Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS Sports)   Pirates make 4 outs, still score on inning ending double play   (cbssports.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Baseball, Major League Baseball, Baseball rules, Baseball terminology, Nationals Park, Washington Nationals, Jack Suwinski, section covering appeal plays  
•       •       •

672 clicks; posted to Sports » on 29 Jun 2022 at 9:24 PM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



35 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-06-29 10:04:59 PM  
i read the article. I watched the video. I have still no idea what actually happened.

I guess the ump farked up, and because the Nats left the field, it didn't matter. That's the weirdest shiat.
 
2022-06-29 10:14:05 PM  
No, it's an appeal play and no appeal was made, so the umps had no choice but to let the run count.
 
2022-06-29 10:18:50 PM  
The ump didn't f up, but the rule is weird. If the third baseman would have touched 3rd base before he tagged the guy who left 2nd base early, I presume the run doesn't count. It's stupid that the fielder touched one guy for the 3rd out and touched base to get the runner who left 3rd early "out", yet they still count it.
 
2022-06-29 10:21:52 PM  

Brewster: No, it's an appeal play and no appeal was made, so the umps had no choice but to let the run count.


Do they have to declare "appeal" like Michael Scott declare bankruptcy, or would the runner from third simply be out if they touched the bag before he got back?
 
2022-06-29 10:56:53 PM  

knbwhite: Brewster: No, it's an appeal play and no appeal was made, so the umps had no choice but to let the run count.

Do they have to declare "appeal" like Michael Scott declare bankruptcy, or would the runner from third simply be out if they touched the bag before he got back?


The inning was over when the third baseman tagged the runner so the run counted because he crossed the plate before the tag was made. The rule book allows the defense to make a seemingly unnecessary 4th out count as the official third out if they appeal. They did not appeal so the run counts because the runner crossed the plate before defense recorded a third out on a tag.
 
2022-06-29 11:14:24 PM  

phimuskapsi: i read the article. I watched the video. I have still no idea what actually happened.

I guess the ump farked up, and because the Nats left the field, it didn't matter. That's the weirdest shiat.


1) The umps did their job precisely as they should.
2) The Nats screwed up.
3) Subby is wrong, there only made three outs.

The umpires merely make rulings on plays, the defense has to make the play for it to be ruled on. The same goes for if a runner fails to touch a base, it is up to the defense to make a play and until they do so the umps are not involved.

The umpires are very specifically not supposed to do anything in these cases, in fact, it would be a big issue of they had said or done anything to signal the issue.
 
2022-06-29 11:20:41 PM  
The confusing part, to me, is yes, he tagged the runner for the third out, but he also stepped on the bag, which I would think would count as the "appeal" for the fourth out.

Any other time a runner gets doubled off on a fly ball, all you have to do is step on the bag the runner departed from before the runner comes back to tag and he's out. You see it all the time: Nobody out, runner on first, liner to the first baseman, bang, first baseman catches the ball and steps on the bag, the runner is doubled off. Even in a triple-play situation, that's what happens: Runners on first and second. Runners go on the pitch. Liner to short. Shorstop catches the liner for out number one. Shortstop touches second to double-off the runner who started at second for out number two. Shortstop throws to the first baseman to touch first for out number three.

On this one, after the third-out tag, the third baseman steps on the bag. In my mind, that's the "appeal" - the runner who started on third and scored should be out for the "fourth" out, just like the example plays I outlined in my last paragraph.

The way the umpires interpreted the rule, if it happens after the third out, the whole doggone team has to stay on the field for a more-formal appeal process, a la what you see when a team thinks a guy left early on a sac fly. The players have to throw the ball back to the pitcher and the pitcher has to appeal to the base to allow the umpire to make a formal decision.

If that's the way the rule is for the fourth out, that's silly. I can understand needing to get the fourth out because you need the formality of saying, "No, he left early and we're not simply allowing this guy to take a base freely," which I suppose a team could choose to do ... no idea why, but they could do it. But stepping on the bag should do it, even if it's after tagging the runner. Having to keep the whole team on the field to go through the appeal process seems silly to me. Yes, if the team leaves the field before the guy steps on the bag, then the run counts. But the guy stepped on the bag. That should make the runner who scored out for not tagging.
 
2022-06-29 11:26:42 PM  

knbwhite: Brewster: No, it's an appeal play and no appeal was made, so the umps had no choice but to let the run count.

