Posted by loudawg10 on 1/25/2011 2:56:00 PM (view original):
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;
(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
(3) when, before two are out, an error is made on a play on which a runner from third base ordinarily would score.

There are the rules.  Look at rule 10.04a3...these rules are not against each other, they are multiple conditions under which an RBI is awarded.  If any of them are valid, then an RBI is given.  Therefore, if there are less than 2 outs and an error is made and the runner would have scored anyways, an RBI is awarded.  How does this not describe the exact situation we are talking about?

Were there less than 2 outs?  Yep.
Would the runner have scored if there were no error? Yep, unless you say the 2b was going to throw home to make a play on the runner, which, his playing at DP depth suggests he wont.
Thus- RBI.

I've explained that like twelve times, loudawg. He somehow thinks rule (a)(1) is the applicable rule. He's caught up, somehow, on the "unaided by an error" part. He has repeatedely argued that the run was "aided by an error," and that, consequently, rule (a)(1) is not met, which indicates no rbi. It's mind-boggling, to say the least.

Hey napolean, if there were men on 1st & 2nd, and the same thing happened (error by 2Bman), how would you score it?

FC, E4!!

Guess what? A man being on 3rd doesn't change that!! The RBI is strictly interpreted through rule (a)(3), which loudawg and I have repeatedly stressed. It's really that simple!!

I agree the infield at DP depth suggests he won't, it also suggests a DP, it also suggests a FC. All possible RBI and non-RBI scenarios.  We'll never know because the fielder had no opportunity to make any type of play due to the error. Therefore we can dispense with the "suggests".
Could the fielder have possibly gone home with a chance to get the runner? Yep
Did the fielder have any chance of attempting any kind of play after the error? Nope
Thus- no RBI

******* dude, you are a retard. I quit.

no offense, but GEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ

Actually, the suggests is a fundamental portion of the equation.   its the part that determines if the runner would score if the error hadnt been made.  Rule a1 would be the rule if a3 wasnt there and there would be no RBI, but a3 provides another condition under which an RBI can be awarded.  Right in a3 it says that an error can be commited and an RBI awarded, if the condition that there are less than two outs and the run would have scored anyways is met.  in this case it clearly is as long as you can say that the run would have scored without the error.  thats where the "suggests" part comes in as fundamental to the discussion.  you can argue that he didnt have a chance to make any play because of the error (and you are right), but that does not preclude the batter from being awarded an RBI.

Why would it be ok for a fielder mistake to take away an RBI from a hitter that would have gotten one if the fielder had made the play?  Because that is what you are saying and what a3 is trying to prevent.  if the fielder makes the play and flips to second for the force out, the batter is credited with an RBI, but because the fielder missed it, he isnt? 

Posted by napolean on 1/25/2011 3:28:00 PM (view original):
I agree the infield at DP depth suggests he won't, it also suggests a DP, it also suggests a FC. All possible RBI and non-RBI scenarios.  We'll never know because the fielder had no opportunity to make any type of play due to the error. Therefore we can dispense with the "suggests".
Could the fielder have possibly gone home with a chance to get the runner? Yep
Did the fielder have any chance of attempting any kind of play after the error? Nope
Thus- no RBI

you cannot assume a DP, so that eliminates that and all that is left is FC.  which is absolutely correct.  the only question is where the FC is going to take place.  if the 2b is charging hard and boots it, the FC was likely at the plate and there is no RBI.  if he is sitting back and boots it, it is likely the FC was at 2b and it is an RBI.  it is dependant on where he was trying to make the play.  since he was in DP depth, it is more likely that the play was going to 2b and is an RBI.  can you be certain? no.  but the simple fact that there is an error on the play does not erase the chance for an RBI like you seem to be saying it does

i am a lefty a can turn a double play with ease while playing second

quote=napolean

"I agree the infield at DP depth suggests he won't, ... it also suggests a FC. All possible RBI and non-RBI scenarios.  We'll never know because the fielder had no opportunity to make any type of play due to the error.

Could the fielder have possibly gone home with a chance to get the runner? Yep
Did the fielder have any chance of attempting any kind of play after the error? Nope"

----------

These are true statements! But you are using the wrong rule to see if an RBI is awarded! THEY WROTE A RULE FOR EXACTLY THIS CASE--RULE (A)(3).

The scorer never assumes anything. He/she uses judgment to determine if the run would have scored if the ball had been fielded cleanly!

The scoring on the play is FC, E4. Would the run have scored if the FC had been executed? 

Yes, in every case except the runner being forced at the plate. Could that have happened? Yes!!
Is it very likely that it would have happened? Based on the fact that he was at DP depth, noooooo... and that is why an RBI is credited.

You're seeing the facts, and then making up your own rule arguing that it isn't an RBI--you're using "Did the fielder have any chance of attempting any kind of play after the error? Nope. Thus- no RBI"

Read the rules. Is that one of them??? NOOOOOOO.

and I apologize for calling you a retard

Posted by Fregoe on 1/25/2011 3:53:00 PM (view original):
i am a lefty a can turn a double play with ease while playing second

ninja star flip or salt shaker method?

Why I cannot assume a DP while you can assume a FC is lost on me, but I do understand exactly what your saying. I think we can amicably agree to dis-agree. I understand WIS changed the ruling to credit the RBI, so I guess the upside is a few more Ribees for the players.

     Inkdskn, how does it work, everybody who disagrees with you is a retard? Sounds like a classic character dis-ordered personality to me. Engage in conversation or debate if you like, leave out the insults. This particular topic forces us to look at the issue from different angles, if you can accept it fine, if not take your infantile tantrums to another topic.

the DP/FC thing is not a you and me thing.  No official scorer can assume that a DP would have been successfully completed if there is an error involved in the play...it is not allowed to weigh on his scoring decisions.  All the scorer is allowed to look at is the play directly affected by the error (in this case the FC which has to happen before the throw to complete the double play; they are two seperate scoring functions).

but you are correct, it looks as though we are not going to agree.  i dont think that either of us can more clearly state our opinions or evidence and it is pointless to say the same thing repeatedly expecting a different result.
In that case, if you havent seen the lefty 2b thread (and i am guessing you havent because i think its older than how long youve been on the site...its 80 pages well worth the read.  the first few may have you laughing so hard you cry

www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx

Posted by napolean on 1/25/2011 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Why I cannot assume a DP while you can assume a FC is lost on me, but I do understand exactly what your saying. I think we can amicably agree to dis-agree. I understand WIS changed the ruling to credit the RBI, so I guess the upside is a few more Ribees for the players.

     Inkdskn, how does it work, everybody who disagrees with you is a retard? Sounds like a classic character dis-ordered personality to me. Engage in conversation or debate if you like, leave out the insults. This particular topic forces us to look at the issue from different angles, if you can accept it fine, if not take your infantile tantrums to another topic.

The FC is not assumed, it the correct scoring of the play, as loudawg pointed out. Even if you refuse to credit an RBI (which is wrong), you are still forced to score FC, E4. That is not debatable, and it is not an "assumption." It is the scoring of the play. Scorers are not allowed to assume a DP.

And I called you a retard b/c you are making up a rule so as not to credit an RBI. You posted your thought process quite clearly:

"Did the fielder have any chance of attempting any kind of play after the error? Nope
Thus- no RBI"

That is not a rule in the book. That is a criteria you yourself made up to use when deciding if an RBI is credited, and is why I called you a retard. Later, I apologized.

Your right loudawg10, just did the first few pages... it is a scream.....