Please help with a funky rule interpretation. I saw this in a youth game where kids were playing with leading for the first time. A runner missed second base but did not advance to third and just kept his lead off of second through the next pitch on which he advanced to third without having ever touched second. My interpretation follows.

Pitch 1:

Runner on first. Batted ball put in play. Batter out at first. Runner from first does not touch second when rounding bag but does not advance to third. He just stays off the bag.

Is there an appeal here? I assume no because the runner has not failed to "touch each base in order". He has not advanced to third thus "missing" second. Even if an appeal at second is attempted, the runner returns to the bag and is safe.

7.10
Any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when_ (a) ... (b) With the ball in play, while advancing or returning to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he, or a missed base, is tagged.

Pitch 2:

Runner has yet to touch second. He continues to keep his lead between pitches never touching second. Is he considered to have acquired second yet? I assume not, because he hasn't touched it. By 7.01 he has not yet acquired it.

7.01
A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out. He is then entitled to it until he is put out, or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base. If a runner legally acquires title to a base, and the pitcher assumes his pitching position, the runner may not return to a previously occupied base.

On next pitch, he doesn't get it title to it officially because it would have had to have been appealable by 7.10 for him to have been awarded it by default.

On next pitch, ball put in play and runner advances to third. At this point the missing of second base can be appealed by 7.10 because the runner has now touched bases out of order.

Am I correct?

"Any appeal under this rule must be made before the next pitch ..."

OK, sure the appeal must be made before the next pitch. But, the runner didn't officially miss second by 7.10 UNTIL the next pitch. He didn't touch bases out of order until he advanced to third which happened on the next pitch.

Remember that he kept his lead the whole time (bad idea but these are kids) between pitches so he has still never touched the bag. By rule he has not acquired it. On the next pitch he has only ever officially acquired first and his advancing to third is NOW touching bases out of order by 7.10. So the appeal is valid now.

Bob - read his whole premise. He's also asking when a runner legally acquires the base.

Okay CZ, down and dirty.

Runner misses 2nd and holds up taking a lead off 2nd.

Nothing to do here unless there is an appeal by the defense. In OBR, the ball has to be "live" so it's going to be tough to get this runner out - he'll dive back before the ball gets there. But in FED, a sharp player can call time then he or the coach can make a "dead ball appeal" and the runner will be out. This is because in FED, once "time" is called, the runner cannot tag up or touch a missed base - he's dead as a door nail!

If there is no appeal made under either rule, then as soon as the next pitch is made, the runner is to be concidered to have touched 2nd and not further appeal can be made for missing that base.

And that's all there is to it!

Good reply and thanks! I understand what you are saying except, under what rule is it appealable? 7.10 refers to "failing to touch each base in order". Can't that only happen once he has advanced to third?

ORB 7.10(b) would be approprate
FED 8-4-2q

"ORB 7.10(b) would be approprate"

OK

But, ORB 7.10(b) refers to a runner "failing to touch each base in order".

I understand that the runner has missed second base and that 'seems' wrong, but the rule does not say missing a base is bad. It says, "failing to touch the bases in order" is bad. That is very specific phrasing. You can't fail to touch second in order until you reach third or miss it on the way back to first. But the runner has not yet broken 7.10(b) by the wording of the rule. Nor has he acquired second base (at least I can't find where it says that he has).

So on the next pitch, he has only acquired first, and when he runs to third, he is now breaking 7.10(b) and touching bags out of order.

Anyway, not worth a long discussion. Thanks for your input all.

---------------------------------------------

The runner aquires a base once he passes it.

Prior to the early seventies a runner who failed to touch a base in passing was not guilty of missing the base until he touched or passed his next base OBR 7.10(B).

Now a runner does not have to touch/pass his next base to be guilty of missing the following base.

Under OBR 7.10(d) which has been extended to all bases, once the runner leaves the immediate area of the base that he failed to touched in passing, he is guilty of missing that base and can be appealed at any time, prior to a pitch, play or attempted play, until he returns and touches the missed base. G.

Thanks. Now I understand. By making no attempt to return to second he has missed the base under 7.10(d) and that can be appealed. On the next pitch the appeal is lost and he is fine to go to third.

I did not know that this was extended to other bases.

Thanks, again.

----------------------------------------------

I didn't say that the runner must make an attempt to return, he doesn't have to.

If he leaves the immediate area of the base that he failed to touch in passing it becomes a MISSED base. If he stays in the immediate area of that base (usually the cutout) he canot be appealed AND MUST BE TAGGED, WHETHER OR NOT HE IS MAKING AN ATTEMPT TO RETURN.