Do they have to declare "appeal" like Michael Scott declare bankruptcy, or would the runner from third simply be out if they touched the bag before he got back?


Yes, all they need to do is tell the umpire they are appealing the runner who scored. The scoring runner would be declared out and no run. As you mentioned, they also could have stepped on the base before tagging the runner on 3rd and that would have removed the run as well.

In short, either way would have worked, but they did neither.
 
2022-06-29 11:29:32 PM  
This just came up at trivia, and I thought whoever the Pirates played balked across the winning run in the 9th, since I'm a Braves fan.
 
2022-06-29 11:31:27 PM  

Pfighting Polish: The confusing part, to me, is yes, he tagged the runner for the third out, but he also stepped on the bag, which I would think would count as the "appeal" for the fourth out.

Any other time a runner gets doubled off on a fly ball, all you have to do is step on the bag the runner departed from before the runner comes back to tag and he's out. You see it all the time: Nobody out, runner on first, liner to the first baseman, bang, first baseman catches the ball and steps on the bag, the runner is doubled off. Even in a triple-play situation, that's what happens: Runners on first and second. Runners go on the pitch. Liner to short. Shorstop catches the liner for out number one. Shortstop touches second to double-off the runner who started at second for out number two. Shortstop throws to the first baseman to touch first for out number three.

On this one, after the third-out tag, the third baseman steps on the bag. In my mind, that's the "appeal" - the runner who started on third and scored should be out for the "fourth" out, just like the example plays I outlined in my last paragraph.

The way the umpires interpreted the rule, if it happens after the third out, the whole doggone team has to stay on the field for a more-formal appeal process, a la what you see when a team thinks a guy left early on a sac fly. The players have to throw the ball back to the pitcher and the pitcher has to appeal to the base to allow the umpire to make a formal decision.

If that's the way the rule is for the fourth out, that's silly. I can understand needing to get the fourth out because you need the formality of saying, "No, he left early and we're not simply allowing this guy to take a base freely," which I suppose a team could choose to do ... no idea why, but they could do it. But stepping on the bag should do it, even if it's after tagging the runner. Having to keep the whole team on the field to go through the appeal process seems silly to me. Yes, if the team leaves the field before the guy steps on the bag, then the run counts. But the guy stepped on the bag. That should make the runner who scored out for not tagging.


Play is dead the moment the third out is completed. Therefore just touching the base isn't enough, you have to make clear that you are making an appeal play.
 
2022-06-29 11:59:05 PM  

Pfighting Polish: On this one, after the third-out tag, the third baseman steps on the bag. In my mind, that's the "appeal" - the runner who started on third and scored should be out for the "fourth" out, just like the example plays I outlined in my last paragraph.


There's a comment on Rule 5.09(c) that says 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 his hand, would not constitute an appeal.

Because he's making a play on Park at third, it's not immediately obvious that he's touching the base as a separate action to put Suwinski out. He should have kept his foot on the bag until he was sure both outs had been called.
 
2022-06-30 12:07:47 AM  
Pfighting Polish:

Yep, the rule seems silly. Touching third should count the same as it does in your analogy about the shortstop catching a liner and touching second. I wonder if there are any other baseball rules that are illogical. One NFL rule that I find odd is when a kickoff returner is out of bounds and touches a kick in the field of play, it is a penalty on the kicking team.
 
2022-06-30 12:18:21 AM  

dywed88: phimuskapsi: i read the article. I watched the video. I have still no idea what actually happened.

I guess the ump farked up, and because the Nats left the field, it didn't matter. That's the weirdest shiat.

1) The umps did their job precisely as they should.
2) The Nats screwed up.
3) Subby is wrong, there only made three outs.

The umpires merely make rulings on plays, the defense has to make the play for it to be ruled on. The same goes for if a runner fails to touch a base, it is up to the defense to make a play and until they do so the umps are not involved.

The umpires are very specifically not supposed to do anything in these cases, in fact, it would be a big issue of they had said or done anything to signal the issue.


OK, explain this.

1st base called out fly. Ump raised his hands to signal a caught out.
3rd base gets ball, tags 2nd base runner AND touches plate.

That's 4 outs. Runner doesn't score because he never tagged up. That's 3rd base/Home plate umpire missing that. Because the Nats left the field, and the call was never challenged, the run scores - because the inning is over, even though he was the fourth out.
 
2022-06-30 12:21:22 AM  

bluorangefyre: This just came up at trivia, and I thought whoever the Pirates played balked across the winning run in the 9th, since I'm a Braves fan.


