Can a Run Really Count When the Runner Never Crosses Home?
So I’m taking a break from grading con law exams to watch my favorite team (the Mets) beat up on my least favorite local team (the Washington Don’t-Call-Them-“Natinals”), and there was an odd play in tonight’s game:
With no one out and Gary Sheffield on first base in the bottom of the sixth inning, Daniel Murphy hit a ball that appeared to glance off the facade of the second deck before landing in fair territory. On the field, the umpires ruled that it was in play (and so must not have hit the facade), and Sheffield was thrown out at home trying to score. After going to the video, the umpires overturned the call, and ruled it a two-run homer. Murphy, who stopped at third, finished trotting around the bases, and the Mets took a 5-3 lead.
Here’s my question, though: What about Sheffield, who was thrown out at home before the replay? Doesn’t he have to go back and touch home at some point? If not, is it possible that I witnessed the first time (or, at least, one of the first times) in major league baseball history that a run “scored” without ever crossing home?
I raise this because baseball’s rules are notoriously formalistic when it comes to crossing home — think back to Robin Ventura’s “Grand Slam Single” in the 1999 NLCS. So even if Murphy’s shot is a homer, doesn’t Sheffield have to cross home before his run can count?
Or is this just proof that technology will overcome even the most fundamental of all rule-based systems? Where are our jurisprudence scholars when we need them??
Posted by Steve Vladeck on May 27, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Can a Run Really Count When the Runner Never Crosses Home?:
Comments
As long as we’re on baseball, I saw this really odd play back in college by my college team. Suicide squeeze, bunt popped up. Pitcher dives, gets ball in glove. Runner has crossed plate, turns and heads back to third. Pitcher drops ball as he hits ground. Runner is gotten into a rundown between home and 3rd and tagged out. Coach argues to umpire that the runner had crossed the plate before retreating when he thought the pop-up had been caught, and so he was not out but in fact had scored a run. Umpire agrees. Never heard of that one before or since!
Posted by: tim baughman | May 29, 2009 2:22:01 PM
Sheffield’s run scored automatically on the home run–he did not need to touch home (though he DID need to touch third base, so that Murphy would not pass him on the bases and trigger another automatic out … which Sheffield did. The rule a written in the early days when most home runs were inside-the-park jobs, read “A batter who hits a home run or a ground-rule double must touch all of the bases in regular order.” Note that in the earliest baseball parlance the field was regarded as consisting of three bases (which, like bays, gave safe harbor to the runner/vessel otherwise at risk in the open seas) plus home plate.
Less apropos but of interest, the rules were modified in 1931 to read: “The failure of a preceding runner to touch a base (and who is declared out therefore) shall not affect the status of a succeeding runner who touches each base in proper order; except that, after two are out, a succeeding runner cannot score a run when a preceding runner is declared out for failing to touch a base as provided in the rules. This exception also applies to a batsman who hits the ball out of the playing field for an apparent home run.”
Posted by: John Thorn | May 28, 2009 4:12:34 PM
Assuming that Sheffield initially touched home immediately after he was thrown out, the issue was addressed by the Supreme Court last term in Riley v. Kennedy. There, the trial court had determined that a change in local election law had been implemented through an election held subsequent to adoption of the law. The local law subsequently was declared by the state supreme court to violate the state constitution. The US Supreme Court decided that, in effect, the election under the local law had never taken place. Sheffield never was thrown out.
Posted by: john tanner | May 28, 2009 9:51:07 AM
Alternatively, do we know that Sheffield never touched the plate on the original play? Maybe he did touch it, although on the original play the throw and tag had beaten him there. Once the play had been called a home run, his touch of the plate carries over, but there now was no tag to be applied.
Just another reason not to like video replay; glad someone else is on my side on this. But I will say get used to this very scenario. In these close cases, umpires are going to err on ruling something not a homer and letting the play run its course. If the call turns out to have been wrong, it is easier for the umps to call it a homer and send everyone home than to undo a homer and figure out what base to send everyone to, while also having deprived the defense of a chance to make a play in the field.
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | May 28, 2009 7:24:52 AM
Ah, but the rules are subject to waiver. If the Nationals don’t appeal, the run stands. In the event of an appeal (or a timely realization by Sheffield), I’m not up on the rules enough to know if Shef has to touch home *before* Murphy in order to avoid being passed on the base paths.
However, consider also the counter-factual of the play originally being ruled a home run. In that case, the catcher’s actions preventing Shef from touching home would have been interference. Ergo, harmless error.
Posted by: Milbarge | May 28, 2009 3:06:09 AM