we get it, you dont like the ruling.

"unaided by an error"....stands by itself...."and such and such..." becomes irrelevant.

 ?
@   rbow923


this issue has been resolved and correctly given an rbi ....i was just trying to explain why to Napolean

They had it right the first time.

There is one, and only one, applicable rule to examine when deciding if the batter gets an RBI--Rule (a)(3).

10.04 Runs Batted In
A run batted in is a statistic credited to a batter whose action at bat causes one or more runs to score, as set forth in this Rule 10.04.
(a) The official scorer shall credit the batter with a run batted in for every run that scores
(1) unaided by an error and as part of a play begun by the batter's safe hit (including the batter’s home run), sacrifice bunt, sacrifice fly, infield out or fielder's choice, unless Rule 10.04(b) applies; NOT APPLICABLE.
(2) by reason of the batter becoming a runner with the bases full (because of a base on balls, an award of first base for being touched by a pitched ball or for interference or obstruction); or NOT APPLICABLE.
(3) when, before two are out, an error is made on a play on which a runner from third base ordinarily would score.

(b) The official scorer shall not credit a run batted in
(1) when the batter grounds into a force double play or a reverse-force double play; or NOT APPLICABLE.
(2) when a fielder is charged with an error because the fielder muffs a throw at first base that would have completed a force double play. NOT APPLICABLE.
(c) The official scorer's judgment must determine whether a run batted in shall be credited for a run that scores when a fielder holds the ball or throws to a wrong base. Ordinarily, if the runner keeps going, the official scorer should credit a run batted in; if the runner stops and takes off again when the runner notices the misplay, the official scorer should credit the run as scored on a fielder's choice. NOT APPLICABLE.

------------

The scorer's only job when deciding whether or not an RBI should be awarded is to consider what would have happened if the ball had been fielded cleanly, in reference to Rule (a)(3). If the runner on third base "ordinarily would score" on the play, and RBI is awarded. If not, no RBI is awarded.

So, let's go through the possibilities of what would have happened if the ball had been fielded cleanly, and the consequences:

A) Fielder throws to second, forcing the runner. The SS may or may not have thrown to first, but that is irrelevant here. Either way, the run scores.
B) Fielder throws to second, but runner beats the throw. The run scores.
C) Fielder throws to first, throwing out the batter/runner. The run scores.
D) Fielder throws to first, batter/runner beats the throw. The run scores.
E) Fielder throws home, forces runner at the plate. The run does not score.
F) Fielder throws home, runner beats the throw. The run scores
G) Fielder throws to third, the runner may or not beat the throw. The run scores.
H) Fielder, for whatever reason, is unable to get a throw off to any base. The run scores.

Reiterate the fundamental fact: the only way not to credit an RBI is to show that the runner "ordinarily would NOT score," i.e., to show that choice E above is the most likely, or at least very likely outcome of the play. There is no other way not to credit an RBI. Period.

Given the fact that all we know is that the IF was at double-play depth, choice E seems quite unreasonable as the likely outcome. That is why the correct choice is an RBI, and is why WIS changed it.

Not quite sure a scorer would jump through all the possibility hoops you outlined above, and there are a few more you could list. If however you think it likely, they might as well delete the first four words from rule 10.04 a) 1) unaided by an error....(which is decisive, since every conceivable outcome of the play without the error invites the possibility of a FC and an RBI, aside from the turning of a DP.) The scorer sees the infield error, and does not have to consider anything else. By no stretch can he assume, or need to assume, the runner would have ordinarily or routinely scored from third base had the ball been fielded cleanly. An outfield error is another story, the runner could jog home on a dropped deep fly ball that, had it been caught, would have resulted in a tag-up from third and an RBI in any case.

Rule (a)(3) is explicitly written for such cases as the one in question. It is in the rulebook solely for the purpose of determining if an RBI is given on a play with a man on third and less than two outs, when an error occurs.

Rule (a)(1) contains the phrase "unaided by an error" because it applies directly to that case--a play in which a run scores unaided by an error. It is not applicable to the case in question because there was in fact an error.

You wrote, "The scorer sees the infield error, and does not have to consider anything else. By no stretch can he assume, or need to assume, the runner would have ordinarily or routinely scored from third base had the ball been fielded cleanly."

