Blue Jays 2, Red Sox 1

 

Nobody cares about last night's Red Sox game in Toronto or the final score. All anyone is talking about is that mindfuck of a play in the top of the seventh inning. It's quite possibly the most confusing play I've ever seen in 50 years of watching professional baseball and I'm still not completely sure I understand what happened even now. 

In the top of the seventh, Nick Sogard was on first and Anthony Seigler on third with one out, a fielders choice on Connor Wong as he advanced from first to second. However, the scoreboard incorrectly said there were two outs, apparently because someone in the stadium was confused as to whether the fielders choice was ruled a double play or not (it wasn't). 

However, thinking there were two outs, Seigler and Sogard both took leads off third and first, respectively, when Ceddanne Rafaela hit a curve ball into dead center. At the crack of the bat, both Seigler and Sogard took off running without first tagging up and Seigler came home. Toronto got Rafaela out at first base on a force out and Sogard was left standing on second. The Jays threw the ball back to first, catching Soggy off base to record the third out on a double play. However, since Seigler had crossed home plate after the force out on Rafaela (out number two) but before they caught Sogard off base and made the third out, the run counted. 

That's all fairly straightforward, but Seigler hadn't tagged either and could have been called out on appeal, nullifying the run. But the Jays had already left the field before appealing the run and the rules state that an appeal has to be made while the defense is still on the field and in fair territory. 

But wait a minute. How, you ask, can an out be called at home after a third out had already been made at first base? It seems a little-known rule in MLB baseball states an umpire may recognize an apparent “fourth out” if a third out has already been made while an appeal is in progress on another runner. In that case, the appeal play decision takes precedence in determining the out. 

In other words, a "fourth out" is a legal out made by the defense after three outs have already been made. If the fielders make another out after the third that prevents a run from scoring, the third out does not cause the ball to become dead and the "fourth out" can then supersede the apparent third out to become the third out of record. However, an appeal for the "fourth out" has to be made by the fielding team while the ball is still live, and the pitcher and all infielders are still in fair territory.

The Jays tried to invoke the "fourth out" and get the run overturned, but since they had already left the field, the appeal was denied. Toronto argued that the home-plate umpire had waived them off the field before allowing them a chance to appeal, but that argument didn't fly either. 

If you find all that confusing, don't feel bad. It's the first time I ever heard of a "fourth out" and the teams on the field had trouble understanding it. I can assure you the broadcast announcers didn't understands it and were having a hard time explaining it, and even the on-field umpires had to call MLB headquarters in New York for an explanation. Still, it took headquarters some 15 minutes to provide a ruling. When it was all said and done, the double-play at first was confirmed as the second and third outs, and Boston was credited with the run. 

The score was 2-1 going into the bottom of the seventh, which turned out to be the final score. Boston's only run in the game was on Tony Seagull's un-appealed,  no-tag run. Still, the Sox are 7-3 in their last 10 games, even if all three of those losses came in the last three games. 

Rinse and repeat - they play again tonight. Hopefully, we won't need an attorney to litigate the winner.