I still haven’t seen the video, but the way it would work is as follows:
Get the ball to third. The runner from second was required to run to third, because the guy behind him was forced to run to second, because the guy behind HIM put the ball in play (that is, the ball bounced). But the runner from second didn’t make it to third. He is forced out at third base. There’s already one out, so that’s the second out of the inning.
Next, get the ball to second. As we’ve already seen, the runner from first is required to touch second. But he didn’t. So, he is forced out at second. That’s the third out of the inning. Because the third out was made on a force play, the run does not score.
Supposedly it didn’t actually happen quite like this…but this is the idea.
There are other types of outs where the penalty isn’t as great as for a force out, even when the runner was forced to advance. For instance, an appeal play for leaving a base early doesn’t prevent a run from being scored.
Maybe the rules should say that abandoning the basepaths can be a force out. Maybe some umpiring squad would interpret the rules that way. Maybe MLB would interpret the rules that way if a decision were protested. The rules don’t actually explicitly say what you think they should say.
I will say that the MLB rulebook isn’t well-written. There are places (like this) where it’s not clear whether one part of the rules should be applied to another part. The definitions of terms can be vague, and are sometimes circular.
I still think the umpires got it wrong. The crew chief keeps citing 4.09 (b) about a winning run scoring: x.com
The applicable rules are below:
[QUOTE=Applicable Rules]
5.08 (4.09) How a Team Scores
(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.
Rule 5.08(a) Comment (Rule 5.06 Comment): A run legally
scored cannot be nullified by subsequent action of the runner,
such as but not limited to an effort to return to third base in the
belief that he had left the base before a caught fly ball.
(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.
[/QUOTE]
Note the text of 4.09 (b): when the winning run is scored. But the exception of 4.09 (a) says that a run cannot score (a winning run or otherwise) if the third out is made on a force play.
Clearly 4.09 (b) talks of a base on balls or a hit batter which forces in the winning run. Only then do we see a situation where we only need the runner to touch the plate and the batter to take first. The ball is dead and no play can be made on the other runners.
I mentioned it earlier, rule 4.09(b) is very poorly written and I don’t believe the umpire is applying it correctly. I completely agree with **UltraVires **that the Reds should have been able to record those outs. Frankly, I’m surprised that two major league baseball players didn’t run all the way to the next base on a game winning hit.
The umpire also cited that the “infielders were leaving the infield.” That would only matter on an appeal play, which a force out is not.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. I’m talking only about force situations, and the leaving-a-base-early appeal play is by definition not a force. If you leave a base early, the ball was caught on the fly. If there’s a force, the ball hit the ground. The two are very different scenarios.
Did you mean the appeal play in which a runner misses the base? Because that’s a situation where the force “penalty” not only can exist, but where the existence or non-existence of the force makes a big difference:
–First and third, two out.
–Batter hits a double. Both runners cross the plate.
–Say the runner from first misses second and the defensive team appeals. Runner is called out, three out, runner from third does NOT score because the runner from first never reached the base he was forced to reach.
–Say the same runner tags second, but misses third and the defensive team appeals. Runner is called out, three out, but the runner from third DOES score because the force no longer applied to the runner from first.
[Note that because the ball hit the ground before being fielded, no one could have left the bases early.]
My point is just that if a force situation causes the third out, any runs that scored before the force was made don’t count. As rule 4.09(a)(2) specifies–I think the rule was already cited–“A run is not scored if the runner advances to home base during a play in which the third out is made…by any runner being forced out.” So I’m confused about what you mean when you say that there are some types of outs that don’t carry the penalty of a force out even when the runner is forced to advance.
You have to admit the level of competitive balance is making things fun. The AL has only one team over .600 and no team under (or even close to, really) .400. While the AL Central is over, the other two divisions have three legitimate contenders. The wild cards are being contested by six teams (or more, if you count New York and Houston, since they are barely aheadf in the divisional race.) Two hot weeks and you’re on top, two bad weeks and things look dismal. Anything can happen. It’s fun.
The funny thing is that prior to the weekend series against the Blue Jays, the Yankees were playing just fine. They had not lost a series in three weeks.
A look at the standings illustrates why people who say in May “oh, it’s early” are wrong. It’s never early. Every game matters. As terrible as things look for the Yankees and as great as they look for Toronto, New York is STILL a half game ahead. If they were to get swept again this coming weekend they will still be in a wild card position and within striking distance of Toronto with six weeks of baseball yet to play. Toronto, as great as things seem now, is still in second place and haven’t won anything yet. All that is because New York played well all year and Toronto’s had three losing calendar months. Those early games matter.
Yes, the competitive balance keeps things interesting. But I’m still not a big fan of the 2nd wild card. Playing 162 games with a real playoff appearance to be decided by one game just doesn’t smell right to me.
The Red Sox are toast, so usually it would be at least interesting to see the young guys get more time. But I’ve had enough of Jackie Bradley, Jr.
Yesterday a sort-of amazing thing happened: For the first time in MLB history, all 15 home teams won. Back when there were only 24 teams, all 12 home teams one only once (May 23, 1914), and since the 1969 expansion, that record of 12 home-team wins has stood.
But yesterday, every single home team won for only the second time in history, and for the first time since the league expanded to 30 teams.
There’s something wrong with that sentence, Happy; in 1914 there were only 16 teams in the major leagues so there could have been 8 home teams winning in a day.
When I read the fact that 15 home wins had never happened before I was amazed, but mathematically I suppose it’s really quite unlikely. Even if you assume the home team a 55% chance of winning, which I think is about right, the odds of it happening are something like eight thousand to one. There have not been eight thousand days of MLB regular season since the 1998 expansion. I don’t think there have been eight thousand days in which all the teams in the big leagues played in my entire life.
This is assuming the visiting team is just as likely to win as the home team, which of course isn’t true.
Assuming no unusual arrangements of bad teams (e.g. the visiting teams all happen to be worse than the home teams) the home field advantage is roughly four percent above even. I previously said 55% but upon looking it up just now it’s currently running a little lower than that. Factoring that in, it’s about 10,300 to 1. That home field advantage makes a big difference - though it’s still a once in a lifetime occurrence.
No; the figure to look at is not the number of games, but the number of *days *on which a full slate of 15 games is played. That’s probably about 150 per season. Obviously a big difference between 150 opportunities and almost 2500: in all, it’s going to happen much, much, MUCH (repeat “much” many more times) less frequently than once every four or five years.
