 Sarah Green Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:48:46 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/?p=5412#comment-58949 This sort of stuff is why I enjoy watching when the umpires *don't* make a call. Sometimes, you'll see a guy run to home plate, and the ump won't do anything. Won't call him safe, won't call him out. A smart catcher knows what this means - the runner must not have tagged the plate - and can then tag the doofus-y baserunner out at his leisure. Dave Pinto has a proposed rule change up on BaseballMusings to "fix" the fourth-out problem, but I suppose I enjoy these strange moments because it gives the veterans a leg-up on the younger guys. The young guys have everything going for them - health, speed, arrogance, upside. But the ol' greybeards with the gimpy hips can still show 'em up from time to time, just by knowing the ins and outs of the game a little better. This sort of stuff is why I enjoy watching when the umpires *don’t* make a call. Sometimes, you’ll see a guy run to home plate, and the ump won’t do anything. Won’t call him safe, won’t call him out. A smart catcher knows what this means – the runner must not have tagged the plate – and can then tag the doofus-y baserunner out at his leisure. Dave Pinto has a proposed rule change up on BaseballMusings to “fix” the fourth-out problem, but I suppose I enjoy these strange moments because it gives the veterans a leg-up on the younger guys. The young guys have everything going for them – health, speed, arrogance, upside. But the ol’ greybeards with the gimpy hips can still show ‘em up from time to time, just by knowing the ins and outs of the game a little better.

Report this comment

]]> By: Nick Kapur http://umpbump.com/press/2009/04/12/crazy-weird-fourth-out-rule-rears-its-head-in-dodgers-victory/comment-page-1/#comment-58948 Nick Kapur Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:39:31 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/?p=5412#comment-58948 Hey Perry, thanks so much for the further elaboration from an umpire's perspective! Very interesting and enlightening. Sorry about the date mix up. You see, I live in Japan, so even though it was still Sunday on the East Coast, it was already Monday in Japan. I'll fix that line to avoid further confusion... Hey Perry, thanks so much for the further elaboration from an umpire’s perspective! Very interesting and enlightening. Sorry about the date mix up. You see, I live in Japan, so even though it was still Sunday on the East Coast, it was already Monday in Japan. I’ll fix that line to avoid further confusion…

Report this comment

]]> By: Perry Barber http://umpbump.com/press/2009/04/12/crazy-weird-fourth-out-rule-rears-its-head-in-dodgers-victory/comment-page-1/#comment-58947 Perry Barber Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:50:23 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/?p=5412#comment-58947 And now I've actually seen the replay of the play, and Larry Vanover was not properly positioned to gauge the chronology of what happened. I also see no indication that he initially signaled that the run should score on the time play, as he should have. As Ethier crosses the plate, Vanover is standing on the third base side of the edge of the dirt circle surrounding the plate area; to correctly judge the sequence of events and line up the out with the run coming in to score, he should have been positioned towards the first base side of the circle, as the tag was applied to the runner about fifteen feet beyond the second base bag towards third. What should be even more illuminating to the Diamondbacks is that they had TWO chances to nullify Ethier's run, and took neither. Their first opportunity was when the Arizona second baseman who caught the line drive, Felipe Lopez, chose to run PAST the second base bag and tag the runner for the third out of the half-inning instead of simply stepping on the bag, which would technically have been an appeal that the runner left too soon without tagging up and would have ended the half-inning right then, before Ethier "scored." If Lopez had stepped on the bag, Ethier's run would not have counted no matter how glibly Joe Torre protested, because he hadn't crossed the plate by the time the fielder passed in front of the bag. The second chance came, as I explained earlier, when the Dbacks did not appeal for a fourth out. As soon as the last infielder crossed the foul line, the half-inning was over and no appeal could be allowed. But the restoration of the run, which for purposes of the rule had technically, if not legally, scored, could and did take place when Torre came out and argued that it should. Such are the vagaries of baseball, and the marvelous irony of this play is that the team that should have appealed didn't, thus handing their opponents a run, and the team that shouldn't have had to appeal did anyway, thereby gaining a run that wouldn't have been counted if the other team had known the rule. There's something profound and almost perfectly circular about that, just like a baseball. I shall say no more! And now I’ve actually seen the replay of the play, and Larry Vanover was not properly positioned to gauge the chronology of what happened. I also see no indication that he initially signaled that the run should score on the time play, as he should have. As Ethier crosses the plate, Vanover is standing on the third base side of the edge of the dirt circle surrounding the plate area; to correctly judge the sequence of events and line up the out with the run coming in to score, he should have been positioned towards the first base side of the circle, as the tag was applied to the runner about fifteen feet beyond the second base bag towards third. What should be even more illuminating to the Diamondbacks is that they had TWO chances to nullify Ethier’s run, and took neither. Their first opportunity was when the Arizona second baseman who caught the line drive, Felipe Lopez, chose to run PAST the second base bag and tag the runner for the third out of the half-inning instead of simply stepping on the bag, which would technically have been an appeal that the runner left too soon without tagging up and would have ended the half-inning right then, before Ethier “scored.” If Lopez had stepped on the bag, Ethier’s run would not have counted no matter how glibly Joe Torre protested, because he hadn’t crossed the plate by the time the fielder passed in front of the bag. The second chance came, as I explained earlier, when the Dbacks did not appeal for a fourth out. As soon as the last infielder crossed the foul line, the half-inning was over and no appeal could be allowed. But the restoration of the run, which for purposes of the rule had technically, if not legally, scored, could and did take place when Torre came out and argued that it should. Such are the vagaries of baseball, and the marvelous irony of this play is that the team that should have appealed didn’t, thus handing their opponents a run, and the team that shouldn’t have had to appeal did anyway, thereby gaining a run that wouldn’t have been counted if the other team had known the rule. There’s something profound and almost perfectly circular about that, just like a baseball. I shall say no more!

Report this comment

]]> By: YouGabSports http://umpbump.com/press/2009/04/12/crazy-weird-fourth-out-rule-rears-its-head-in-dodgers-victory/comment-page-1/#comment-58946 YouGabSports Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:36:43 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/?p=5412#comment-58946 That's pretty wild. I had never heard that rule myself, much less seen it enforced. I'm going to have to see if there was video on it in order to see it for myself. That’s pretty wild. I had never heard that rule myself, much less seen it enforced. I’m going to have to see if there was video on it in order to see it for myself.

Report this comment

]]>