A complex play in Washington that led to Pittsburgh scoring a crucial go-ahead run brings us a lengthy Ask the UEFL analyzing baseball's appeal rules, time plays, and the mythical fourth out. Article: www.closecallsports.com/2022/...
With one out and two on (R2, R3), Pittsburgh's Ke'Bryan Hayes hit a line drive to Washington first baseman Josh Bell, ruled a catch by 1B Umpire Mark Wegner. Pirates baserunners R2 Hoy Park and R3 Jack Suwinski both kept on running, neither runner opting to go back and retouch or tag up at their original bases.
That led F3 Bell to throw across the diamond to third baseman Ehire Adrianza, who tagged Pirates runner R2 Park while looking toward 3B Umpire Jeremie Rehak for an explanation. While looking at Rehak, Adrianza stepped forward and onto third base, with Rehak pointing to R2 Park and declaring him out on appeal for the third out of the inning.
The Nationals then left the playing field as Pirates manager Derek Shelton came out to argue with Wegner, presumably about the catch vs trap call on the line drive.
The umpires conferred and decided that the line drive "out" call would stand, thus ending the inning on the double play with R2 Park out for failing to tag up. However, R3 Suwinski's run was allowed to score, because Washington's F5 Adrianza failed to appeal R3 specifically AND because R3 Suwinski touched home plate prior to F5 Adrianza tagging R2 Park for the third out. By rule, this is a time play situation as failing to tag up (and missing a base [other than one is forced to advance to or the batter-runner missing first base]) is NOT a situation that causes a run not to score as long as the scoring runner touched home plate prior to the third out being called on a trailing runner (whether on appeal or otherwise) and the scoring runner is not declared out for failing to touch a base or leaving early, etc.
Washington manager Dave Martinez tried to send his team back onto the field to appeal R3 Suwinski, but the umpires disallowed this, ruling the time for appeal had expired.
Here are the rules that govern the more complicated parts of play:
First, why do we consider the appeal on R2 Park valid but say that there was no valid appeal on R3 Suwinski? After all, didn't F5 Adrianza step on third base?
Official Baseball Rule 5.09(c) Comment covers this: "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 their hand, would not constitute an appeal."
As OBR 5.09(c) states, inadvertently stepping on a base isn't a proper appeal.
Next up, we have the fourth out rule, also 5.09(c): "Appeal plays may require an umpire to recognize an apparent 'fourth out.' If the third out is made during a play in which an appeal play is sustained on another runner, the appeal play decision takes precedence in determining the out. If there is more than one appeal during a play that ends a half-inning, the defense may elect to take the out that gives it the advantage. For the purpose of this rule, the defensive team has 'left the field' when the pitcher and all infielders have left fair territory on their way to the bench or Clubhouse."
Thus if Washington appealed R3 for leaving early, it would cause the inning to have a "fourth out." The defensive manager could then select which out (the third or fourth, or in this situation, the out on R2 or the one on R3) they'd like to take for the official third out of the inning. It does not matter in what order the defense appeals on the runners, because the rules give the defense the opportunity to CHOOSE which of the two appeals they'd like to keep as the official third out.
Finally, the rules check was accurate: Washington left the field and thus was not allowed to come back onto the field to file an appeal on R3. Score R3's run, and Pittsburgh eventually wins the game by one run.
22 июн 2024