The rule was changed in the early seventy's by Nick Bremigan in a compromise with MLB. If the runner does advance and touch or pass his advance base you can still use OBR 7.10(B)but that is rarely the case. G.

OK, so we are back to the original discussion. He hasn't left the immeadiate area of the base. He didn't touch second but he is right by it taking a short lead, so he has not missed the bag by either 7.10(b) or 7.10(d).

Therefore, there is no appeal. They have to tag him out.

But they don't. Instead, they throw another pitch. He still hasn't acquired second, right? Because all that throwing another pitch does is erase the right to appeal, which wasn't there in the first place. So if he hasn't touched the bag thus getting the base by 7.01 and there is no grounds for appeal, the bag is not just given to him without a rule is it? Under what rule would he have now acquired second base? I don't see one.

Assuming that he has not acquired second base then, on this new pitch, when he advances to third, it may now be appealed that he has missed second by 7.10(b).

Please someone, how is this wrong?

CZ, how many people have to say it before you believe it? The runner has acquired the base IF NO APPEAL IS MADE. ANY APPEAL MUST BE MADE BEFORE THE NEXT PITCH OR PLAY - See 7.10.


<b>Daque</b> on the other board: <i>Since the ball was put into play without an appeal, the appeal is lost. <u>He is considered to have acquired 2B.</u></i>

and

<i>If a runner misses a base and no appeal is made before the next pitch or intervening play such as a pickoff attempt, is the appeal lost? Yes. <u>At that moment the runner is adjudged to have acquired the base</u>. So advancement to the next base does not impact the play and does not allow for appeal. In other words, <u>when the appeal is lost, the runner has in fact acquired the base.</i></u>

<b>coach c</b> on the other board: <i>by passing second and being past it when the next pitch is made, <u>he has acquired it.</i></u>


<b>Gee</b> on this board: <i><u>The runner aquires a base once he passes it.</i></u>

<b>ozzy6900</b> on this board: <i>If there is no appeal made under either rule, then <u>as soon as the next pitch is made, the runner is to be concidered to have touched 2nd</u> and not further appeal can be made for missing that base.</i>

<b>me</b>, on the other board, and now again here: <i>A missed base must be appealed, before the next pitch or play. <u>Absent an appeal, he is now legally where he is.</u></i>

<b>LL Rules Instruction Manual</b> (basis JEA): <i><u>A runner who misses a base is considered as having touched a base</u> if the opposing team makes no appeal.</i>


<b>J/R</b> <i>. . runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches or passes it . . </i>

and

<i>If he has passed the base, he has failed to touch it, but is considered to have touched it until there is an appeal for his failure to touch.</i>

As for the appeal, J/R says: <i>An appeal of a runner's failure to touch or retouch can be upheld if such appeal occurs before the next pitch ot continuous action play.</i>

Rich says, "CZ, how many people have to say it before you believe it? The runner has acquired the base IF NO APPEAL IS MADE. ANY APPEAL MUST BE MADE BEFORE THE NEXT PITCH OR PLAY - See 7.10."

Look, Rich. You asked me on the other board to take the discussion elsewhere, which I very kindly did. I didn't even know that you were on this board. Then you bring the other board to me. Hmmm... where should I go now?

Basically, I was respectful of your past history on another site, and hearing a respected member of that site's community ask me to go elsewhere with my question, I did so. Then that individual finds my post on the site I go to instead and again jumps in to insult me. Makes me wonder why I was respectful in the first place.

There was another option from your standpoint, don't read the thread. Choose to stay out of it. But instead... argh, nm, not worth getting into.

I have found that most people treat people better in person than on a web site discussion board. I hope that is true in your case. Best of luck.

The discussion boils down to the statement "when a runner passes a base he has acquired the base." I will accept that as a common understanding and be done with this.

Respectfully moving on now.

CZ, I asked you to try elsewhere because you wouldn't accept the response.

You came here. Fine. I saw it. I kept silent.

Yet in spite of several more responses (and me keeping out of it) indicating you are misunderstanding the rule, you continued to not accept the answer, indicated by your statements "He still hasn't acquired second, right?" and "Please someone, how is this wrong?"

I then summarized of the responses and added some rules instructor items to show you it is a universally accepted interpretation.

You then take this as some kind of insult.

You asked where else you can go. There are other boards. You will get the same answer on them because the answer is what it is.

I'm sorry you don't "get it" because it's a fundamental baseball thing, as illustrated by numerous responses from many folks and the rules instruction community.

BTW:


If you really want to have your mind blown, ask about what the call is if a batter-runner beats a throw to first but misses the base in the process.



