Rules question- Diamondbacks walkoff vs Reds

[mls4]

In case you didn't hear about the Diamondbacks walkoff win vs the Reds yesterday, see the mlb.com story... http://m.mlb.com/news/article/142241418/reds-lose-after-confusing-walk-off-ending

 

And then let me know what you think.

 

The article cites Rule 5.08(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.

 

(That doesn't say they MUST declare the game ended once the runner touches home and the batter touches first base...)

 

Because there's also Rule 5.08(a) which would seem to apply here: 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.

 

So what I don't understand is: according to the explanation, if the bases are loaded, tie game in the bottom of the 9th with one out, and the batter hits a ground ball to the 3rd baseman, he steps on 3rd for the force (2nd out), throws to 2nd base for the force (3rd out), the run still scores, the game would be over with the home team winning?

 

I feel like I am missing something here. Can someone explain what the difference is?

[Point Beer Is Best]

I think 5.08(b) was put into place to essentially replace 5.08(a) in these situations (bottom of the 9th or bottom of whatever extra inning is being placed). 5.08(b) makes it clear that only the only baserunners who matter are the runner at 3rd base and the batter-runner (if a force out hasn't been secured prior to those happening). That's why tagging 2nd and/or 3rd to get a "force out" don't apply in those situations, and the Reds lost the appeal by attempting the forceouts after the runner had scored and the batter-runner had touched first base.

 

Regarding your other question:

 

So what I don't understand is: according to the explanation, if the bases are loaded, tie game in the bottom of the 9th with one out, and the batter hits a ground ball to the 3rd baseman, he steps on 3rd for the force (2nd out), throws to 2nd base for the force (3rd out), the run still scores, the game would be over with the home team winning?

 

In this situation, 5.08(a) would still be in play. If the double play is executed prior to both a) the runner at 3rd crossing home plate and b) the batter-runner securing first base, the run doesn't count. In theory, I suppose it would be possible for your situation to play out, but how often is a batter-runner going to make it all the way to first base before the runner from first (with the benefit of leading off the base) is taken out on the double play? That's probably very, very unlikely unless the guy fell down.

[hurricanecrush]

So what I don't understand is: according to the explanation, if the bases are loaded, tie game in the bottom of the 9th with one out, and the batter hits a ground ball to the 3rd baseman, he steps on 3rd for the force (2nd out), throws to 2nd base for the force (3rd out), the run still scores, the game would be over with the home team winning?

 

I feel like I am missing something here. Can someone explain what the difference is?

In your scenario, the force outs would supercede the run scoring and the game would continue. In the article, the ump said: ""First of all, they didn't play the ball. The infielders were leaving the infield. The runner from third touched the plate and the runner from the plate touched first." Essentially, the defense conceded on the play and since the runner touched home and the batter touched first, the rule was satisfied.

 

If I was a runner, I would have still touched the next base, that part is a little weird.

 

Edit: spelling

[dlk9s]

None of it matters because the D-backs were awarded the win based on gritty, hard-nosed battling.

[Patrick425]

I think the key part of the rule, as stated in the original rule, is that it does not say that the umpire "MUST" declare the game over. So, it sounds a bit like an umpire judgement call. If you read the article it states that crew chief states this:

 

"They were asking, 'Can we throw it around and tag all the bases and get forceouts?' In that situation, you can't," Vanover explained afterward to a pool reporter. "First of all, they didn't play the ball. The infielders were leaving the infield. The runner from third touched the plate and the runner from the plate touched first. Those two things right there met the obligation of the rule. When that run scores and the batter has touched first, the game's over."

 

I think if the center fielder had chased the ball and played the ball from the beginning (and the D-Back baserunners still did not complete their routes to 2nd and 3rd), the umpires might of ruled differently. So, this would also answer your question regarding a ball hit to 3rd. If you notice in that video, the CF'er had the ball thrown to him from a grounds crew or security employee. So, I think that also added to the umpires declaring the game to be over (as the main two requirements of rule 5.08(b) were met.

[Patrick425]

By the way, not sure how many are aware of this, but the Cubs last world series win in 1908 was aided by this base running gaffe (similar to the situation being discussed in this thread) that allowed the Cubs to advance to the World Series.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle%27s_Boner

[dlk9s]

giggity

[jerichoholicninja]

If a security guard didn't throw the ball in from the outfield I think the Reds would have a legitimate gripe and the run wouldn't count and the game would have to be continued at a later date (but probably wouldn't be played since the game is meaningless for both teams). I know high school rules are different but I've been involved in games where a bases loaded walk brings in the game ending run and the umpires always make sure the batter touches first and the runner from third touches home but never make a deal about the other runners.

[BuckyBrewer61]

By the way, not sure how many are aware of this, but the Cubs last world series win in 1908 was aided by this base running gaffe (similar to the situation being discussed in this thread) that allowed the Cubs to advance to the World Series.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle%27s_Boner

 

If you've ever been to Merkle's in Wrigleyville - now you know where the name came from. Also, small factoid, Fred Merkle grew up in Watertown, WI.

