The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 05, 2000, 08:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newburgh NY
Posts: 1,822
It seems this Board is rather quiet lately but Eteamz has been hopping - maybe it runs in cycles. On Eteamz there is a real good dialogue concerning the Appeal process using OBR.

I would like to know what the FED interpretation of the Appeal Process using the following sitch:

Sitch - runners at corners 1 out B1 hits to F6 for a 6-4-3 DP. However, when F6 flips to F4 to get r1, r1 beats play but misses base - whats the call? If r3 scores do we count the run?

On the Eteamz Board concerning OBR - the terminology "relaxed" vs. unrelaxed" action resurfaces because r1 is allowed to try and correct his mistake.

Jaks / Roder was quoted on that Board saying that if R1 "is in the vincinity of the bag" he should not be called out by "Force" but must be tagged in order for the defense to record the out, this now becomes a time play for the purpose of scoring runs.

Rather than re-invent the wheel, I encourage all to visit Eteamz to view all the dialogue conerning Appeals.

So my question, what's the FED interpretation of the Appeal Process cocerning the above play or something similiar in nature?

Thanks


Pete Booth

__________________
Peter M. Booth
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 05, 2000, 09:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newburgh NY
Posts: 1,822


FED CASE PLAY - 8.2.1a Comment: The penalty for baserunning infractions has been expanded to allow the defense, during a live ball, to retire a runner who misses abase by touching the base the runner missed, including home plate. However, if the runner who misses a base attempts to return before the defense initiates appeal action, the defense must tag the runner unless the play is a force when only the base need be tagged. On a force situation, the defense need only touch the base. Should a runner miss a base or leave the base too soon on a caught fly ball and the defense not see the infraction, the umpire will declare the runner out at the end of playing action. The defense does not have to tell the umpire that it is attempting to put a runner out for a baserunning violation. Even if the defense touches the missed base by accident, the runner would still be declared out. The call would be made immediately.

Thanks Hayes - I am at work and do not have my materials with me but one can see the FED actually SPELLS IT OUT FOR YOU as opposed to OBR. I personally like the FED appeal process as opposed to OBR as it is more clearly defined.

Pete Booth




__________________
Peter M. Booth
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 05, 2000, 08:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 74
Thumbs up Hanging you with too long a rope

Pete, I was following the appeal play verbiage on eteamz, but I kept losing my place while reading the voluminous attempts to stress other points of view. There is nothing quite like a group of Umpires justifying their positions on topics of discussion. I, like you, would agree to most of the points, but I would be "from Missouri" on the actual situations described. If one of my players didn't know to go DIRECTLY TO A BASE on a force situation, and was caught gallivanting off in space, he'd better have an escape route planned after he was tagged. I could accept an attempt to AVOID A TAG as a reason to be off a base, but none of my players better ever be AVOIDING A BASE on a force situation.
I know you incurred the wrath of a few fellow Umps by stating your case, but I'd have to say I understood your thinking better than theirs. I'd have to see some of the wild plays used as examples, because I know what to call, and when, and don't usually encounter the Dave Winfield "ball hits Seagull in flight" plays they describe.








[Edited by senior on Dec 5th, 2000 at 07:07 PM]
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 06, 2000, 08:05am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newburgh NY
Posts: 1,822
Re: Hanging you with too long a rope

Thanks Senior. My points on Eteamz ere not to contradict authoritative opinions such as J/R or fellow umps who know the rules like the "back of their hands" but to show (in baseball terms) what actually happens on these types of plays and how good coaches could manipulate the rules. After all most if not all of us actually played the game at one time or another.

The FED Spells it out for you but OBR doesn't.

My main point on Eteamz is as follows:

1. In reading the various threads on Eteamz, I found a new way for R1 to not only break up a DP for r3's run to count on a DP sitch involving runners at the corners.

R1 needs to beat the throw to second and only be in the "vicinity" of second without having to actually touch the base. "Vicinity" can mean many things to different people. IMO if coaches read these Boards, I believe a "light" just went off in their heads.

My other point is that even the rulemakers for FED probably felt the OBR rule was unclear and hashed out all the ramifications and came up with their case-book. The FED actually penalizes a team for missing a base whereas it is a "grey area" in OBR.

In any event, as you mentioned these are very rare plays indeed. Hey it's winter time and it makes for good discussion.


