This is so dumb. This must be the only example in team sports where a rule is obviously broken - everybody knows it - and yet unless somebody asks the umpire to make the call, they cannot make the call. Imagine that a defensive lineman was offsides on a big 4th-down play, and the referee knew it, but unless the team on offense pointed it out, the referee could not enforce the rule against the infraction.

This is clearly an artifact of the early days of baseball, and could (and should) be easily fixed.

It's the ole failed to tag up fourth out rule, Chief

This is so dumb. This must be the only example in team sports where a rule is obviously broken - everybody knows it - and yet unless somebody asks the umpire to make the call, they cannot make the call. Imagine that a defensive lineman was offsides on a big 4th-down play, and the referee knew it, but unless the team on offense pointed it out, the referee could not enforce the rule against the infraction.

This is clearly an artifact of the early days of baseball, and could (and should) be easily fixed.

I don't agree. It's an artifact of a general rule being applied to a specific situation. You have to appeal a non-tag up. That's clear, right? And a run that scores before the 3rd (non-force) out counts; that's always been clear. So, there has to be an appeal because the guy on 3rd might tag up, under a different set of occurrances.

What if it was a flaring short fly-ball, and Suwanski tagged and left early, but it wasn't obvious? You can't just assume he's out. "Everybody knows he's out" is not the basis for an in-game decision.

Huh. Normally things like this happen to the Pirates.

You have to appeal a non-tag up. That's clear, right?

I don't think it's that clear. If the fielder had tagged the base before tagging the runner, the ump would have called the lead runner out, without an appeal. The problem here was he tagged the runner first.

You have to appeal a non-tag up. That's clear, right? And a run that scores before the 3rd (non-force) out counts; that's always been clear. So, there has to be an appeal because the guy on 3rd might tag up, under a different set of occurrances. So if instead, the ball is thrown to 2nd to force Park, the run doesn't count? That seems weird and against the spirit of the rule.

So, the fielder has to go through the grand and pointless ritual of gesturing to the ump and indicating that he is officially"APPEALING" [cue dramatic music, perhaps Also Sprach Zarathustra] before his base touch becomes the least bit relevant? The ump should have also rung up the guy who left 3rd early (for ye olde 4th out) the instant the fielder touched the base, no muss no fuss. What, precisely, is the distinction between the two scenarios? What am I missing?

JD, sort of. If he makes the tag he has to appeal. If he had just tagged the base, the runner heading for home would have been out.

The ump should have also rung up the guy who left 3rd early (for ye olde 4th out) the instant the fielder touched the base, no muss no fuss. What am I missing?

After the third out (the tag on the runner in this case), the play is dead and the half-inning is over. Umps don't ring up more guys after 3 outs, make further calls in between innings unless via replay review or appeal, etc.

I agree with the sentiment that it would make sense for a new rule that touching the base would trigger an automatic appeal in this situation.

I might be missing something but I don't see how the need to appeal wasn't obvious to the Nationals due to the third out being a tag. I don't think they were burned here at all.

I might be missing something but I don't see how the need to appeal wasn't obvious to the Nationals due to the third out being a tag.

There was some initial confusion as to whether the ball was caught in the air or on a bounce, which might have distracted them. And maybe they thought the fielder stepped on the base before tagging the runner?

I don't think they were burned here at all.

They weren't. The Pirates could have been "burned" by the fourth-out rule if the Nats had gone that route, but I wouldn't really say that either.

The rule makes complete sense if you look at all of the reasons behind it, and it absolutely shouldn't be "fixed."

So if instead, the ball is thrown to 2nd to force Park, the run doesn't count?

No. There is no force on the play. This is a timing play. The lead runner scored before the third out was recorded.

The rule makes complete sense if you look at all of the reasons behind it, and it absolutely shouldn't be "fixed."

Agree. These guys are getting paid a lot of money; learn the rules.

