How is this not an error?

[Pete Incaviglia]

No sac fly, no RBI and no error.

It's not a sac fly because two bases were gained after the error. That's the same reason for no RBI.

If the throw had been on the mark but the runner beat the catcher making the tag, that's not an error. If the throw had been a little to the left or right, as most throws from right field on such a play are, and the runner is safe, that's not an error. If the throw comes up short and the runner is safe, that's also not an error. A poor throw, sure - is Johnny Damon in right field? - but certainly no error.

Don't say, "no error," then say two bases were gained after the error.

It is a one-base error all the way. It doesn't matter what the intent was. A bad throw led to a runner taking an extra base, whereas a good throw would have held him. That is an error.

I don't think you can give a player an error because his arm is too weak to throw a ball from deep right to the plate.

If I understand the description of the play, he caught the fly ball, a runner tagged from second and advanced to third, then, in order to prevent the runner from scoring (as if that's possible, but I digress), the right fielder threw to home — but didn't reach the infield much less home. Again, if I read the description of the original post correctly, the player's throw was on target, just very, very short.

 

[old_tony]

If it's a tie game, bottom of the ninth and two outs, what do you care of the runner from first goes to second or not?

To keep the force in play and make it easier on your infielders.

 

[old_tony]

In the 1982 World Series, Willie McGee scored from second on a sacrifice fly when Gorman Thomas had to go deep into the left-center gap and hit off the wall after the catch.

In this situation, if the runner never slowed around third, it can be rightly scored a sac fly. If the runner stopped at third, the official scorer can rule one of two ways: E9 on the throw; or, if the throw was accurate toward the plate and not toward any cut-off man, runner takes third on the fly and scores on the throw.

 

[pressboxer]

In the 1982 World Series, Willie McGee scored from second on a sacrifice fly when Gorman Thomas had to go deep into the left-center gap and hit off the wall after the catch.

In this situation, if the runner never slowed around third, it can be rightly scored a sac fly. If the runner stopped at third, the official scorer can rule one of two ways: E9 on the throw; or, if the throw was accurate toward the plate and not toward any cut-off man, runner takes third on the fly and scores on the throw.

I remember a similar play involving the Rangers back around 1989 or '90. They had runners on second and third and both tagged up on a ball hit to the gap in right-center. The center fielder had to run a long to make the catch going away from the infield. By the time the center fielder was able to stop, turn and throw, the runner from second was already around third. It was ruled a two-RBI sac fly.

 

[Tom Petty]

In the 1982 World Series, Willie McGee scored from second on a sacrifice fly when Gorman Thomas had to go deep into the left-center gap and hit off the wall after the catch.

In this situation, if the runner never slowed around third, it can be rightly scored a sac fly. If the runner stopped at third, the official scorer can rule one of two ways: E9 on the throw; or, if the throw was accurate toward the plate and not toward any cut-off man, runner takes third on the fly and scores on the throw.

I remember a similar play involving the Rangers back around 1989 or '90. They had runners on second and third and both tagged up on a ball hit to the gap in right-center. The center fielder had to run a long to make the catch going away from the infield. By the time the center fielder was able to stop, turn and throw, the runner from second was already around third. It was ruled a two-RBI sac fly.

and i'm sure that took place in a high school park.

 

[Barsuk]

Without seeing the play, I can't say for certain how I would score it, but from the description here I would say F9 (no sac fly, no RBI) and no error. You give a guy an extra base "on the throw" all the time -- man on second, single to the outfield, throw comes home to try to get the runner at the plate and batter moves up to second on the throw. Even if the throw is up the line, it's not an error. I can see where the same logic would work in this situation, but I would've had to see the play to know for sure how I would score it.

 

[HandsomeHarley]

You give a guy an extra base on a throw to get another runner.

Had a runner been scoring and the guy advanced on the throw home, I agree -- he advances on the throw home TO ATTEMPT TO GET ANOTHER RUNNER.

In this case, there is no runner and you have to account for the base. It HAS to be an error.

 

[zebracoy]

In this case, there is no runner and you have to account for the base. It HAS to be an error.

