Here's Something I've Never Seen Before

[joefromchicago]

I was at the Cubs-Pirates game yesterday at Wrigley Field (Pirates fans, you have my deepest sympathies) and I saw something that I've never seen in over forty years of watching baseball. To set the scene:



So there are Cubs' runners on first and second and two outs with Tony Kemp at the plate. Kemp hits a triple, scoring the two runners ahead of him. But before the next pitch, Pittsburgh decides to appeal, evidently thinking that one of those runners didn't touch third. Michael Feliz, the pitcher, tosses to third base to start the appeal process, but he makes a terrible throw and it goes about five feet above the third baseman's head. Kemp scores from third on the error. The Pirates then eventually get the ball to third base, where they make the appeal. The ump rules that the runner (not sure which one) touched the bag, so all the runs count. Here's the video.

Now, as I read the rules (Rule 5.09(d) for all of those keeping score at home), if the appeal is successful and it constitutes the third out, then no succeeding runner can score. Which means if the runner on second missed the bag, then none of the runs would have counted. If the runner on first missed the bag, then the runner on second would have scored but nobody after him. That would also mean that, if the appeal had been successful, Kemp wouldn't have scored on the throwing error. I think I'm pretty certain of that, but if someone has a different interpretation of the rule, I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.

But here's an interesting twist: if the Pirates' third baseman had tried to make a play on Kemp as he was attempting to score on the errant throw, then the Pirates couldn't have lodged an appeal. That's because a team has to make an appeal before the next pitch/play. In a sense, it was lucky for Pittsburgh that the throw was so lousy - if the third baseman had been able to track down the ball in time to make a throw to the plate, they would have forfeited the chance to appeal the runs that had scored on the triple.

[jpeters1734]

as a pirates fan, you just have to laugh at the dumpster fire

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

Attachment 648034
Now, as I read the rules (Rule 5.09(d) for all of those keeping score at home), if the appeal is successful and it constitutes the third out, then no succeeding runner can score. Which means if the runner on second missed the bag, then none of the runs would have counted. If the runner on first missed the bag, then the runner on second would have scored but nobody after him. That would also mean that, if the appeal had been successful, Kemp wouldn't have scored on the throwing error. I think I'm pretty certain of that, but if someone has a different interpretation of the rule, I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.

But here's an interesting twist: if the Pirates' third baseman had tried to make a play on Kemp as he was attempting to score on the errant throw, then the Pirates couldn't have lodged an appeal. That's because a team has to make an appeal before the next pitch/play. In a sense, it was lucky for Pittsburgh that the throw was so lousy - if the third baseman had been able to track down the ball in time to make a throw to the plate, they would have forfeited the chance to appeal the runs that had scored on the triple.

I'm not so sure about the bold. It's my opinion that the appeal was lost by the errant throw and ensuing score for the same reason you mentioned in your interesting twist. I could be wrong.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I'm not so sure about the bold. It's my opinion that the appeal was lost by the errant throw and ensuing score for the same reason you mentioned in your interesting twist. I could be wrong.

Possibly. I never heard an official explanation for what went on at third base (like, for instance, whether the appeal was on the lead runner or the following runner). The third-base umpire made the "safe" signal, but can that mean that the appeal was disallowed? I don't know. It's something of a mystery.

[joefromchicago]

Here's another view of the play. I'm persuaded that the umps allowed the Pirates to make the appeal. After the ruling at third, the home plate umpire asks Pittsburgh manager Clint Hurdle if he wants to go to the video replay. But the rules for a video appeal and a regular appeal are the same: you have to make the appeal before the next play. Hurdle wouldn't have been able to make a video appeal if a play had intervened between it and the disputed play at third base.

Hurdle wisely declined to lodge another appeal. I don't know how you can allow the opposing team to score on a video replay, but the Pirates would have found a way to do it.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

Possibly. I never heard an official explanation for what went on at third base (like, for instance, whether the appeal was on the lead runner or the following runner). The third-base umpire made the "safe" signal, but can that mean that the appeal was disallowed? I don't know. It's something of a mystery.

Yeah I can't be sure of anything. I just figured it advanced too far to now go back and disallow runs. But then why would the ump ask if they wanted a vid replay?

On your other post. In the video the guy mentioned pitchers tend to overthrow because they're not used to throwing on level ground. But the opposite would be true. They should bounce it on level ground.