It seems pretty straightforward to me, actually. The runner scored before the third out was recorded, and the fielding team never stepped on the bag. The rule is written to allow the fielding team to appeal after the third out has been recorded, but they do have to appeal.

Surprised a MLB team got confused by this.

With very few and specific exceptions*, the baseball rules require the defense to do something affirmative to record an out. The appeal makes sense because the defense is in total control of making that happen.

*IFR

Dropped 3rd strike with fewer than 2 outs and a runner on first

rules violations like interference, running out of the baseline, passing a runner, probably a couple more I can't think of right now.

This is why they pay a bench coach.

I don't see the point of requiring an appeal. I think if the fielder steps on the bag the umpire should call the runner out. Why go through the motions of the appeal process?

Having said that, if the defense in this case didn't step on third, then they really have no recourse. The runner isn't out until they do that.

I don't see the point of requiring an appeal. I think if the fielder steps on the bag the umpire should call the runner out. Why go through the motions of the appeal process?

No one had ruled yet whether he tagged or not, or left early or not. It may be obvious in this case, but it won't be in all cases, so can't be assumed as part of the rule.

I don't see the point of requiring an appeal. I think if the fielder steps on the bag the umpire should call the runner out. Why go through the motions of the appeal process?

I think the issue here is that the umpire missed the fielder stepping on third base (he did do that) and then when the manager tried to get a review the ruling was that they couldn't review after the players had left the field.

I think the issue here is that the umpire missed the fielder stepping on third base (he did do that) and then when the manager tried to get a review the ruling was that they couldn't review after the players had left the field.

Why would the umpire be paying attention to that unless it's called to his attention? That's why you appeal, and have the dramatic "foot stomp" on the bag for tag plays.

It's irrelevant if the ump missed the fielder stepping on 3rd, right? Even if the ump saw it, the inning is already over and he can't call anything unless there is an appeal. His hands are tied, if I am understanding the rule.

Why would the umpire be paying attention to that unless it's called to his attention? That's why you appeal, and have the dramatic "foot stomp" on the bag for tag plays.

It's a live ball so he should be aware that either the tag on the runner or stepping on the bag could be the third out of the inning. Of course if Nate is right (and I genuinely don't know, he might be) then yeah they need to appeal and stepping on the base is a possibility.

What does a fielder have to do to make an "appeal", besides stepping on the base and gesturing towards/looking at the umpire? Because Adrianza very clearly did both of those things -- he was standing on the bag for several seconds, right in front of the umpire. He was just *also* tagging the runner at the same time (and he made the tag a moment before stepping on the bag).

From mlb.com: The appealing team must make clear their intention to appeal, either via verbal request or another act that unmistakably indicates its attempt to appeal.

Here's : the play. I think any gesturing to the umpires was ensuring they believed the ball was caught in the air and that it was a double play. It doesn't seem at all like they appealed that the other runner left early.

#25 thanks. I agree that Adrianza wasn't "unmistakably" indicating an attempt to appeal. Seems like the umps made the right call.

Thanks for the link. If the fielder had touched 3B before tagging the runner, the run would be negated, but he did it in the other order, thus requiring the 4th out appeal before leaving the field. The umpires correctly did not call the runner safe and record the run until after the nets left the field and eliminated their opportunity to erase the runner. Just like in the case of a runner missing home plate. The umpire will not record the run or out until the fielding team makes an appeal, the runner goes back and tags home, or the fielding team exhausts their opportunity to appeal by throwing a pitch or making a pickoff attempt.

#24 - #26: But, like, the ball is dead as of the 3rd out. The only way to appeal, by rule, is to put the ball back in play (i.e. all players on the field, pitcher stepping on the pitching rubber) and then making the unmistakable effort to step on 3rd base.

The 3B could have tagged the runner as he did, and then unmistakably stomp on the base repeatedly, and it wouldn't matter. The ball is already dead, and a fielder can't put out a runner while the ball is dead. They'd have to do the appeal the way we all think of when we hear the term "appeal play".

