Runner Missing 1st base on a force play

[Gee]

CARTER;

OK, let's take it by the numbers. First let's correct your introductory statement that stated: "....where IMHO, you "went wrong" on this one." Trust me, I didn't go wrong, yesterday you wanted documentation, today you have found it so let's go from there.

You wrote:
1.) 7.10(b) says nothing about "touching out of order", per se: the rule says runner is out if he "FAILS TO TOUCH EACH BASE IN ORDER" before being appealed for the missed base. Thus, the viewpoint of those who want to use 7.10(b) as written (in most cases - see below), and don't understand your way of saying "use (d) at all bases, not just home".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your first part is simple semantics. Your not guilty of touching bases out of order nor guilty of not touching bases in order if you have only touched one base, can't do that so let's drop that part. I'll handle the second part of that down further.
-------------------------
#2. HOWEVER, I found the "use 7.10(d) at all bases" ruling [never let it be said I do not admit where I have been mistaken :-))]! Reading the only reference I have to it [2004 BRD Section 10], I think I understand the point; BUT, let me suggest that you have taken the OFF INTERP. a bit too far: vis-

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm pleased that you now understand that 7.10(d) has been extended and it has been extended all the way down to amateur baseball. Let's move on...
---------------------------

#3. See OFF INTERP 11-10 in the BRD: the point is that with the ball & runner both in the vicinity of the base AND THE RUNNER TRYING TO RETURN, don't allow the appeal while that playing action is going on~ the runner must be tagged [on his person]. This is where we are to "extend" 7.10(d) to all bases and poke him out [on the tagged base appeal] only if he is making no effort to return. See just above this text in BRD for citation to 7.10(b) - it is still applicable; and nowhere is there anything about needing to touch the NEXT base before he can be out on appeal for missing a previous base.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

First off, I do not have The BRD, simply because I only do OBR and of course I accept all MLB Official interpretations.

Next I would like to correct some of the things that you have written in this section.

A. "THE RUNNER TRYING TO RETURN". Nick Bremigan, who wrote the rule, clarified that in an article in Referee, circa 1977, showing where the runner does not have to be returning in order to be tagged rather than appealed, the criteria used is the immediate area of the base. I realize most book rules use some form of returning, scrambling or whatever but it is not necessary for a tag and JEA explicitly agrees with that in one of his plays at the plate.

B. "(on a tagged base appeal)". When a runner stays in the vicinity of first (rounded), second or third a tagout is not a tag base appeal it is simply an off base out and if the base was a forced base the force would be removed. At first (running through) and at home it is a tag out appeal.

Yes, 7.10(b) is still applicable, I never said it wasn't, but it can only be used when the runner that failed to touch a base in passing has touched his advance base but why use it since (d) extrended accomplishes the same purpose. That is why C2 uses (d) in his ruling. Moving on.
------------------------------------------------

#4.) Reading further in this section of BRD, there seems to be some extra confusion about the possibility of a further appeal for an advantageous "4th out" on the already-retired runner. I suspect that this is a place where the "unwritten rules" as used in MLB are causing some unintended consequences of confusion and conflict between different rules and interpretations. 'Course to quote Papa Childress: "Admittedly, 'The Book' is not the best source for the current 'rules' of professional (MLB) play."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes there is confusion on the possibility of an advantageous 4th out appeal but the confusiion doesn't lie with MLB as to the best of my knowledge, they have never ruled on it.

On December fourth 2000, PBUC (Minor league baseball) who write their own rules, made an iterpretation that would allow an advantageous fourth out appeal after the runner was called out for an off base out. Mike Fitzpatrick, the honcho, notified C2 of that interp and we discussed it for a loooong time and decided not to use it as it as it patently contradicts OBR 7.10(b), whether read in conjunction with or without the Bremigan ruling as explained above. It also contradicts the Major League ruling for enforcing the OBR 7.10(d) criterion for a missed base at all other bases - also explained above. Further, it also apparently contradicts OBR 7.10 Comment, which clearly states that, after a third out play, an apparent fourth out appeal may only be made on ANOTHER runner.

And that's the way it is. Regards, G.

[Edited by Gee on Aug 10th, 2004 at 07:55 PM]

[Gee]

Mr. K,

Didn't see your post so we'll jump over a bit. If you read Carter's most recent post and my reply, I think you'll have a better understanding of what I am writing. If that doesn't answer your questions let me know. G.









[Edited by Gee on Aug 10th, 2004 at 07:57 PM]

[cbfoulds]

Gee:
Actually, the only area where you & I now have any disagreement is on the interpretation of 7.10(b), and I still have no authoritative source on that one. I think Kallix's point is the same as mine, we seem to be asking basically the same question. I used and referenced BRD 'cause I don't own [yet] a J/R or JEA, and CC has printed the most Official Interpretaions [ORB/MLB & otherwise] currently available to me.

The OFF INTERP I mentioned [11-10] is the one I think you are talking about ["extend" 7.10(d) to all bases]: unfortunately, what CC has in the BRD simply doesn't say what you say. Not that there can't be an official/authoritative interpretation your way, just that I have not seen it yet.