[Point Beer Is Best]

If a security guard didn't throw the ball in from the outfield I think the Reds would have a legitimate gripe and the run wouldn't count and the game would have to be continued at a later date (but probably wouldn't be played since the game is meaningless for both teams). I know high school rules are different but I've been involved in games where a bases loaded walk brings in the game ending run and the umpires always make sure the batter touches first and the runner from third touches home but never make a deal about the other runners.

 

 

That's essentially what 5.08(b) says - the only runners that matter are the guy on 3rd and the batter-runner. I don't think the fact that the security guard touched the ball matters at all since those two runners had already completed what was required under that rule, or at least that's how I would interpret it.

 

Also - am I the only one who has a problem with clicking the "submit" button only to have the page refresh and lose your reply?

[Bombers]

To me. Both runners are out. Take away the end of the game component and think about it at the end of an inning. If you have bases loaded, the runner from 1B and the runner from 2B both fall down when they start running, while the runner from 3B and the batter both make it to their respective bases. If the ball is thrown to 3rd and to 2nd before those two runners get there, the run would not count. It would end the inning.

 

Very bizarre play. I do agree, it looked like the reds had "conceded" the play though. That part to me says they made the right call and just ended the game.

[stoutdude04]

I think if they would have forced out 3rd then 2nd they would have not counted the run. Since they went to 2nd first that takes the force away from 3rd.

[dlk9s]

To me. Both runners are out. Take away the end of the game component and think about it at the end of an inning. If you have bases loaded, the runner from 1B and the runner from 2B both fall down when they start running, while the runner from 3B and the batter both make it to their respective bases. If the ball is thrown to 3rd and to 2nd before those two runners get there, the run would not count. It would end the inning.

But you can't take away the end of game component, as the rules specifically include it.

[Bombers]

To me. Both runners are out. Take away the end of the game component and think about it at the end of an inning. If you have bases loaded, the runner from 1B and the runner from 2B both fall down when they start running, while the runner from 3B and the batter both make it to their respective bases. If the ball is thrown to 3rd and to 2nd before those two runners get there, the run would not count. It would end the inning.

But you can't take away the end of game component, as the rules specifically include it.

That's true. But it does seem odd that the end of innings 1-8 differ from inning 9+. You would think there would be some consistency. To me, if you obtain the 3rd out of an inning via a force, no runs score.

[MadScientist]

To me. Both runners are out. Take away the end of the game component and think about it at the end of an inning. If you have bases loaded, the runner from 1B and the runner from 2B both fall down when they start running, while the runner from 3B and the batter both make it to their respective bases. If the ball is thrown to 3rd and to 2nd before those two runners get there, the run would not count. It would end the inning.

But you can't take away the end of game component, as the rules specifically include it.

That's true. But it does seem odd that the end of innings 1-8 differ from inning 9+. You would think there would be some consistency. To me, if you obtain the 3rd out of an inning via a force, no runs score.

 

Except by conceding the play and having a non-player touch the ball make it a situation where it is not a force. At that point the only thing that could be done is an appeal play, which which would only matter if the batter did not touch first. Still if I were the D-backs manager I'd read the team the story of Merkle and make sure they always touch the next base, just so there is never a question.

[mls4]

To me. Both runners are out. Take away the end of the game component and think about it at the end of an inning. If you have bases loaded, the runner from 1B and the runner from 2B both fall down when they start running, while the runner from 3B and the batter both make it to their respective bases. If the ball is thrown to 3rd and to 2nd before those two runners get there, the run would not count. It would end the inning.

But you can't take away the end of game component, as the rules specifically include it.

That's true. But it does seem odd that the end of innings 1-8 differ from inning 9+. You would think there would be some consistency. To me, if you obtain the 3rd out of an inning via a force, no runs score.

 

This is what I was getting at. A force play is a force play. So it sounds like the major difference is "conceding the play" where the Reds outfielders did not go after the ball, and the infielders started leaving the field.

[jerichoholicninja]

I think if they would have forced out 3rd then 2nd they would have not counted the run. Since they went to 2nd first that takes the force away from 3rd.

 

I thought that too but they didn't touch 2b. They just threw it to a guy near 2b who then threw it first and touched first and then walked to third and touched the base.

[stoutdude04]

Ah, I thought the video showed Hamilton step on 2nd.

[jerichoholicninja]

Ah, I thought the video showed Hamilton step on 2nd.

 

Just watched it again and it looks like he might have stepped on 2B. It's tough to tell because the base is in the sun and everything around it is bright white. If it did count, that might be the first 4-8 putout in baseball history. Also, if it did count it's no longer a force at third so I don't know how you would figure that mess out. Is the runner out because he's out of the baseline?

[DuWayne Steurer]

Ah, I thought the video showed Hamilton step on 2nd.

 

Just watched it again and it looks like he might have stepped on 2B. It's tough to tell because the base is in the sun and everything around it is bright white. If it did count, that might be the first 4-8 putout in baseball history. Also, if it did count it's no longer a force at third so I don't know how you would figure that mess out. Is the runner out because he's out of the baseline?

 

 

Nope. Because once the batter-runner touches 1B and the runner on 3rd touches home, the conditions for the game ending have been met per 5.08(b). He's not out of the baseline because the game is over.