I'm surprised that everyone seems to have forgotten that this 4th-out appeal situation appeared more recently than the 2009 Dodgers game, when the Pirates were playing the Nationals in DC on June 29, 2022. This game was perhaps a more interesting, nuanced case, and there's a nice 15-minute Youtube video which explains the play and the ruling - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-DKeVgyUJ0
I remember reading about the "fourth out" in a "Knotty Problems of Baseball" column in The Sporting News when I was quite young. It came back to me as the Blue Jays radio announcers (I was on Sirius) described the play. I probably read that 55 years ago.
For those who suscribe to Sam Miller's Pebble Hunting blog, he somehow in all his brilliance wrote a piece about the weirdness of the Fourth Out rule three years ago.
Is that the weirdest (“e” before “I” again) rule? The other day Chris Sale was called for a balk with a runner on third because he pitched out of a full windup without notifying the umpire. Is that the rule? I haven’t been following baseball as closely as I used to, but my recollection from years ago was that pitchers (particularly starters) almost always used a full windup with a runner on third because they felt that they had better stuff that way. Why should that ever be a balk? How is the baserunner (or anyone else) disadvantaged?
I think the entire balk rule is stupid. Trying to deceive the other team is wrong? What is next, a pitcher must tell the batter before throwing a slider and a runner must announce that they'll steal on the next pitch?
But with that massive grain of salt, I'll play devil's advocate here.
Sale's "full" windup is not the traditional delivery where the pitcher faces the plate, rocks, brings his arms up, steps back, turns and throws. He starts in the same stance as when he is in the stretch. So from the start a base runner can't tell if he is immediately coming home when he starts his motion. The lack of clarity itself is the deception and thus the balk. Pitchers with similar quote-unquote hybrid windups are supposed to announce whether they will use the stretch or windup. According to Sale and Mgr. Weiss, the rule was always just announce it once when there is a man on third. According to the home plate ump, the announcement must be once per batter.
I wish I’d discovered this during the World Cup but I just found out Johan Cruyff, the symbol of Total Football and arguably the most influential coach in football history was a super talented baseball player and was the Catcher for the Dutch U15 Baseball team and later said ‘in baseball you need to know where you’re going to throw the ball before you catch it, football is the same you need to know where you’re going to pass the ball before you receive it’
Which knew baseball was the inspiration for the brilliant Dutch teams of the 70s and the Barcelona of the 90s and eventually Pep and Messi’s Barcelona
I think Joe just had his club team chosen for him 🙂
Joe adopting Barca could cause some problems in the Posnanski family. On a recent podcast he said that his wife and one of his daughters got obsessively into the World Cup and each quickly developed a favorite player. I forget which was which, but one fell in love with Kylian Mbappe, the other with Jude Bellingham. So Joe bought each of them a club jersey of their new favorite player. And of course they both play for Real Madrid.
According to the MLB Lineup newsletter tonight it gets better:
“ The Blue Jays' fourth out play last night came almost exactly 10 years after another fourth out play involving the Blue Jays … in the Minor Leagues.
On July 30, 2016, the Lansing Lugnuts -- then Toronto's Single-A affiliate -- went through the exact same scenario in a game against the Fort Wayne TinCaps.
The manager of that Lansing squad? John Schneider … who was, of course, also the manager on the field for the Jays last night. What a wild bit of déja vu for the Toronto skipper. ”
Being a baseball fan, I've learned and accepted the appeal rule, but I still wonder why it exists. The umpires make calls on everything...except this. Perhaps it's a cover for not seeing and not knowing whether he tagged properly? If the fielding team "appeals" to the umpire and he puts out the "safe" sign it basically means the call on the field stands and the runner is safe, not "I'm confirming that I saw him legally tag"? Now that I think about it, they decided to do the same thing with a check swing. Is there another sport where a referee knows (or he thinks he knows) something has happened that hasn't been called correctly but is not allowed to point it out until an official appeal to him has been made?
The rule exists because the batter is not automatically out for leaving the base early. He is only out if he does not go back and tag up before the defense throws the ball to the base he left. So there is no call to be made until the throw is made to the base the runner left early. If you wanted to rule batters immediately out for leaving the base before the ball is caught, you would have to call out a runner leading off when the batter hits a line drive that is quickly caught by an infielder. You would have to call out a runner who is running with the pitch when the batter pops up the ball. You would have to call out a runner who takes off because he believes a fly ball hit the ground but it was actually caught. Under the rules, each of those runners can reverse course and try to get safely back to the base before the defense throws the ball back or tags them out. The consequence is that the umpire does not call any runner out for leaving early unless the defense throws the ball to the base the runner left. And sometimes that means you need to get a fourth out (or maybe even a fifth if runners left early from second and third and both scored before the third out was made).