Fark user imageView Full Size


Ok, braves have never farked the pirates....
Good rivalry in the day,

Sid bream
Out by a mile.

/lol
 
2022-06-30 12:31:17 AM  

phimuskapsi: dywed88: phimuskapsi: i read the article. I watched the video. I have still no idea what actually happened.

I guess the ump farked up, and because the Nats left the field, it didn't matter. That's the weirdest shiat.

1) The umps did their job precisely as they should.
2) The Nats screwed up.
3) Subby is wrong, there only made three outs.

The umpires merely make rulings on plays, the defense has to make the play for it to be ruled on. The same goes for if a runner fails to touch a base, it is up to the defense to make a play and until they do so the umps are not involved.

The umpires are very specifically not supposed to do anything in these cases, in fact, it would be a big issue of they had said or done anything to signal the issue.

OK, explain this.

1st base called out fly. Ump raised his hands to signal a caught out.
3rd base gets ball, tags 2nd base runner AND touches plate.

That's 4 outs. Runner doesn't score because he never tagged up. That's 3rd base/Home plate umpire missing that. Because the Nats left the field, and the call was never challenged, the run scores - because the inning is over, even though he was the fourth out.


pires explicitly are not supposed to comment on whether runners touched a base, including whether they tagged up. They just make the call when a play is made.

As play is dead the instant a third out is made, that on the runner not tagging up must be an appeal not merely touching the base
 
2022-06-30 12:31:26 AM  

dywed88: Play is dead the moment the third out is completed. Therefore just touching the base isn't enough, you have to make clear that you are making an appeal play.


Olympic Trolling Judge: Because he's making a play on Park at third, it's not immediately obvious that he's touching the base as a separate action to put Suwinski out. He should have kept his foot on the bag until he was sure both outs had been called.


While I get how they're defining it, I still think it's weird. If you need to get another out to keep a run from scoring, the play shouldn't be dead when the third out is made. The play being dead when the team leaves the field, sure; at that point, they've conceded they're not planning on doing anything more defensively. But when there's still a potential out to get, I'd think the ball should still be live in all the usual ways it's live until that happens. I mean, yeah, maybe it's defined that way in the rules, but if so, I have no idea why and I feel like that's something that should be fixed in the next iteration of the rule book. You're asking a team to know a truly obscure exception to the rule. It's the rule book basically setting a team up to fail with a ridiculously obscure situation. That doesn't seem right.

As for whether or not it's obvious he was touching the base to make the appeal, I mean yeah, I'm not saying you're wrong according to the rules about an appeal being necessary and what constitutes an appeal. But again, I think it's silly that's what you have to go through that to get the fourth out. There's no other out situation where you have to declare your intent. You just step on the bag. If the liner hits him in the head, knocks him unconscious and falls in his open glove on top of the base, it should still be both a catch and doubling the runner off. Are we going to make players file an affidavit before every out?

This seems like a rule loophole the league should look into cleaning up.

knbwhite: One NFL rule that I find odd is when a kickoff returner is out of bounds and touches a kick in the field of play, it is a penalty on the kicking team.


On the flip side, this actually makes sense to me. When you're in bounds, all your activities are in bounds. Take a step out of bounds and you're part of all things out of bounds at that point, including if you touch the ball back in bounds, the same way a catch isn't a catch if you don't keep both feet in. Go back in bounds after being out of bounds and touch the ball, it's a penalty. But stay out of bounds and touch the ball, even if you're reaching back into the field of play, it's the ball touching something out of bounds. You're not supposed to kick the ball out of bounds, including to players who can reach the ball while being out of bounds. Illegal procedure, return team gets the ball at the 40.
 
2022-06-30 12:37:51 AM  
Furthermore, what officially constitutes "the team left the field"? What if the first baseman and catcher made it into the dugout but the rest of the team stayed in fair territory, realized what went on and ran the appeal? Is crossing the foul line leaving the field? Entering the dugout? Would a majority of defensive players being still on the field count as being still on the field?
 
2022-06-30 12:45:09 AM  

dywed88: pires explicitly are not supposed to comment on whether runners touched a base, including whether they tagged up. They just make the call when a play is made.


I'm not so sure about that:

Appeal plays definition:
"The appealing team must make clear their intention to appeal, either via verbal request or another act that unmistakably indicates its attempt to appeal."