[Edited by Rich Ives on May 7th, 2004 at 10:03 AM]

Wow - this thread's still here? I thought we answered this several times. Looking above we have. Why do you persist in asking the same question after it's been answered.

THE RUNNER "ACQUIRED" THE BASE AS SOON AS THE NEXT PITCH WAS THROWN.

Therefore the "touching the bases" rule is irrelevant. That rule applies to a continuous play.

The one comment wayyyyy up in this thread I don't understand is where someone suggested that the defense call time and appeal. I'm not granting time when someone's leading off base.....and if I did, I'm certainly not going to entertain an appeal at the base the runner's leading from, even in NFHS rules where a verbal appeal is allowed!

--Rich

There's more than one person out there who's sitting there scratching his head over why a person who never touched second can not be throw out on appeal when he gets to third on the next batted ball and yet an appeal to second (because he never touched it) will be called "safe." It's just odd that you never really have to touch a base in the game if the defense doesn't try to tag you out.

Don't get up in somebody's face because they don't understand an idea that goes against a few of the basic ideas of the game of baseball: touch the bases in order, touch the base so you can't be tagged out, and Touch The Base.

The way I see it is this: You can't have an appeal until a base has been missed, and if he has acquired a base beyond second he has missed the bag. But not until he has advanced has he missed anything.

I understand what all of you are saying, but I just don't think it makes any sense.

So how about a similar situation:
A runner on second has a nice leadoff, the batter hits one foul. He walks towards second but never touches it. The next ball is hit short to the outfield and he makes it to third. The batter is thrown out at first, and the ball is returned to the pitcher. The second baseman, understanding the rule about having to touch up on a foul ball tells the pitcher to throw him the ball. He steps on the bag and the base umpire calls what?

-Craig

Safe, of course.

--Rich

touch up on a foul ball?? what is that? In NFHS there is no such thing. If there is, please cite the rule.

Craig: This "retouch after a foul ball" is a mistake left over from the do-over of the OBR in 1950. It is true the runners "must" retouch their bases after a foul ball: "The umpire shall not put the ball in play until all runners have retouched their bases." (5.09c)

But what if he does?

The runner who did not retouch is not subject to appeal! That infraction was dropped from 7.10 during the revision. Nowadays, a runner is subject to appeal for four infractions only: (1) failing to retouch after a caught fly ball; (2) missing a base while advancing or returning; (3) overrunning or oversliding first and failing to return immediately; or (4) overrunning or oversliding home plate, thereafter making no attempt to return.

When I played as a kid, we had to retouch after the foul. When I started umpiring, the rule had changed. But coaches still said: "Get back to the base." Those coaches taught kids who became coaches who taught kids who.... Today, there are still coaches who think a runner must retouch after the foul ball or be in jeopardy of an out.

One needs to know the purpose of the "retouch-after-a-foul" rule. It is to ensure that runners -- at the time of the next pitch -- are near their original base!

Play: R2: B1 flies deep to right. It is obvious the ball will not be caught, so R2 takes off and rounds third. The ball is both foul and uncaught. So he stops at third -- illegally. He's got to get back to second, you see.

So the practice in upper-level baseball is to make sure the ball is not alive until all runners have returned to the vicinity of the bases occupied at the time of the pitch that the batter hit foul.

In your play, then, the runner cannot be called out because he has committed no baserunning infraction.

[Edited by Carl Childress on May 7th, 2004 at 03:50 PM]

I understand better now. Thank you for your explanations. So basically, we use a bit of human rationality and good judgment. If the defense doesn't demand he touch the bag by trying to get him out, then we assume that they've given him the base even though he didn't touch it.

Ahh... it becomes a bit clearer.

Thanks,
Craig

Well, 8-2-2 and 8-2-8, for starters ;)

If you're talking about the re-touch after an uncaught foul you haven't quite grasped it.

1) An uncaught foul is a dead ball.

2) The defense cannot put the runner out (by tag or appeal) when the ball is dead.

The ball will not be made live until certain conditions are met.

For the foul ball part:

<i>5.09 The ball becomes dead and runners advance one base, or return to their bases, without liability to be put out, when_
e) A foul ball is not caught; runners return. The umpire shall not put the ball in play until all runners have retouched their bases;</i>

The responsibility lies with the umpire and there is no penalty specified. Thus if the player does not retouch he cannot be penalized. There is no assumption of touch involved.

For the ball to be made live, the pitcher must be on the rubber with the ball. The defense can then try a pickoff if they wish, but it is not an appeal for failure to retouch in the 7.10 sense, thus the runner would have to be tagged.