That statement, frankly speaking, is profoundly retarded. Are you high? They wrote a rule explicitly for that case - rule (a)(3). It is only valid in the exact circumstance in question. Why would you possibly ignore it, and instead try to implement a rule which is explicitly written for a play without the occurence of an error??

Aside from the ignorant name calling, you are saying the runner on third was in no way "aided" by the error? If the ball was fielded cleanly he could have cart wheeled all the way home, right?  Interesting conclusion.  Rule (a) (3) is the case where the runner most assuredly would score whether there is an error or not, he is in no way aided to score due to an error. There is no reason to include the wording "unaided by an error" in (a) (1) if your only criteria for an RBI when there is an error involved is (a) (3).

No RBI should be credited.  If the infield was playing at DP depth, their intent was to execute a DP on a ground ball.  If they had successfully executed the DP, we all agree that no RBI would have been credited.  The 2B's error prevented them from successfully executing their intent, which was to complete a DP (with the batter consequently getting no credit for an RBI), so the 2B's error shouldn't be used to assist the batter in getting an RBI he wouldn't have otherwise gotten.  If the infield was playing at DP depth, it IS reasonable to assume they wouldn't have thrown home first, getting the lead runner and depriving the batter of the RBI.  It is NOT reasonable to assume that they wouldn't have successfully executed their strategy of converting a DP, also depriving the batter of an RBI.

The only way to credit the batter with an RBi is to assume that, absent the error, the infield would neither have successfully thrown home for the force NOR successfully executed the double play.

Too much of a stretch.  I vote for no RBI.

You're not realizing that rule (a)(1) is no way relevant to the play in question. None. Zilch. Nada. It does not apply. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200, etc.

Furthermore, (a)(1) contains the phrase "unaided by an error" to "rule out" an RBI in other circumstances. Rule (a)(3) is not the "only criteria for an RBI when there is an error involved," as you worded it.

Scenario: Men on the corners, two outs. Batter lines a one hop-single right at the right fielder. Runner from third trots home. Right fielder misses the ball, it rolls to the wall, runner from first scores. Batter ends up at third.

How many RBI does the guy get? As you know, the answer is one. The RBI and lack of RBI for the second guy are BOTH determined by (a)(1), though.
The guy on third is an RBI because he scored "unaided by an error."
The man on first is NOT an RBI because he was "aided by an error," i.e. he does not meet the criteria for an RBI governed by (a)(1). The error is the reason he scored, period.

With that established--You keep asking if I think the error "aided" the runner in scoring. While I think you are asking for the wrong reason (rule (a)(1)), I will answer it like this: The only "aid" the runner on third gained in this scenario was that the error erased the slim possibility that the fielder could have thrown him out at home. It's the same thing as a guy tagging up from third and an outfielder dropping the ball; that error erases the slim possibility of the outfielder gunning him down at the plate. Ordinarily, however, if the ball was fielded cleanly in both instances, the runner would still score, which is why an RBI is credited, by (a)(3).

"If the ball was fielded cleanly he could have cart wheeled all the way home, right?  Interesting conclusion."

I guess you're just being a jackass at this point, because I wrote a whole goddamned post describing the logic I used to conclude that the runner on third "ordinarily would score." Keep in mind, I did that because that's THE ONLY WAY you determine if an RBI is credited. I don't know if you're simply being antagonistic or are completely missing the point of (a)(1), but I hope it's the latter. If it is, you're not looking at (a)(1) in the right perspective. It is not relevant to the play at hand, at all. Rule (a)(3) is; it was written explicitly for scenarios such as this.

edit: Napoleon, you seem to be reading (a)(1) and asking, "Was the runner aided by the error? Of course! The guy missed the ball, so the runner scored." You can't do that, though. Even ignoring the fact that (a)(3) exists & was explicitly written for this exact type of scenario, look at it like this: In the context of (a)(1), did the error "aid" the runner in scoring? The simple answer is that you don't know. You don't know because the outcome of the play is entirely dependent on what the second baseman does with the ball.

"(a)(1), did the error "aid" the runner in scoring? The simple answer is that you don't know. You don't know because the outcome of the play is entirely dependent on what the second baseman does with the ball." 