Pete Booth


__________________
Peter M. Booth
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 06, 2000, 11:17am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 813
Pete, there is something here I am not understanding.
If RUNNER BEAT THROW to 2nd but missed the base, would he not have been safe had he touched the base? Thereby, R3 would have scored anyway. No advantage is gained by offense by missing the base! In fact, offense is in liability of being put out again despite beating throw since runner missed the base.

F4 now has to determine whether he will attempt to retire a runner by either throwing to F3 or attempting to tag runner nearby him. Assuming F4 is successful in retiring either runner, that's only 2 out and run scores.

Bottom line...........runner beat the throw allowing run, in all liklihood, to score. Offense has not circumvented any rule allowing them to gain an advantage!!
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 06, 2000, 12:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newburgh NY
Posts: 1,822
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bfair
[B]Pete, there is something here I am not understanding.
If RUNNER BEAT THROW to 2nd but missed the base, would he not have been safe had he touched the base? Thereby, R3 would have scored anyway. No advantage is gained by offense by missing the base! In fact, offense is in liability of being put out again despite beating throw since runner missed the base.

BFair
OBR 7.01 A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he TOUCHES IT (my emphasis) before he is out.

Same sitch - runners at corners 1 out B1 hits to F6 for the old fashioned 6-4-3 DP. R1 beats throw to second but does not touch bag. If I'm reading the threads on Eteamz properly (and God knows that is subject to debate altogether) We cannot call out r1 because he still is entitiled to correct his mistake.

What I'm saying is that why should the defense be penalized
if F4 touches the bag and throws to first to complete the DP, thereby nullifying the run. The offense committed an error and should be penalized as with other penalties such as Interference / Obstruction. If we say r1 beat the throw but did not touch the bag and action is not relaxed, F4 or F6 must now tag him to gain an Out thereby making this play a time play and r3 could score.

If this is correct IMO, the offense does gain a BIG advantage because r1 now has to be tagged making it a time play as opposed to a force play in which the run does not count.

Beating a throw is not in question here, Touching the base is. If all a player had to do was beat a throw the Game would be a lot different.

We can go on an on with this subject all day. I do not mean to be adament or straight out refuse to accept others opinions, but on this play I just do not see it.

The FED through their case book actually defines these types of playes. In OBR it is still "Grey".

Pete Booth
__________________
Peter M. Booth
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 06, 2000, 05:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally posted by Bfair
Pete, there is something here I am not understanding.
If RUNNER BEAT THROW to 2nd but missed the base, would he not have been safe had he touched the base? Thereby, R3 would have scored anyway. No advantage is gained by offense by missing the base! In fact, offense is in liability of being put out again despite beating throw since runner missed the base.


Originally posted by PeteBooth
OBR 7.01 A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he TOUCHES IT (my emphasis) before he is out.

...[snip]...

If this is correct IMO, the offense does gain a BIG advantage because r1 now has to be tagged making it a time play as opposed to a force play in which the run does not count.

Beating a throw is not in question here, Touching the base is. If all a player had to do was beat a throw the Game would be a lot different.

We can go on an on with this subject all day. I do not mean to be adament or straight out refuse to accept others opinions, but on this play I just do not see it.

The FED through their case book actually defines these types of playes. In OBR it is still "Grey".

Pete Booth
Pete,

I don't want to resurrect the long debate from eTeamz and bring it here either. However, you have taken this line over there in several of your recent posts, and I still can't reply there because of a problem with my account. I therefore feel entitled to take you to task here, for that reason.

FACT 1. The Bremigan ruling says that the FORCE is removed when a player "reaches" a base, whether it is touched or not. That is the Pro interpretation of their rules. You don't have to like it, or agree with it, BUT if your association follows those interpretations then you DO have to follow it.

FACT 2. The offense does gain a very slight advantage by this ruling BUT only in certain very specific circumstances. It is not the "BIG advantage" that you claim. That advantage ONLY comes with 2 out where the out in question would be the 3rd out AND an advance runner might score on the play. Otherwise there is just NO ADVANTAGE at all. It is STILL an OUT when the runner is tagged off the base.