Act that unmistakably indicates its attempt to appeal. MLB rule book doesn't go into much greater detail than that. In most lower leagues stepping on a base is enough to cause an appeal.


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

The only appeal play was the 3rd base runner to home, and third base clearly touched it. I dunno. I think there is blame to go around, and umpires are part of it.
 
2022-06-30 12:47:58 AM  
You know what really spices up an athletic competition? Dense legalese.
 
2022-06-30 12:49:06 AM  
Pfighting Polish:

I dunno, it just seems odd that a player can purposely do something that results in a penalty for the other team. It could just as easily be the rule that the ball is down at that spot.
 
2022-06-30 12:53:05 AM  

Trocadero: You know what really spices up an athletic competition? Dense legalese.


Baseball is still the least-worst offender in this regard, even with this situation.

Tell your thoughts to the NFL, which has legislated what appears to be a catch with the naked eye into something that isn't.

And meanwhile, it's entirely possible basketball and hockey could use more rule clarity. There's a heck of a lot of judgement call in the charge/block situation. And I make the following statement having had no dog in the recent Johnny Sex Cup fight and without further comment as to whether or not it should have been called (don't know enough about hockey to know): "Six men on the ice."
 
2022-06-30 1:00:47 AM  

knbwhite: I dunno, it just seems odd that a player can purposely do something that results in a penalty for the other team. It could just as easily be the rule that the ball is down at that spot.


I think it's still OK given the intent of the rule: Either kick it where someone can easily return it or have the leg strength to put it in the end zone. Don't even kick it close to the sideline where the returner loses the ability to dodge the defender to the sideline side without getting punished (on a play from scrimmage, a team puts itself in that situation by its own choice). Get the kick even remotely close to that sideline and a smart team gets the option to make you pay.

This has happened often enough that I think it's a scenario kickers should be aware of and trying to avoid. I'm a Packers fan, and we've been particularly good at executing this play. I think Ty Montgomery even did it once, and he got cut after losing us a game against the Rams in an exceedingly stupid manner, so if he can pull it off, I think most guys can know and understand.

The fourth out baseball situation, at least from what I've read, happens maybe once every decade or two.
 
2022-06-30 1:16:28 AM  

Pfighting Polish: dywed88: Play is dead the moment the third out is completed. Therefore just touching the base isn't enough, you have to make clear that you are making an appeal play.

Olympic Trolling Judge: Because he's making a play on Park at third, it's not immediately obvious that he's touching the base as a separate action to put Suwinski out. He should have kept his foot on the bag until he was sure both outs had been called.

While I get how they're defining it, I still think it's weird. If you need to get another out to keep a run from scoring, the play shouldn't be dead when the third out is made. The play being dead when the team leaves the field, sure; at that point, they've conceded they're not planning on doing anything more defensively. But when there's still a potential out to get, I'd think the ball should still be live in all the usual ways it's live until that happens. I mean, yeah, maybe it's defined that way in the rules, but if so, I have no idea why and I feel like that's something that should be fixed in the next iteration of the rule book. You're asking a team to know a truly obscure exception to the rule. It's the rule book basically setting a team up to fail with a ridiculously obscure situation. That doesn't seem right.

As for whether or not it's obvious he was touching the base to make the appeal, I mean yeah, I'm not saying you're wrong according to the rules about an appeal being necessary and what constitutes an appeal. But again, I think it's silly that's what you have to go through that to get the fourth out. There's no other out situation where you have to declare your intent. You just step on the bag. If the liner hits him in the head, knocks him unconscious and falls in his open glove on top of the base, it should still be both a catch and doubling the runner off. Are we going to make players file an affidavit before every out?

This seems like a rule loophole the league should look into cleaning up.

knbwhite: One NFL rule that I find odd is when a kickoff returner is out of bounds and touches a kick in the field of play, it is a penalty on the kicking team.

On the flip side, this actually makes sense to me. When you're in bounds, all your activities are in bounds. Take a step out of bounds and you're part of all things out of bounds at that point, including if you touch the ball back in bounds, the same way a catch isn't a catch if you don't keep both feet in. Go back in bounds after being out of bounds and touch the ball, it's a penalty. But stay out of bounds and touch the ball, even if you're reaching back into the field of play, it's the ball touching something out of bounds. You're not supposed to kick the ball out of bounds, including to players who can reach the ball while being out of bounds. Illegal procedure, return team gets the ball at the 40.