And, for what it's worth, our difference of opinion may be only one of semantics or degree. I think we agree that a runner can be "appealed" for an out on any missed base once he is no longer in the immediate vicinity and is making no effort to return; and we agree [I think] that if he IS in the vicinity and trying to get back, he must be tagged, not just the base. I'll have to think on this some more to see if the remaining distinction makes any difference; and of course I remain open to a citation to "black letter law" by recognised General Authority which speaks directly to the point.

--Carter

[Gee]

Well we're at least making progress.

So you still disagree with my interpretation of 7.10(b) as written. Now that you understand that 7.10(d) was extended to all bases, the reason why should be a given.

They extended it because (b) says the runner has to touch his advance base before he can be appealed while (d) says he only has to leave the immediate area to be appealed simply because there is no advance base.
Bremigan didn't like that and MLB agreed so they extended (d) to all bases. If they were both the same, as you and Mr. K. seem to think, why in the world would they have gone to all the bother to make the change?

From what you wrote in the last post C2 and I seem to agree on the central issue which is that (d) was extended to all bases and with that noted I don't see anything else to be interpreted as (d) is right there in the book. As far as I'm concerned they can throw away (b). Think about it. G.

[cbfoulds]

Gee;

Well I think what they "extended" to all bases was the "in the vicinity" aspect of 7.10(d). But, as I said in my last post, I think that 7.10(d) [alone] vs. 7.10(b) [as modified by the "in vicinity" extension from 7.10(d)] may be a distinction without a difference and, as you say, you can ignore (b) for all practical purposes, with one possible exception:

Explaining a call to a typical coach or [eventually] Protest Committee might be easier using the Rule printed in the book that at least APPEARS to relate to the play you are calling. Absent the Official Interp., it will be hard to convince anyone [witness ME] that 7.10(d) has anything at all to do with a play on the bases.

--Carter

[cowbyfan1]

Originally posted by jicecone

The major problems with giving no indication of whether the runner is safe or out is: 1. It tips off the defense, which is not our job and 2. It is, in essence against the rules, that imply that a runner is considered to have touched a missed base for appeal purposes. Federation appeal rules although new , give a clearer discussion of this. Still, just as you have outs and safes in baseball, you also have appeals for base running infractions , which although YOU may not like it, are still part of the game.

If the runner is already pass the bag, even if he touches the bag it is not out of the norm to not signal anything. Thinking being the whole park "knows" he is safe, no need to signal. So by not signalling then it really is not tipping off the defense. Now if you stand there looking at F3 instead of heading to the B position then THAT could tip off the defense.

[jicecone]

Originally posted by cowbyfan1

If the runner is already pass the bag, even if he touches the bag it is not out of the norm to not signal anything. Thinking being the whole park "knows" he is safe, no need to signal. So by not signalling then it really is not tipping off the defense. Now if you stand there looking at F3 instead of heading to the B position then THAT could tip off the defense.

And I won't disagree with what your saying but I thought you clarifed what happen at first by stating that "the ball and the BR arrive about the same time". Therefore I commented about a time frame that you established.

[Kaliix]

7.10(b) could legitimately read "Any runner shall be called out on appeal, when with the ball in play, while returing to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before a missed base is tagged."

That is the rule. Plain, simple, unencumbered. I am not aware of any "interpretation" that is allowed to contradict the actual written rule.

It sounds to me like the people who disagreed with the rule didn't have sound reading comprehension skills and didn't posses an understanding of the rules of logic.

Your agrument quoted below is flawed. The rule specifically deals with the runner failing to touch a base in order by referring to a runner going past a base and not touching it as MISSING A BASE!!!

It is not semantics. The runner failed to touch the bases in order because he missed the base on his way by. That is the rule. It is specifically why the runner can be called out on appeal..., for missing a base.

Going by a base and not touching it is not touching the bases in order because you MISSED THE BASE. It has nothing to do with whether you touched another base. The rule specifically states that the runner can be advancing or returning and be called out on appeal.

I don't care what someones interpretation is if their interpretation specifically contradicts what the actual rule reads and says. That can not be allowed and makes no sense....

You wrote:
1.) 7.10(b) says nothing about "touching out of order", per se: the rule says runner is out if he "FAILS TO TOUCH EACH BASE IN ORDER" before being appealed for the missed base. Thus, the viewpoint of those who want to use 7.10(b) as written (in most cases - see below), and don't understand your way of saying "use (d) at all bases, not just home".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your first part is simple semantics. Your not guilty of touching bases out of order nor guilty of not touching bases in order if you have only touched one base, can't do that so let's drop that part. I'll handle the second part of that down further.

[Kaliix]

In thinking about interpretations of the rule, I can see were one would be applicable.

There could be some greater direction or interpretation as to when a possible appeal starts versus when a runner returning to a base that is missed actually aquired that base.