This might be a quirk unique to baseball but it is not unique to tag up plays. The same rule applies when a runner misses a base. Even if the umpire sees it, he doesn't call the runner out unless the defense throws the ball to the missed base or tags the runner. The call can't be automatic because the runner has the chance to go back and touch the base before the defense gets the out. If the defense doesn't do so, the runner is safe.
I umpired high school baseball for more than 20 years beginning in 1994. At that
time there was no "appeal" requirement for missed bases or leaving a base early
on a caught fly ball. I remember on one occasion , when I was working the field, a base runner clearly missed second base while running to third on a base hit.
When it was clear to me that the play ended, I called "time" and declared the
runner out for missing second base. No problem. When the rule was changed
in a few years to basically conform with the major league appeal procedure it
seemed to add unnecessary complexity to the rules.
Yeah, I can see that. Well explained. I still think the rule could have been made such that if the offensive team makes no attempt to rectify the error and time is called then the umpire can declare the runner out for the transgression of leaving early or not touching the bases in order. Probably because of the "baseball has no clock", they decided to not to do that and make the rule that the runner is only out if he is tagged or the ball is thrown to the base he left early or missed before he retouches. Though that's not quite right either - it's not automatic...it's an "appeal" to the umpire that the runner is out. I suppose considering the age of the sport and the rules created, it only became an oddity as the rules of the other sports with clocks developed and gained popularity.
Btw, I like to do this a lot, imagine being a fly on the wall of an early rules committee on deciding on how to deal with conflicting rules. Person A asks "what happens if the runner doesn't retouch the base after the ball is caught?". Person B says "he's out". A: "when?" B: "when time is called". A: "but there's no clock in the game so how does the umpire determine when it's okay to grant "time"?" B:"how about he gets an okay from each manager before calling time?" A: "That will make the game longer" B: "Good point" C: "That's it!?! You're gonna let a run score even though the rules weren't followed!?!" B: "<Shrug>,What else are we gonna do?" A: "The other team should pay attention better" C: "So an umpire knows they didn't do it right, but keeps it to himself!?! That's stupid." A: "It's like being in court, the judge doesn't object to an impropriety by a lawyer, the other lawyer has to appeal to the judge with an objection and have it sustained. C: "Hmm, I guess" B: Okay, let's get back to what a legal pitch is. Groans from everyone.
It's pretty clear what's happened here. The rules of the game have evolved to a level of complexity where we need a way to quickly and definitively resolve. or prolong, complex disputes. We need to send in the lawyers. Each manager would have a legal advisor in the dug out. The Chief of the Umpires would also have designated counsel. In between the bullpens there would be an appeals court. Teams would vie to get the best lawyers and eventually a lawyers draft would be established. The Dodgers of course would retain the entire Supreme Court, except for one seat. That would go to Ohtani who would reiterate that when he said he can do everything, he meant everything. The Angels would retain the entire faculty of Harvard Law School and still lose every case, because they are the Angels. Aaron Judge would assert he should resolve every dispute, because he's the only one who really is a Judge.
Something I hope that Joe touches on at JoBB: from where did he learn his joyous outlook on baseball. As a child growing up in Cleveland, it can't come from those highly successful clubs in any sport. Some of the early columns had - as Joe admits - more than their share of snark and venom. But now his writing and speaking on podcasts and the one time I heard him live just drips with positivity and hope. Joy one could almost say.
Was it through long association with Buck, a fountain of joy? Marriage, children, professional success, something(s) else?
Here’s the most glorious thing about that play: no one knew what was going on, not the play-by-play guys (on the Toronto feed at any rate, not the crowd, not the players. Who knew? Max Scherzer! That’s who! Because he was on the Diamondbacks for that 2009 game, and he remembers it like it was yesterday!
Does it matter how many players leave the field? If the third baseman was already in foul territory but touching the bag on the appeal, does that count? What about the catcher?
First, it wasn’t Wong. Wong was erased on Vlad’s throw to 2B. So it was the batter (Sogard) on 1st, and Seigler on 3rd. IF VLAD HAD CAUGHT the line drive, it would have been impossible for Sogard to be on 1st, right? So how does he not know that?? And Seigler ran on THAT ball too, so he would have been doubled off 2nd. So HOW IS IT POSSIBLE that neither player would think that there are 2 outs?? Mind-boggling.
And I think Seigler even said today that the 3rd base coach told him there was 1 out. So why did you run? Everybody else was acting like there were two outs! Good Grief!!
I'm surprised that everyone seems to have forgotten that this 4th-out appeal situation appeared more recently than the 2009 Dodgers game, when the Pirates were playing the Nationals in DC on June 29, 2022. This game was perhaps a more interesting, nuanced case, and there's a nice 15-minute Youtube video which explains the play and the ruling - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-DKeVgyUJ0
I remember reading about the "fourth out" in a "Knotty Problems of Baseball" column in The Sporting News when I was quite young. It came back to me as the Blue Jays radio announcers (I was on Sirius) described the play. I probably read that 55 years ago.