It seems perfectly logical and straightforward to me as a quirk within the bigger picture of MLB rules. Although I could see how it could seem weird on its own.
 
2022-06-30 1:38:30 AM  

phimuskapsi: dywed88: pires explicitly are not supposed to comment on whether runners touched a base, including whether they tagged up. They just make the call when a play is made.

I'm not so sure about that:

Appeal plays definition:
"The appealing team must make clear their intention to appeal, either via verbal request or another act that unmistakably indicates its attempt to appeal."

Act that unmistakably indicates its attempt to appeal. MLB rule book doesn't go into much greater detail than that. In most lower leagues stepping on a base is enough to cause an appeal.


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

The only appeal play was the 3rd base runner to home, and third base clearly touched it. I dunno. I think there is blame to go around, and umpires are part of it.


Nope. Umpires called it correctly. They even checked with replay officials to make sure they had the rule right.

The Pirates manager said after the game this is why they instruct pitchers to hold the mound at the end of innings if there is a questionable call.
 
2022-06-30 7:10:13 AM  
Every appeal play I've seen has started with the pitcher holding the ball on the rubber, then throwing to the base to make the appeal obvious. The question is, if the Nats had realized what they did wrong sooner, and the LF had taken the ball to the mound and thrown it to the CF at third (as the only two fielders to not make it into the dugout), while the rest of the team was in the dugout, would that have been a legitimate appeal? Would those positions be recorded in the box score for those player, even though the inning was over?
 
2022-06-30 7:26:45 AM  

Pfighting Polish: dywed88: Play is dead the moment the third out is completed. Therefore just touching the base isn't enough, you have to make clear that you are making an appeal play.

Olympic Trolling Judge: Because he's making a play on Park at third, it's not immediately obvious that he's touching the base as a separate action to put Suwinski out. He should have kept his foot on the bag until he was sure both outs had been called.

While I get how they're defining it, I still think it's weird. If you need to get another out to keep a run from scoring, the play shouldn't be dead when the third out is made. The play being dead when the team leaves the field, sure; at that point, they've conceded they're not planning on doing anything more defensively. But when there's still a potential out to get, I'd think the ball should still be live in all the usual ways it's live until that happens. I mean, yeah, maybe it's defined that way in the rules, but if so, I have no idea why and I feel like that's something that should be fixed in the next iteration of the rule book. You're asking a team to know a truly obscure exception to the rule. It's the rule book basically setting a team up to fail with a ridiculously obscure situation. That doesn't seem right.

As for whether or not it's obvious he was touching the base to make the appeal, I mean yeah, I'm not saying you're wrong according to the rules about an appeal being necessary and what constitutes an appeal. But again, I think it's silly that's what you have to go through that to get the fourth out. There's no other out situation where you have to declare your intent. You just step on the bag. If the liner hits him in the head, knocks him unconscious and falls in his open glove on top of the base, it should still be both a catch and doubling the runner off. Are we going to make players file an affidavit before every out?

This seems like a rule loophole the league should look into cleaning up.

knbwhite: One NFL rule that I find odd is w ...


To tie them together I remember a play in a Pats game back in 2001 where the receiver was carrying the ball down the sideline and got absolutely clobbered by a defender. He got knocked out cold and the ball fell from his hands, and in the ensuing scrum the defense ended up with the ball. But upon review the refs saw that the loose ball had touched the receiver's lifeless leg while he was laying unconscious with his head out of bounds and correctly ruled that the ball was dead prior to being recovered so the Pats kept the ball.
 
2022-06-30 8:01:40 AM  

tommyl66: Pfighting Polish: dywed88: Play is dead the moment the third out is completed. Therefore just touching the base isn't enough, you have to make clear that you are making an appeal play.

Olympic Trolling Judge: Because he's making a play on Park at third, it's not immediately obvious that he's touching the base as a separate action to put Suwinski out. He should have kept his foot on the bag until he was sure both outs had been called.

While I get how they're defining it, I still think it's weird. If you need to get another out to keep a run from scoring, the play shouldn't be dead when the third out is made. The play being dead when the team leaves the field, sure; at that point, they've conceded they're not planning on doing anything more defensively. But when there's still a potential out to get, I'd think the ball should still be live in all the usual ways it's live until that happens. I mean, yeah, maybe it's defined that way in the rules, but if so, I have no idea why and I feel like that's something that should be fixed in the next iteration of the rule book. You're asking a team to know a truly obscure exception to the rule. It's the rule book basically setting a team up to fail with a ridiculously obscure situation. That doesn't seem right.