      We know exactly what the second baseman did with the ball, he booted it, allowing the run to score. He effectively gave the team in the field no chance to get the runner at the plate, hence no RBI.  Your "men at the corners" scenario concerns an error after a base hit, which does not apply here. Thunder1008 is also correct in his statements, which can start a whole new discussion of "defensive indifference' due to the fact of the infield playing at DP depth, but I guess that's for another day.

LOL, dude, I give up.

Read that looong post I posted with the rules in it. Go through each one, and ask yourself why you're stuck on (a)(1), which governs an RBI on a play WITHOUT AN ERROR. Ask yourself why you find it more relevant than Rule (a)(3), which was written explicitly for situations such as the one in question. Ask yourself why the error is solely responsible for the run scoring, which is why you're mistakenly applying (a)(1). You're (impressively) making two mistakes-one is claiming that the error is solely responsible for the reun, and the other is that you're not even looking at the correct rule.

FWIW, Thunder's argument does not address any of the rules governing whether an RBI is credited. You can talk about 'defensive indifference' all you want, but it has exactly zero bearing on whether an RBI is credited.

Posted by napolean on 1/18/2011 11:19:00 AM (view original):
The above arguments seem to assume that if the batter puts the ball in play in this scenario he gets an RBI.  Forgetting all the "if's", the batter does not get an RBI because of the error, period.  An example I pointed out in an earlier post crediting the batter with an RBI even though there was an error on the play, would be a dropped deep fly ball in which the batter would have "ordinarily" scored on a tag up.

Maybe this is where you're not seeing what I'm saying (from page two); in particular, you wrote,

"The above arguments seem to assume that if the batter puts the ball in play in this scenario he gets an RBI."

That is not true. The argument is based on two facts:
A) The ball is put into play, &
B) An error occured

At that point, is the scorer's responsibility to examine the rules, and use the appropriate one. The scorer never assumes that the ball simply being put into play yields an RBI. Instead, one looks at what actually happened, and uses the rule which was written explicitly for that scenario--Rule (a)(3).

That's all I can say, so I give up. Using (a)(1) is completely, utterly wrong. It has no bearing on the play. It does not describe what happened on the play. It describes a play that is 100% different than the play that occured.

You're also 100% correct that the dropped fly ball/tag up would be an RBI... but I'm at a loss as to how you fail to see that a bases-loaded grounder hit to a second baseman playing at double-play depth falls into the same boat.

Inkdskn -- you may have the rule book on your side in the sense that it's silent on what happens when an infielder muffs the first part of what would likely be an attempted DP.  I don't think you have logic on your side, and I'm not convinced that the rule book's silence on this issue would be much of a guide to official scorers though, not being one myself, I can't say for sure.

We all agree that a completed DP in this particular game scenario means no RBI credited.  The rule book says so.  And we all agree that if the 1B drops the throw from the 2B that would have completed the DP, no RBI is credited here, either.  Again, the rule book says so.  So what happens if the 2B throws the ball through the 1B's legs in this exact same scenario instead of the 1B dropping the ball?  The batter gets an RBI?  Really?  He doesn't get an RBI if the error occurs because the 1B drops the ball but he DOES get the RBI if the error occurs because the 2B throws the ball too low or too high in the exact same situation?  That's illogical.  That particular nuance has zero bearing on what the hitter should be credited for, and I'm not convinced that an official scorer would differentiate between those two scenarios in terms of giving a batter an RBI in one case but not in the other.

I'm just backing it up one step further to the most logical way of assessing the play when the 2B first gets the chance.  If he completes the DP that the infield depth clearly indicates is the infield's intended response, we all agree that the batter gets no RBI.  But if that DP isn't executed for the simple reason that the 2B commits an error in starting the play, the batter is somehow the beneficiary and is credited with an RBI because of this error?  I'm not arguing that a literal reading of the rulebook doesn't suggest that may be true.  I'm simply arguing that it's illogical, and I'm not convinced an official scorer would credit the RBI for an illogical reason simply because the rulebook can possibly be interpreted that way.

Not trying to be stubborn or difficult... just the way I see the play.