For those who suscribe to Sam Miller's Pebble Hunting blog, he somehow in all his brilliance wrote a piece about the weirdness of the Fourth Out rule three years ago.
The man is a genius.
Max Scherzer said he had seen this happen before so it was very cool to see he was on that Diamondbacks team where it happened.
Is that the weirdest (“e” before “I” again) rule? The other day Chris Sale was called for a balk with a runner on third because he pitched out of a full windup without notifying the umpire. Is that the rule? I haven’t been following baseball as closely as I used to, but my recollection from years ago was that pitchers (particularly starters) almost always used a full windup with a runner on third because they felt that they had better stuff that way. Why should that ever be a balk? How is the baserunner (or anyone else) disadvantaged?
I think the entire balk rule is stupid. Trying to deceive the other team is wrong? What is next, a pitcher must tell the batter before throwing a slider and a runner must announce that they'll steal on the next pitch?
But with that massive grain of salt, I'll play devil's advocate here.
Sale's "full" windup is not the traditional delivery where the pitcher faces the plate, rocks, brings his arms up, steps back, turns and throws. He starts in the same stance as when he is in the stretch. So from the start a base runner can't tell if he is immediately coming home when he starts his motion. The lack of clarity itself is the deception and thus the balk. Pitchers with similar quote-unquote hybrid windups are supposed to announce whether they will use the stretch or windup. According to Sale and Mgr. Weiss, the rule was always just announce it once when there is a man on third. According to the home plate ump, the announcement must be once per batter.
So if the Jays had thought to appeal, would that have been scored as a triple play?
And would there then have been an emergency Poscast to debate whether or not it should’ve been?
I wish I’d discovered this during the World Cup but I just found out Johan Cruyff, the symbol of Total Football and arguably the most influential coach in football history was a super talented baseball player and was the Catcher for the Dutch U15 Baseball team and later said ‘in baseball you need to know where you’re going to throw the ball before you catch it, football is the same you need to know where you’re going to pass the ball before you receive it’
Which knew baseball was the inspiration for the brilliant Dutch teams of the 70s and the Barcelona of the 90s and eventually Pep and Messi’s Barcelona
I think Joe just had his club team chosen for him 🙂
Joe adopting Barca could cause some problems in the Posnanski family. On a recent podcast he said that his wife and one of his daughters got obsessively into the World Cup and each quickly developed a favorite player. I forget which was which, but one fell in love with Kylian Mbappe, the other with Jude Bellingham. So Joe bought each of them a club jersey of their new favorite player. And of course they both play for Real Madrid.
I was going to mention he’d have To burn the daughters Bellingham shirt but thought my note was too long already 🙂
I think you mean Josh Bellingham. :-)
According to the MLB Lineup newsletter tonight it gets better:
“ The Blue Jays' fourth out play last night came almost exactly 10 years after another fourth out play involving the Blue Jays … in the Minor Leagues.
On July 30, 2016, the Lansing Lugnuts -- then Toronto's Single-A affiliate -- went through the exact same scenario in a game against the Fort Wayne TinCaps.
The manager of that Lansing squad? John Schneider … who was, of course, also the manager on the field for the Jays last night. What a wild bit of déja vu for the Toronto skipper. ”
The funny thing about the people who thought there were two outs is this.
The Red Sox had two base runners before the ground out to Vladdy
The Red Sox still had two base runners AFTER the ground out to Vladdy
Who, exactly, did all these people think had made the two outs?
Guest. George Will.
Being a baseball fan, I've learned and accepted the appeal rule, but I still wonder why it exists. The umpires make calls on everything...except this. Perhaps it's a cover for not seeing and not knowing whether he tagged properly? If the fielding team "appeals" to the umpire and he puts out the "safe" sign it basically means the call on the field stands and the runner is safe, not "I'm confirming that I saw him legally tag"? Now that I think about it, they decided to do the same thing with a check swing. Is there another sport where a referee knows (or he thinks he knows) something has happened that hasn't been called correctly but is not allowed to point it out until an official appeal to him has been made?
The rule exists because the batter is not automatically out for leaving the base early. He is only out if he does not go back and tag up before the defense throws the ball to the base he left. So there is no call to be made until the throw is made to the base the runner left early. If you wanted to rule batters immediately out for leaving the base before the ball is caught, you would have to call out a runner leading off when the batter hits a line drive that is quickly caught by an infielder. You would have to call out a runner who is running with the pitch when the batter pops up the ball. You would have to call out a runner who takes off because he believes a fly ball hit the ground but it was actually caught. Under the rules, each of those runners can reverse course and try to get safely back to the base before the defense throws the ball back or tags them out. The consequence is that the umpire does not call any runner out for leaving early unless the defense throws the ball to the base the runner left. And sometimes that means you need to get a fourth out (or maybe even a fifth if runners left early from second and third and both scored before the third out was made).