As for whether or not it's obvious he was touching the base to make the appeal, I mean yeah, I'm not saying you're wrong according to the rules about an appeal being necessary and what constitutes an appeal. But again, I think it's silly that's what you have to go through that to get the fourth out. There's no other out situation where you have to declare your intent. You just step on the bag. If the liner hits him in the head, knocks him unconscious and falls in his open glove on top of the base, it should still be both a catch and doubling the runner off. Are we going to make players file an affidavit before every out?

This seems like a rule loophole the league should look into cleaning up.

knbwhite: One NFL rule that I find odd is w ...

To tie them together I remember a play in a Pats game back in 2001 where the receiver was carrying the ball down the sideline and got absolutely clobbered by a defender. He got knocked out cold and the ball fell from his hands, and in the ensuing scrum the defense ended up with the ball. But upon review the refs saw that the loose ball had touched the receiver's lifeless leg while he was laying unconscious with his head out of bounds and correctly ruled that the ball was dead prior to being recovered so the Pats kept the ball.


Ah, that makes sense, and makes the rule kind of consistent. I like examining the history and evolution of rules.
 
2022-06-30 8:57:20 AM  

knbwhite: Pfighting Polish:

Yep, the rule seems silly. Touching third should count the same as it does in your analogy about the shortstop catching a liner and touching second. I wonder if there are any other baseball rules that are illogical. One NFL rule that I find odd is when a kickoff returner is out of bounds and touches a kick in the field of play, it is a penalty on the kicking team.


It's not really odd, it's just how they define a ball being of out of bounds.

In soccer, for example, the only thing used for out of bounds is the ball.  If the ball is wholly and completely out of bounds (or across any line, really), it's out of bounds (or for the goal line, a goal).

In football, it's essentially an extension of the body.  If you're out of bounds, touching the ball, it's out of bounds.  That's why catching a ball while even an inch of your foot is out of bounds, is out of bounds.  Well, the rule states you can't kick the ball out of bounds on a kickoff.  So if any part of the kick returner's body is out of bounds while retrieving the kick, the ball was... kicked out of bounds.

/It's still very rare that this ever comes up.  So infrequently that there was a blatant opportunity for this to happen once last season and while the announcers (and seemingly the coach) recognized it, the returner didn't, so the kicker got away with it.
 
2022-06-30 12:22:48 PM  

jake3988: knbwhite: Pfighting Polish:

Yep, the rule seems silly. Touching third should count the same as it does in your analogy about the shortstop catching a liner and touching second. I wonder if there are any other baseball rules that are illogical. One NFL rule that I find odd is when a kickoff returner is out of bounds and touches a kick in the field of play, it is a penalty on the kicking team.

It's not really odd, it's just how they define a ball being of out of bounds.

In soccer, for example, the only thing used for out of bounds is the ball.  If the ball is wholly and completely out of bounds (or across any line, really), it's out of bounds (or for the goal line, a goal).

In football, it's essentially an extension of the body.  If you're out of bounds, touching the ball, it's out of bounds.  That's why catching a ball while even an inch of your foot is out of bounds, is out of bounds.  Well, the rule states you can't kick the ball out of bounds on a kickoff.  So if any part of the kick returner's body is out of bounds while retrieving the kick, the ball was... kicked out of bounds.

/It's still very rare that this ever comes up.  So infrequently that there was a blatant opportunity for this to happen once last season and while the announcers (and seemingly the coach) recognized it, the returner didn't, so the kicker got away with it.


Does this rule have "electricity", like when you played tag as a kid and you'd make a human chain away from base to keep your friends in the game? Could the return team have one guy with his foot out of bounds, then have five guys holding hands in a chain out to a player putting his hand on the back of the player who is catching the ball. Are all those players out of bounds?

/These are important questions
 
2022-06-30 1:10:26 PM  

Trainspotr: Every appeal play I've seen has started with the pitcher holding the ball on the rubber, then throwing to the base to make the appeal obvious. The question is, if the Nats had realized what they did wrong sooner, and the LF had taken the ball to the mound and thrown it to the CF at third (as the only two fielders to not make it into the dugout), while the rest of the team was in the dugout, would that have been a legitimate appeal? Would those positions be recorded in the box score for those player, even though the inning was over?