I don't see how it "HAS" to be an error. If the right fielder makes the throw home, and the throw ends up being six feet to the left of the plate and the runner scores, is that an error?

So what's the difference if the throw stops a few feet in front of the plate? It's the same distance away from the plate and still accurate. Should the right fielder be working out with five extra pounds in the weight room, he could have made the plate.

 

[HandsomeHarley]

There are two factors here, but it HAS to be an error because you HAVE to account for every base.

If the throw home was an attempt to get a runner out, and the batter/runner takes second, that is not an error, regardless if the throw was bad or not.

If the batter/runner holds up at first base on the throw home, hesitates, then takes second, there is a throwing error that accounts for the batter/runner taking second.

It becomes a judgement call when more than one runner is involved. But you still have to account for every base, and if in the scorer's opinion, the runner took an extra base on a bad throw and not just a throw, you have to give an error.

 

[Pete Incaviglia]

On fly ball runner advances from second to third. And runner advances from first to second.

On throw to home, made to prevent runner from advancing from third to home, runner advances from third to home anyway. Runner also advances from second to third. Scored as runners advance on throw. All bases accounted for. No error.

 

[zebracoy]

On fly ball runner advances from second to third. And runner advances from first to second.

On throw to home, made to prevent runner from advancing from third to home, runner advances from third to home anyway. Runner also advances from second to third. Scored as runners advance on throw. All bases accounted for. No error.

Bingo.

 

[trench]

I've enjoyed all replies and have been searching for the clip on youtube, but it hasn't turned up. It happened in a crucial rubber game Sunday between Florida and Alabama. It was televised on CSS, so it may turn up on a replay. It was actually an amazing catch in RF - Gators' Riley Cooper robbed a guy of a HR with a catch about a foot above the fenceline. The throw was pretty clearly not intended for the cut-off man, and was heading directly for the plate, but he just skipped it on the grass which slowed it down. Basically, I think the kid just brain-farted after a great catch and threw home without thinking. The runner never stopped, although he did stutter a little because he "couldn't believe" the wave sign. Bang bang play at the plate. Tough call.

trench

 

[apeman33]

The more I look over the example, I think of a reason it could be scored one way and then a reason it could be scored another. I think we all think it's cut-and-dried, but I look at it one way and try to think if the runner was going all the way or if he was going to stop at third. And then there's what if the first baseman hadn't been able to get to the ball before the runner scored? Each little thing influences how I might score the play, at least initially. I'm starting to think now that there are as many ways to score the play as there are people on the board. You would have to just see it for yourself and sort things out the best you could. For some, it's a no brainer. For some, they might not make a final decision until after the end of the game.

And isn't that part of why we love baseball? :D

 

[Baron Scicluna]

You better give him the RBI. Otherwise, some parent is going to accuse you of hurting his chances for a college scholarship.

 

[Barsuk]

How 'bout F9 and FC? That accounts for the base, Harley, and it seems more appropriate than E9, in my mind.

 

[Football_Bat]

I'd have to see the play for myself, but it sounds to me as though if the throw-in hadn't been wild, the runner wouldn't have scored. Therefore, E9.

 

[Pete Incaviglia]

I'd have to see the play for myself, but it sounds to me as though if the throw-in hadn't been wild, the runner wouldn't have scored. Therefore, E9.

The throw wasn't wild. It was just short. Online. With the threat of a runner scoring. But just short.

 

[Pete Incaviglia]

The throw was pretty clearly not intended for the cut-off man, and was heading directly for the plate, but he just skipped it on the grass which slowed it down. Basically, I think the kid just brain-farted after a great catch and threw home without thinking. The runner never stopped, although he did stutter a little because he "couldn't believe" the wave sign. Bang bang play at the plate. Tough call.

trench

The bolded type only reinforce my thought that it's a fly ball with the runner advancing to third and then advancing to home on the throw. After reading the above portion, I'm almost willing to call it a sac fly with RBI because the ball was deep (almost a homer), the runner never stopped running from second (although he 'stuttered') and scored on a play that was still close, nonetheless.