This might be a quirk unique to baseball but it is not unique to tag up plays. The same rule applies when a runner misses a base. Even if the umpire sees it, he doesn't call the runner out unless the defense throws the ball to the missed base or tags the runner. The call can't be automatic because the runner has the chance to go back and touch the base before the defense gets the out. If the defense doesn't do so, the runner is safe.
I umpired high school baseball for more than 20 years beginning in 1994. At that
time there was no "appeal" requirement for missed bases or leaving a base early
on a caught fly ball. I remember on one occasion , when I was working the field, a base runner clearly missed second base while running to third on a base hit.
When it was clear to me that the play ended, I called "time" and declared the
runner out for missing second base. No problem. When the rule was changed
in a few years to basically conform with the major league appeal procedure it
seemed to add unnecessary complexity to the rules.
Yeah, I can see that. Well explained. I still think the rule could have been made such that if the offensive team makes no attempt to rectify the error and time is called then the umpire can declare the runner out for the transgression of leaving early or not touching the bases in order. Probably because of the "baseball has no clock", they decided to not to do that and make the rule that the runner is only out if he is tagged or the ball is thrown to the base he left early or missed before he retouches. Though that's not quite right either - it's not automatic...it's an "appeal" to the umpire that the runner is out. I suppose considering the age of the sport and the rules created, it only became an oddity as the rules of the other sports with clocks developed and gained popularity.
Btw, I like to do this a lot, imagine being a fly on the wall of an early rules committee on deciding on how to deal with conflicting rules. Person A asks "what happens if the runner doesn't retouch the base after the ball is caught?". Person B says "he's out". A: "when?" B: "when time is called". A: "but there's no clock in the game so how does the umpire determine when it's okay to grant "time"?" B:"how about he gets an okay from each manager before calling time?" A: "That will make the game longer" B: "Good point" C: "That's it!?! You're gonna let a run score even though the rules weren't followed!?!" B: "<Shrug>,What else are we gonna do?" A: "The other team should pay attention better" C: "So an umpire knows they didn't do it right, but keeps it to himself!?! That's stupid." A: "It's like being in court, the judge doesn't object to an impropriety by a lawyer, the other lawyer has to appeal to the judge with an objection and have it sustained. C: "Hmm, I guess" B: Okay, let's get back to what a legal pitch is. Groans from everyone.
The way you describe this makes it sound like union negotiated laziness.
"Yes, we agree to call the game, but not ALL of it! Unless you ask nicely."
It's pretty clear what's happened here. The rules of the game have evolved to a level of complexity where we need a way to quickly and definitively resolve. or prolong, complex disputes. We need to send in the lawyers. Each manager would have a legal advisor in the dug out. The Chief of the Umpires would also have designated counsel. In between the bullpens there would be an appeals court. Teams would vie to get the best lawyers and eventually a lawyers draft would be established. The Dodgers of course would retain the entire Supreme Court, except for one seat. That would go to Ohtani who would reiterate that when he said he can do everything, he meant everything. The Angels would retain the entire faculty of Harvard Law School and still lose every case, because they are the Angels. Aaron Judge would assert he should resolve every dispute, because he's the only one who really is a Judge.
Something I hope that Joe touches on at JoBB: from where did he learn his joyous outlook on baseball. As a child growing up in Cleveland, it can't come from those highly successful clubs in any sport. Some of the early columns had - as Joe admits - more than their share of snark and venom. But now his writing and speaking on podcasts and the one time I heard him live just drips with positivity and hope. Joy one could almost say.
Was it through long association with Buck, a fountain of joy? Marriage, children, professional success, something(s) else?
Here’s the most glorious thing about that play: no one knew what was going on, not the play-by-play guys (on the Toronto feed at any rate, not the crowd, not the players. Who knew? Max Scherzer! That’s who! Because he was on the Diamondbacks for that 2009 game, and he remembers it like it was yesterday!
Does it matter how many players leave the field? If the third baseman was already in foul territory but touching the bag on the appeal, does that count? What about the catcher?
The defense has "left the field" when the pitcher and all infielders have gone into foul territory.
First, it wasn’t Wong. Wong was erased on Vlad’s throw to 2B. So it was the batter (Sogard) on 1st, and Seigler on 3rd. IF VLAD HAD CAUGHT the line drive, it would have been impossible for Sogard to be on 1st, right? So how does he not know that?? And Seigler ran on THAT ball too, so he would have been doubled off 2nd. So HOW IS IT POSSIBLE that neither player would think that there are 2 outs?? Mind-boggling.
And I think Seigler even said today that the 3rd base coach told him there was 1 out. So why did you run? Everybody else was acting like there were two outs! Good Grief!!