------

For anyone thinking it's a force play on the runners returning to their bases, it's not. "Force play" is an actual defined thing: a runner no longer being entitled to their base as a result of the batter becoming a runner. As soon as the batted ball was caught, there can be no force plays for the rest of that sequence because the batter has been put out. You might then say "but the runners are forced to return to their bases". They're not. They are liable to be put out if they don't. Given the general incentives of the defense to put the runners out and the runners' incentives not to be put out, they are in that sense forced to return. But, like, if after the catch the runners stayed where they were, and the ball went back to the pitcher, and they just face the next batter - man on 3rd, 2 out - then the runner will have effectively stolen the base (or acquired by defensive indifference). As soon as they pitch to the next batter the defense has lost their chance to get the runners out for not returning to their base.

The situation I am curious about is if the batter hits the ball in play, but simply refuses to run - and the defense chooses not to tag him or step on 1st with the ball. He's not by rule abandoning the bases. He is liable to be put out, but what if he isn't put out and the pitcher just gets ready to pitch again? Does he just remain the batter? Like, these are chaos rules where neither side is pursuing the objective of the game, so it's effectively nonsense. But I don't think the rules address this situation.

yet unless somebody asks the umpire to make the call, they cannot make the call.

The Laws of Cricket state that all outs are only recorded once the defensive team asks the umpire to confirm it. Standard practice is for the closest fielder to say "How's that?", and said quickly it sounds like "Howzat".

The only way to appeal, by rule, is to put the ball back in play (i.e. all players on the field, pitcher stepping on the pitching rubber) and then making the unmistakable effort to step on 3rd base.

How would that even work after the third out has already been made? Is there no exception for that situation? I'm not arguing with you, I'm just too lazy to look it up in the rule book.

Yes. That’s the fourth out exception. The defensive team stays on the field and proceeds in the same fashion as any “deadball” appeal.

#24 - #26: But, like, the ball is dead as of the 3rd out. The only way to appeal, by rule, is to put the ball back in play (i.e. all players on the field, pitcher stepping on the pitching rubber) and then making the unmistakable effort to step on 3rd base.

The 3B could have tagged the runner as he did, and then unmistakably stomp on the base repeatedly, and it wouldn't matter. The ball is already dead, and a fielder can't put out a runner while the ball is dead. They'd have to do the appeal the way we all think of when we hear the term "appeal play".

See, now that part is dumb. The 3B should be allowed to get the umps attention and step on third. That should be good enough to be considered an affirmative appeal.

I have mentioned it before, but in the 80s I was watching a Cubs game that "ended" when the runner on third tagged up and scored. The announcers started wrapping things up and players started milling around and leaving and the third base ump just stood in his position, not moving or talking or anything. After a few minutes, a couple of players noticed and people started looking around. The announcers finally noticed and then a player made the appeal at third. "Out", and the game continued.

The 3B should be allowed to get the umps attention and step on third. That should be good enough to be considered an affirmative appeal.

That, too, would count as an appeal. VI is incorrect to state it must be done by putting the ball back in play. The appeal can be done verbally or (let's call it) methodically, whereby the pitcher goes to the set position, steps off, etc. And in the case of an appeal after a third out, it must take place before the infielders and pitcher leave fair territory.

I have mentioned it before, but in the 80s I was watching a Cubs game that "ended" when the runner on third tagged up and scored. The announcers started wrapping things up and players started milling around and leaving and the third base ump just stood in his position, not moving or talking or anything. After a few minutes, a couple of players noticed and people started looking around. The announcers finally noticed and then a player made the appeal at third. "Out", and the game continued.

I think Larry Walker was the guilty runner in that game. It was in 1988, before his official rookie season with the Expos.

Not only does the coaching staff get paid a lot of money to direct the fielders, who also get paid a lot, to make the appeal play, this is all they do and they've been doing it a long time. High school coaches should get this right.