FACT 3. If the offense can slip by a base in these circumstances AND in so doing delay the 3rd out while a runner scores then they CAN turn that advantage from the ruling into a run. HOWEVER, we are talking about seconds here, not minutes. We have a runner who is bound to that base by a 3 foot semi-circle. If he backs out of that to avoid a tag he's out anyway! If the defense tags him first, he's out anyway.

The ONLY way your near impossible scenario works is if the defense simply sits there and watches the runner making no attempt to acquire the bag while the runner scores AND they also make NO ATTEMPT TO TAG the runner out. That is just NOT going to happen when the runner is restricted to that 3 foot semi-circle!

What Bfair is saying is that most offensive coaches would rather have their runner SAFE on that base, having beat the ball, than play Russian Roulette on the third out to gain a few precious seconds for a run to score. You just can't COACH a team to watch for that obscure scenario. You wouldn't either, especially when you consider how loose the PU's judgement on the timing play can be! You could lose everything you gambled by deliberately missing the bag on the PU's poor judgement of when the tag took place! That's NOT percentage baseball!

At eTeamz you even raised the issue of a 6-4-3 DP in relation to this question.

Fact 4. There is NO ADVANTAGE to be gained if this is NOT the 3rd out! If it IS the 3rd out, then there is NO DP possible.

Pete, please take a moment to reconsider what you're saying here. I think you've hitched your wagon to a dead horse! (grin)

Cheers,

Warren Willson

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 6th, 2000 at 04:53 PM]
__________________
Warren Willson
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 06, 2000, 08:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Edinburg, TX
Posts: 1,212
Send a message via ICQ to Carl Childress
Quote:
Originally posted by Warren Willson
FACT 2. The offense does gain a very slight advantage by this ruling BUT only in certain very specific circumstances.
Warren et. al.:

I can't see this. Perhaps I've been away from the field too long, but the offense can NEVER gain from missing a base in this situation.

Play: Two outs, R1, R3. Ball hit to the infield. R3 will be moving on contact.

The real-life possible scenarios are:

1. With the ball hit sharply but deeply anywhere, the throw will go to first.

2. With the ball hit up the middle and fielded by F6, the flip will go to second.

3. With the ball hit slowly to F6 or F4, it is likely the throw will go to second UNLESS

4. R1 was moving on the pitch, when the throw will go to first OR the fielder will simply eat the ball: infield hit.

The play in question, then, is an extremely rare event, made even rarer when we pretend the runner will miss the base.

The point: If R1 truly beats the throw to second, it doesn't matter whether he touches the base or not: R3 will have already reached the plate!

Did anyone ever see a flip to second (for a safe) followed by a fire to home for an attempted tag? Remember, a runner from third can score on a roller to second, unless the fielder is playing on the grass. When you add a throw to the time taken to field the bouncing ball, even I could make it home. (On a 40-foot diamond.)

I admire Warren for trying to find some saving grace in Pete's scenario, but this time, I'm afraid my friend from the Empire State has just mangled the call. Kicked the play. Screwed the pooch. Locked the barn door after....

Not to worry, Pete. It happens to us all.

My advice: Call it the way the PROs do. Come next week, we'll know what the PBUC does. That, as they, say, will be that!
__________________
Papa C
My website
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 06, 2000, 10:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress

I can't see this. Perhaps I've been away from the field too long, but the offense can NEVER gain from missing a base in this situation.
Never say "NEVER", Carl. (grin) Life has very few absolutes.

Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress
The real-life possible scenarios are:

1. With the ball hit sharply but deeply anywhere, the throw will go to first.

2. With the ball hit up the middle and fielded by F6, the flip will go to second.

3. With the ball hit slowly to F6 or F4, it is likely the throw will go to second UNLESS

4. R1 was moving on the pitch, when the throw will go to first OR the fielder will simply eat the ball: infield hit.

The play in question, then, is an extremely rare event, made even rarer when we pretend the runner will miss the base.

The point: If R1 truly beats the throw to second, it doesn't matter whether he touches the base or not: R3 will have already reached the plate!
I think cases 2, 3 and 4 will ALL go to 2nd at the upper levels, because it's the closest base, but I agree that sometimes a throw to 1st with 2 out can become almost semi-automatic. The point is that we agree on just how "rare" an event is the play in question. Mind you, I've seen R3 literally "strolling" down the line because he thought R1 would be out easily and the run wouldn't score. Very bad play, true, but it does happen.