In this case all that needed was to say to the ump "appeal, runner did not tag up at third"

The reason it normally goes back to the pitcher first is when you have a dead ball with less than three outs, you return it to the pitcher until the umps signal play is live and then appeal.
 
2022-06-30 1:22:31 PM  

ProfessorTerguson: bluorangefyre: This just came up at trivia, and I thought whoever the Pirates played balked across the winning run in the 9th, since I'm a Braves fan.

[Fark user image image 268x188]

Ok, braves have never farked the pirates....
Good rivalry in the day,

Sid bream
Out by a mile.

/lol


Farking Francisco Cabrera.
 
2022-06-30 3:09:55 PM  

tommyl66: jake3988: knbwhite: Pfighting Polish:

Yep, the rule seems silly. Touching third should count the same as it does in your analogy about the shortstop catching a liner and touching second. I wonder if there are any other baseball rules that are illogical. One NFL rule that I find odd is when a kickoff returner is out of bounds and touches a kick in the field of play, it is a penalty on the kicking team.

It's not really odd, it's just how they define a ball being of out of bounds.

In soccer, for example, the only thing used for out of bounds is the ball.  If the ball is wholly and completely out of bounds (or across any line, really), it's out of bounds (or for the goal line, a goal).

In football, it's essentially an extension of the body.  If you're out of bounds, touching the ball, it's out of bounds.  That's why catching a ball while even an inch of your foot is out of bounds, is out of bounds.  Well, the rule states you can't kick the ball out of bounds on a kickoff.  So if any part of the kick returner's body is out of bounds while retrieving the kick, the ball was... kicked out of bounds.

/It's still very rare that this ever comes up.  So infrequently that there was a blatant opportunity for this to happen once last season and while the announcers (and seemingly the coach) recognized it, the returner didn't, so the kicker got away with it.

Does this rule have "electricity", like when you played tag as a kid and you'd make a human chain away from base to keep your friends in the game? Could the return team have one guy with his foot out of bounds, then have five guys holding hands in a chain out to a player putting his hand on the back of the player who is catching the ball. Are all those players out of bounds?

/These are important questions


I believe it's limited to a single person, but I can't say that for certain.

I know it comes into play often during a fumble on the sideline when there's a mass of bodies going for a ball... if someone happens to be out of bounds and it hits them.... it's instantly declared dead (as it's out of bounds at that point).  I believe it's just that person.  Otherwise if anyone in the pile is out of bounds, theoretically, virtually everyone would therefore be out of bounds since it's a giant mass of humanity...
 
2022-06-30 3:45:23 PM  
jake3988:

The weird part is how the returner is able to manipulate the situation so that it is a penalty on the kicking team.
 
2022-06-30 3:56:05 PM  

dywed88: Trainspotr: Every appeal play I've seen has started with the pitcher holding the ball on the rubber, then throwing to the base to make the appeal obvious. The question is, if the Nats had realized what they did wrong sooner, and the LF had taken the ball to the mound and thrown it to the CF at third (as the only two fielders to not make it into the dugout), while the rest of the team was in the dugout, would that have been a legitimate appeal? Would those positions be recorded in the box score for those player, even though the inning was over?

In this case all that needed was to say to the ump "appeal, runner did not tag up at third"

The reason it normally goes back to the pitcher first is when you have a dead ball with less than three outs, you return it to the pitcher until the umps signal play is live and then appeal.


Did I miss where polish's example was explained? Say there is one out, runner on second.  SS catches a liner and immediately runs and touches second base before the runner gets back. They don't have to say appeal then, do they?
 
2022-06-30 4:16:34 PM  

knbwhite: dywed88: Trainspotr: Every appeal play I've seen has started with the pitcher holding the ball on the rubber, then throwing to the base to make the appeal obvious. The question is, if the Nats had realized what they did wrong sooner, and the LF had taken the ball to the mound and thrown it to the CF at third (as the only two fielders to not make it into the dugout), while the rest of the team was in the dugout, would that have been a legitimate appeal? Would those positions be recorded in the box score for those player, even though the inning was over?

In this case all that needed was to say to the ump "appeal, runner did not tag up at third"

The reason it normally goes back to the pitcher first is when you have a dead ball with less than three outs, you return it to the pitcher until the umps signal play is live and then appeal.

Did I miss where polish's example was explained? Say there is one out, runner on second.  SS catches a liner and immediately runs and touches second base before the runner gets back. They don't have to say appeal then, do they?


No because play was live the whole time.
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.