I have mentioned it before, but in the 80s I was watching a Cubs game that "ended" when the runner on third tagged up and scored. The announcers started wrapping things up and players started milling around and leaving and the third base ump just stood in his position, not moving or talking or anything. After a few minutes, a couple of players noticed and people started looking around. The announcers finally noticed and then a player made the appeal at third. "Out", and the game continued.

The appeal has to be made before the defense leaves the field. Why did it take so long, and why were the fielders hanging out on the field for so long before making the appeal?

The appeal has to be made before the defense leaves the field. Why did it take so long, and why were the fielders hanging out on the field for so long before making the appeal?

There was much milling around and talking and many did leave, but not (obviously) everyone. It felt like a long time, but it wasn;t like ten minutes or anything.

That, too, would count as an appeal. VI is incorrect to state it must be done by putting the ball back in play.

From the comments in the MLB rules:

Time is not out when an appeal is being made.

If the ball is not in play, it is not an appeal.

Time is not out when an appeal is being made.

I think this just means that making an appeal doesn't cause time to be out. In this specific case, it's impossible for the ball to be in play at the time of the appeal because the 3rd out has been recorded.

day late and a dollar short here, but the MLB.com story includes a long quote from the umpire on what happened and how they interpreted the rule. TL; DR: Adrianza stepped on the base but he was't "intentional" in doing so, so it didn't count.

What did the umpire say?
Crew chief Mark Wegner, to a pool reporter: “This is the first time I’ve been on the field for something like this.”

What happened? “... [Pirates manager Derek] Shelton originally came out saying that the ball wasn’t caught. So we got together to make sure that we had a catch by the first baseman. Then after that, we made sure that everybody knew what we had, and we had three outs and the run scoring … the defensive team could appeal for a fourth out -- [that] is what it’s called -- that the runner from third didn’t tag up. But they have to do that.

“So the pitcher and the infielders already crossed the foul line. So now they can’t even appeal for the fourth out. So that was that situation.

“The other part of it is -- and this is another important part, which it’s a crazy play, but it was ruled correctly -- is that any time there’s an appeal it has to be -- the player, the fielder, has to be doing it for the obvious intent of appealing.

“In the play that happened, when the third baseman tagged the runner, the third base umpire pointed and said, ‘He’s out. The runner’s out for the third out.’ Now at that point, if the third baseman wants to say, ‘I want to appeal that the guy that just scored from third left early,’ then we can call what’s called the ‘fourth out,’ and then he can step on the base for that. But it has to be an intentional-type thing.

I see both sides of the argument here, but when it comes down to an umpire's judgment as to whether a player's act was "an intentional-type thing" -- seems like the rule isn't defined quite clearly enough.

I think this just means that making an appeal doesn't cause time to be out. In this specific case, it's impossible for the ball to be in play at the time of the appeal because the 3rd out has been recorded.

Right. It means if the pitcher steps off and tosses the ball over the 3B head trying to make an appeal, runners are free to advance.

I see both sides of the argument here, but when it comes down to an umpire's judgment as to whether a player's act was "an intentional-type thing" -- seems like the rule isn't defined quite clearly enough.

Well, I can think of at least 2 other situations in which an umpire has to judge a player's intent. Did the batter-runner overrunning first base make an intentional move towards second, or was it just a innocuous pivot to his left as he returned to first? Did the batter, while ducking out of the way of an inside pitch intentionally throw out an elbow to get hit, or was it just normal body movement?

Fair enough, Misirlou. It just seems weird to me that the 3B actually stepped on the bag, but because he didn't do it with enough intent, it doesn't count. But I get your point.

How about that play earlier this year where the Mets deliberately had a runner get picked off to interrupt the appeal play? The other team (Arizona I think?) wanted to appeal that the runner from 3rd left early, so they waited for the next play, the pitcher stepped off to throw over - but then the runner from first broke, so the pitcher threw over and tagged him out, which somehow made the appeal no longer allowed. Did they not have to wait, could they have just immediately tagged third and asked the ump?