...[snip]...

Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress
I admire Warren for trying to find some saving grace in Pete's scenario, but this time, I'm afraid my friend from the Empire State has just mangled the call. Kicked the play. Screwed the pooch. Locked the barn door after....

Not to worry, Pete. It happens to us all.

My advice: Call it the way the PROs do. Come next week, we'll know what the PBUC does. That, as they, say, will be that!
Well, Carl, I'm probably a little less rectilinear than you. (grin) I wanted to leave Tony a little something, a jot, almost but not quite a zero .... (BIG grin)

Cheers,

Warren Willson
__________________
Warren Willson
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 07, 2000, 04:26am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 813
There will never be an advantage to the offense if the offense misses a base on a force play. Think about it!
The only potential advantage that could be gained would be on a timing play where a few precious moments gained in sliding around a base could allow a run to score.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 07, 2000, 05:56am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally posted by Bfair
There will never be an advantage to the offense if the offense misses a base on a force play. Think about it!
The only potential advantage that could be gained would be on a timing play where a few precious moments gained in sliding around a base could allow a run to score.
Bfair, that would only be true under FED rules. Most of this discussion thread, despite its header, has revolved around an official OBR interpretation on eTeamz.

You say there will "never be an advantage". If you were talking OBR then you would have proceeded to describe exactly how that advantage arises in this case. (grin) We weren't talking about a GREAT BIG miss that could be appealed later for the force out. We were talking about a tiny little miss where the runner remains in the vicinity of the base, trys to get back, and so really hasn't "missed" the base at all for appeal purposes. No OBR 4th out appeal! That was the crux of the whole thread at eTeamz that started this debate.

Carl's facetious argument that even he could score before the tag out anyway was a red herring, at least where the force play vs time play issue is concerned, and Carl knows it! And NO, I'm not defending the quirky setup that Pete Booth has put forward. I'm simply recognising the reality of a bee sting-sized possibility that the offense could derive a benefit from Bremigan's OBR force play ruling.

If Bremigan's OBR ruling didn't exist, and the force is NOT removed by the runner sliding by without touching the base, then NO RUNS CAN EVER SCORE on that play. That is because when R1 is later tagged out it's still a force play. With Bremigan's OBR ruling, however, Carl's assertion is correct. It doesn't then matter whether R1 actually misses the bag or not. The force is still removed when he passes the base before being put out. It's just that being able to do that without touching the base offends Pete Booth's sense of justice in amateur OBR play. He just isn't prepared to forgive the Pro's for their patently professional interpretation. OTOH, his original FED scenario in this thread becomes a non-issue under OBR, as there would only be 2 outs on that play. A better OBR example is as follows:

With R1 and R3, 2 outs, and assuming the BR is safe at 1st, in OBR IF the offensive R1 beats the ball to 2nd but slides around 2nd base without actually touching it, whether deliberately (screwball possibility) or otherwise, by the Bremigan ruling R1 has thus converted his own obvious 3rd out from a Force play (no run scores on the entire play) into a Time play (runs score before the tag). If R1 actually touches 2nd then the force is legitimately removed anyway, Bremigan ruling or not.

THAT small, almost miniscule window of opportunity favours the offense because the offense managed to remove the force without even having to touch 2nd base on the slide-by after beating the ball. Of course it doesn't help them if they miss the base entirely, and then proceed on to the next base. That simply opens up the 4th out appeal. That's why this play is so obscure. The runner has to stay at that base to prevent the 4th out appeal from being an issue.

I hope I've explained that clearly and succinctly. It apparently took 12 pages of argument at eTeamz, and that was without the complication of a FED alternative. If it weren't for the important principles involved, I'm sure I wouldn't have wasted that much time on this issue. The offensive advantage is so small that I will NEVER bother with it again. Oops...

As I told Carl, Bfair, never say "NEVER" (grin).

Cheers,

Warren Willson

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 7th, 2000 at 06:12 AM]
__________________
Warren Willson
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 07, 2000, 07:09am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 813
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson
[B]
Quote:
Originally posted by Bfair
There will never be an advantage to the offense if the offense misses a base on a force play. Think about it!
The only potential advantage that could be gained would be on a timing play where a few precious moments gained in sliding around a base could allow a run to score.
Bfair,

You say there will "never be an advantage" and then you proceed to describe exactly how that advantage arises in this case? A tad confused, are we? (grin)..."



