August 15, 201312 yr Link Bottom of the final inning in a tie game with runners on 2nd and 3rd. The pitcher was trying to intentionally walk the batter, but with a 3-0 count he unleashed a wild pitch. Runner comes home to score the winning run. There's some argument in the comments about whether this should be a "walk-off" intentional walk or a "walk-off" wild pitch. I'm curious how the scoring works for this play. Does the pitcher still get charged with a walk?
August 15, 201312 yr Link Bottom of the final inning in a tie game with runners on 2nd and 3rd. The pitcher was trying to intentionally walk the batter, but with a 3-0 count he unleashed a wild pitch. Runner comes home to score the winning run. There's some argument in the comments about whether this should be a "walk-off" intentional walk or a "walk-off" wild pitch. I'm curious how the scoring works for this play. Does the pitcher still get charged with a walk? Yes, the pitcher is charged with an intentional walk, and the batter is credited with a plate appearance and a walk, and the pitcher is also charged with a wild pitch. Since the wild pitch is what caused the run to score and not the walk, I would describe it as a walk-off wild pitch, though that's really a semantic argument and not a rules argument. While theoretically possible, there should never be such a thing as a walk-off intentional walk.
August 15, 201312 yr Author QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Aug 15, 2013 -> 09:33 AM) Yes, the pitcher is charged with an intentional walk, and the batter is credited with a plate appearance and a walk, and the pitcher is also charged with a wild pitch. Since the wild pitch is what caused the run to score and not the walk, I would describe it as a walk-off wild pitch, though that's really a semantic argument and not a rules argument. While theoretically possible, there should never be such a thing as a walk-off intentional walk. Agreed, the at-bat was completed, the wild pitch caused the run to score, so the count was irrelevant.
August 15, 201312 yr QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Aug 15, 2013 -> 11:08 AM) Agreed, the at-bat was completed, the wild pitch caused the run to score, so the count was irrelevant. He still gets the RBI though.
August 15, 201312 yr He still gets the RBI though. No, the batter does not get an RBI. First base was open, so the walk did not force in the run. The run scored on a wild pitch thus no batter gets an RBI for that run.
August 15, 201312 yr Author QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Aug 15, 2013 -> 01:02 PM) He still gets the RBI though. No he doesn't. Guys scoring on a wild pitch while you are at the plate is never an RBI. I realize in little league every kid thinks this, OMG I got an RBI, but they've got it wrong.
August 16, 201312 yr QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Aug 15, 2013 -> 05:50 PM) No he doesn't. Guys scoring on a wild pitch while you are at the plate is never an RBI. I realize in little league every kid thinks this, OMG I got an RBI, but they've got it wrong. Man, condescending. The guy didn't know a random rule.
August 16, 201312 yr Author QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 15, 2013 -> 09:45 PM) Man, condescending. The guy didn't know a random rule. It actually wasn't condescending, just an anecdote. I umpire, and when I have 11/12/13 year old games, every kid starts screaming "hey you got an rbi!" when that happens. No one corrects them.
August 31, 201312 yr QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Aug 3, 2013 -> 08:03 PM) This isn't correct. The first part is right, it's a catch as he hadn't landed in dead ball territory. It's considered an out because he caught the ball, and didn't lose control or drop it while completing the catch. However, once he falls and lands in dead ball territory after the catch, the ball is immediately dead. Him coming out and throwing didn't make a difference. It was dead, and the base runner was awarded second base, as it's a one base award. I just got to this. Which you would be correct. For some reason I was thinking back to the dead ball era when what I described was the case for a period of time. I have been scouring over my library of books (I have over five thousand), and for the life of me I cannot find my rule book that was from the 1940's and prior. I have read multiple stories on it in the past, and it is pissing me off to no end that I can't come across it. The rule was so asinine which is why it got changed, as rules seemingly get tweaked year to year based on how outlandish some tend to be time to time. No one has yet answered my question as to how a triple play can occur without the defense ever touching ball... This is not to say is has ever happened, but it is indeed a possibility.
August 31, 201312 yr QUOTE (qwerty @ Aug 31, 2013 -> 09:24 AM) I just got to this. Which you would be correct. For some reason I was thinking back to the dead ball era when what I described was the case for a period of time. I have been scouring over my library of books (I have over five thousand), and for the life of me I cannot find my rule book that was from the 1940's and prior. I have read multiple stories on it in the past, and it is pissing me off to no end that I can't come across it. The rule was so asinine which is why it got changed, as rules seemingly get tweaked year to year based on how outlandish some tend to be time to time. No one has yet answered my question as to how a triple play can occur without the defense ever touching ball... This is not to say is has ever happened, but it is indeed a possibility. It would have to be on a bases loaded home run, and all of the runners pass each other on the bases.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.