Did they not have to wait, could they have just immediately tagged third and asked the ump?

I believe so, yes. If the ball is live, and it sounds like it was.

Did they not have to wait, could they have just immediately tagged third and asked the ump?
I believe so, yes. If the ball is live, and it sounds like it was.

I think he was asking if they could have done it during the timeout that likely happened in between plays.

I see. I think the answer is no. From Rule 7.10:

Any appeal under this rule must be made before the next pitch, or any play or attempted play. No appeal can be made if the ball is dead.

also:

An appeal should be clearly intended as an appeal, either by a verbal request by the player or an act that unmistakably indicates an appeal to the umpire. A player, inadvertently stepping on the base with a ball in hand, would not constitute an appeal. The ball must be live and in play.

Doesn't appear to be a way to solve the problem of the batting team getting a risk free choice to get either a run at the expense of an out, or if the run is going to be erased, at least get a free base, other than to be on top of things and execute the appeal quickly and be prepared to fire over to second quickly. After the play is dead, the fielding team has to wait until the ball is live before appealing, at which point the baserunner is free to try to advance.

For the record, the rule is that if all infielders and the pitcher leave the field, then you cannot appeal. Its mentioned up thread in the umpires quoted remarks.

A couple primates upthread were asking why players were still on the field. Initially all the infielders and pitcher had left the field. Then Shelton came out to argue and the Martinez and at some pt. WAS players began to return to the field. The announcers were horribly confused and didnt understand why they were arguing about the catch, and why it wasnt a DP etc. To be fair, the initial query was about the catch and it seemed to throw them off.

My question is: at what pt. did Shelton figure out that the run was supposed to score? Or did the umps come to that conclusion at some pt in the middle of all that? I dont think anyone realized it in the immediate aftermath of the catch/tag and end of inning.

I see. I think the answer is no. From Rule 7.10:

I think that might be and old rulebook (or very new!). The 2021 one I found online does not have a Rule 7.10, and the relevant part does not include "No appeal can be made if the ball is dead."

Oh the other question is something BIll James brought up a long time ago: at what pt. did you have to appeal the base runner tagging up? It seems to be lost to the sands of time. He was trying to figure out what circumstances could have led to that being the rule and its hard to figure. Someone upthread (Hi Karl!) pointed out the rule in cricket so maybe it simply descended from that.


Alternately, its possible that there would be a spectacle if the ump could simply call the runner on third on his own. Maybe it might impact the play, I dunno

I think he was asking if they could have done it during the timeout that likely happened in between plays.

I think what I'm mostly asking is if they have to wait for the timeout at all? Can't they just throw to third while the play is still going and appeal to the ump then? That way if the runner on first breaks in the middle, they can tag him out and THEN do this fourth-out appeal play. If the appeal happens while the ball is still live, it can't be "interrupted", right?

Can't they just throw to third while the play is still going and appeal to the ump then?

Absolutely. They can do that if the play is still live. It would be no different in kind than what you see all the time when a runner is caught off base on a hard hit line drive to an infielder.

If the appeal happens while the ball is still live, it can't be "interrupted", right?

Yes. If the play is ongoing, any live ball appeal is acceptable. Once the play has ended, then the formalized appeal process must be followed.

In the 2021 rulebook (I could not find 2022, but I didn't try an exhaustive search), the relevant rule is 5.09(c):

Any appeal under this rule must be made before the next pitch, or any play or attempted play.
.
.
.
An appeal should be clearly intended as an appeal, either by a verbal request by the player or an act that unmistakably indicates an appeal to the umpire. A player, inadvertently stepping on the base with a ball in his hand, would not constitute an appeal. Time is not out when an appeal is being made.

inadvertently stepping on the base with a ball in his hand

...is what the Nats 3B did in the umpire's judgement, and it was the correct judgement in my opinion. Had he intended for that to be an appeal, he did a poor job of it and did not confirm with the ump that the run was erased. That's 100% on him.