Warren, please note I referenced never an advantage gained on a FORCE play by missing base. Then I reference possible slight gain potential on a timing play.

Situation says "Runner beats throw to 2nd". Why is anyone wanting to penalize offense for beating throw whether on or off the base. No different than a touched base and then runner came off base. Liability is then on offense with advantage to defense to still be able to retire runner. That still means no advantage to offense. My guess is that if the JUDGMENT of whether runner beat throw is close, it will likely go against offense since he hasn't touched base. Again, no advantage to offense.

Please feel free to cite example of where offense can gain advantage by not touching a base they are FORCED to advance to. Situation described does not qualify as no advantage is gained due to missing base (after runner has beat throw).
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 07, 2000, 07:28am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally posted by Bfair


Warren, please note I referenced never an advantage gained on a FORCE play by missing base. Then I reference possible slight gain potential on a timing play.

Situation says "Runner beats throw to 2nd". Why is anyone wanting to penalize offense for beating throw whether on or off the base. No different than a touched base and then runner came off base. Liability is then on offense with advantage to defense to still be able to retire runner. That still means no advantage to offense. My guess is that if the JUDGMENT of whether runner beat throw is close, it will likely go against offense since he hasn't touched base. Again, no advantage to offense.

Please feel free to cite example of where offense can gain advantage by not touching a base they are FORCED to advance to. Situation described does not qualify as no advantage is gained due to missing base (after runner has beat throw).
Sorry, Bfair. I was in the act of editing my post when your response came in. It is because of the Bremigan ruling that the slight advantage flows. Let me try to do it by the numbers:

1. Bremigan for the BUD (now PBUC) says that a FORCE is removed when a runner "reaches" a base to which he is forced, whether he touches it or not.

2. R1, R3, 2 outs. BR grounds to deep F6. R1 clearly beats the ball to 2nd but passes the base without touching it. This removes the force.

3. Having reached 2nd and removed the force, R1 must now be tagged out for the 3rd out. (The Pro interpretation is if the runner clearly beat the ball, you can't call him out on the force and he must be tagged for the out). A Time play.

4. R3 scores and R1 is tagged out in that order.

Clearly, without the Bremigan ruling R1's tag out at 2nd would STILL be a force out under the rules because R1 didn't touch the base even though he beat the ball. No run would score [OBR 4.09(a)Exception(2)]. However, with the Bremigan ruling the 3rd out on R1 at 2nd becomes a time play and R3's run scores. No 4th out appeal is possible since the base wasn't "missed", just passed in the attempt at acquisition.

Effectively the Bremigan ruling allows R1 to convert a "no advantage/no run" Force play into a "slight advantage/run scores" Time play by reaching and passing 2nd without touching the base. THAT miniscule advantage shift is what this whole shemozzle is all about. Go figure. (grin)

Cheers,

Warren Willson

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 7th, 2000 at 06:51 AM]
__________________
Warren Willson
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 07, 2000, 09:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newburgh NY
Posts: 1,822

I admire Warren for trying to find some saving grace in Pete's scenario, but this time, I'm afraid my friend from the Empire State has just mangled the call. Kicked the play. Screwed the pooch. Locked the barn door after....

Not to worry, Pete. It happens to us all.

My advice: Call it the way the PROs do. Come next week, we'll know what the PBUC does. That, as they, say, will be that!

Thanks Papa C and Warren for your patience. Papa C your right I'm hung-up on the first rule of base running that states you must TOUCH the base. At this point I just cannot comprehend what you and Warrem are telling me.

Heck when I was in college it took me a while to understand Calculus and even then I really didn't understand all of it but did what I had to to pass the coarse.

I will step back and if that's the way it is that's the way it is and I will rule accordingly. For all practical purposes, this play will hardly if ever happen in a game.

I didn't mean to bring this argument over here, but you must admit the Board has been rather silent over the last few weeks. I realize, we should't Post just to Post, but I think it was good dialogue and I learned something even though I was pig headed in my arguments.

Ok lets see how I can get myself in trouble the next time.

Again thanks to you and Warren for taking time to explain the situation.


Pete Booth

__________________
Peter M. Booth
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:34pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1