So, dumb hypothetical:

World Series, game 7, bottom 9, 1 out, bases loaded, batting team down 1.
Fly ball to the outfield. Runner on 3rd tags up and is gunned down at the plate. Other 2 runners don't tag and eventually mosey around to score while the fielding team dog piles in foul territory just behind home plate.

Now they can't appeal since they left the field of play.

Somehow don't think that would go over well.

I see your intent there [57], but in your example the game and season is over, and there is nothing to appeal, unless your intent is to say that replay reversed the tag, the play is thus (retroactively) alive, and the other two runners technically scored. I don't think it would work like that, but someone can correct me.

But make it like the discussed scenario, and they're all celebrating behind home plate, and yeah. MLB would never be able to live it down.

Yeah, in no hypothetical can runs score after the 3rd out. That is the entire point of this whole situation. The 3B tagged the runner on third for the third out about half a second before stepping in third base. meaning the latter act had no meaning because the inning ends the instant the third out is recorded. meaning the runner that scored is not out yet and his leaving early has to be appealed.

Agree. These guys are getting paid a lot of money; learn the rules.

Yet the umpires, whose very job description is knowing the rules and how to apply them had to check with the replay crew in New York to confirm the rule (and the length of time it took to settle this suggests that the crew in NY had to go to the rule book to verify it).

A team should never have to appeal to get a run to not count.

A team should never have to appeal to get a run to not count.

So, if a guy misses third and scores, you wouldn't require an appeal? Does that also apply if he misses second and stops at third, or is this change limited to just run-scoring plays?

A team should never have to appeal to get a run to not count.

Leaving a base early on a flyball is not an automatic out, nor should it be. It is not a rule violation. It is merely an opportunity for the defense to put someone out, but they have to actually go through the motions of putting the runner out.

Imagine that a defensive lineman was offsides on a big 4th-down play, and the referee knew it, but unless the team on offense pointed it out, the referee could not enforce the rule against the infraction.

Well, that would mean that I was watching football, in which case I might as well just have a Dran-o martini and lie down in a bathtub full of water and toasters.

When I was a kid, we used to play that if you turned a double play with two outs, your team got four outs in your next at-bats. Anyone else do that?

64. Infinite Yost (Voxter) Posted: July 03, 2022 at 01:55 AM (#6085426)

Imagine that a defensive lineman was offsides on a big 4th-down play, and the referee knew it, but unless the team on offense pointed it out, the referee could not enforce the rule against the infraction.


Well, that would mean that I was watching football, in which case I might as well just have a Dran-o martini and lie down in a bathtub full of water and toasters.

- laughing

like we said BITGOD

WELL SAID!!!!

How about that play earlier this year where the Mets deliberately had a runner get picked off to interrupt the appeal play? The other team (Arizona I think?) wanted to appeal that the runner from 3rd left early, so they waited for the next play, the pitcher stepped off to throw over - but then the runner from first broke, so the pitcher threw over and tagged him out, which somehow made the appeal no longer allowed. Did they not have to wait, could they have just immediately tagged third and asked the ump?

This happened again last night, this time with the Astros and again Arizona - https://twitter.com/Decker6/status/1556837253703278592

Are teams just dumb? Why would they appeal this way and let this happen rather than just tag third during the previous play?

This happened again last night, this time with the Astros and again Arizona - https://twitter.com/Decker6/status/1556837253703278592

That play actually took place last September. (Note that Carlos Correa was the batter, and he's no longer an Astro.)

Are teams just dumb? Why would they appeal this way and let this happen rather than just tag third during the previous play?

If the ump calls time before you are able to do that, you can't. Dead ball appeals can only happen when the ball is live. That's the dumb part of the rule.

Ha oops, okay well it just came up again last night then...