If the BR missed 2nd on his way to third and then is directed back to the 2nd base by the 3rd base coach who sees that he missed second, there could be a debate about when the appeal starts. Does the appeal have to be initiated before the runner reaches the base or does it have to be completed before the base is reached the BR who missed it, in order to be called out?

[Gee]

Carter wrote:

Gee;

#1. Well I think what they "extended" to all bases was the "in the vicinity" aspect of 7.10(d). But, as I said in my last post, I think that 7.10(d) [alone] vs. 7.10(b) [as modified by the "in vicinity" extension from 7.10(d)] may be a distinction without a difference and, as you say, you can ignore (b) for all practical purposes, with one possible exception:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I thought I clearly stated the reason they extended (d). It was simply to allow an appeal at the same place whether it was at the plate or on the bases as that was the major difference in the two rules. Now the runner just has to leave the immediate area as opposed to touching his advance base in order to allow an appeal.
--------------------------------------------
#2. Explaining a call to a typical coach or [eventually] Protest Committee might be easier using the Rule printed in the book that at least APPEARS to relate to the play you are calling. Absent the Official Interp., it will be hard to convince anyone [witness ME] that 7.10(d) has anything at all to do with a play on the bases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That is true but your primary job is to enforce the applicable rules as well as rulings. The extension is printed in the BRD and C2 is arguably the number one rules man for amateur baseball in the world.

You are the authority on the field, all the coach can do is protest. You go to the protest meeting with the BRD in hand and show them (b), (d) and the interp in black and white. Case closed.

Coaches know Jack Schidt about the rules, they know nothing about touching the advance base under (b) nor the immediate area under (d), that's not their job, it's ours. I wouldn't use the book too often to prove a rule as it could backfire on you. It has too many errors in it. J/R points out over a hundred problems and then there are interps like this one that is nowhere to be found in the book, etc. Regards, G.

[Gee]

Mr K wrote:

In thinking about interpretations of the rule, I can see were one would be applicable.

There could be some greater direction or interpretation as to when a possible appeal starts versus when a runner returning to a base that is missed actually aquired that base.

If the BR missed 2nd on his way to third and then is directed back to the 2nd base by the 3rd base coach who sees that he missed second, there could be a debate about when the appeal starts. Does the appeal have to be initiated before the runner reaches the base or does it have to be completed before the base is reached the BR who missed it, in order to be called out?
------------------------------------------------------

Under 7.10(d)the runner is not appealable UNTIL he leaves the immediate area of the base (I use the cutout). Prior to leaving he must be tagged. Once he leaves that area he can be appealed at any time and must get all the way back and touch the base to be safe.

As to the timing of when an appeal is denied or upheld. I find nothing in the book that realy clarifies that. It has been mentioned before but don't remember the outcome.

Personally, once the defense steps on the base and properly appeals before the runner retouches I would have an out whether or not the runner gets back before I wring him up but have nothing in black letter law to uphold that opinion. You could make a new post concerning that. G.

[Edited by Gee on Aug 11th, 2004 at 12:34 PM]

[southump]

speaking about split seconds. Lets suppose B-R pases over first by half a step. inmediately the first baseman shows you the glove appealing for an out, but at that moment B-R is already on the base. The appealing takes predence and he is out. here is one he does not have to ask for, because it is an automatic appeal. Ex.: R1 departs early and a fly ball is caught. the throw to first is an appeal which cant be asked because that split second is obviously needed by the defense.

[Gee]

"SNIP"

"Speaking about split seconds. Lets suppose B-R pases over first by half a step. inmediately the first baseman shows you the glove appealing for an out, but at that moment B-R is already on the base. The appealing takes predence and he is out. here is one he does not have to ask for, because it is an automatic appeal. Ex.: R1 departs early and a fly ball is caught. the throw to first is an appeal which cant be asked because that split second is obviously needed by the defense."
------------------------------------

Southump,

The re-tag appeal and the missed base appeal are two different animals requiring two different mechanics. A re-tag appeal is automatic in almost every case. However, the missed base appeal is not.

In your play above, concerning the missed base, since the runner who failed to touch the base in passing stayed in the immediate area of that base an appeal would not be allowed, only a tag. (J/R, JEA and OBR under 7.10(d) extended to all bases). If you don't understand that, read this thread from the top. G.

[Edited by Gee on Aug 12th, 2004 at 04:50 PM]

[Rich]

Originally posted by Kaliix
7.10(b) could legitimately read "Any runner shall be called out on appeal, when with the ball in play, while returing to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before a missed base is tagged."

That is the rule. Plain, simple, unencumbered. I am not aware of any "interpretation" that is allowed to contradict the actual written rule.

That's fine, as long as you are willing to accept everything in the rule book as correct and written correctly.

Read 7.08(a)(1). Now, a "direct line between bases" seems to be pretty straight-forward, doesn't it? Why, then, do we allow baserunners to establish their own baseline?

Your reading of the "actual written rule" is your interpretation, nothing more and nothing less. Baseball people smarter than you and I don't read the rules the same way. We should listen to them.

[southump]

Gee: 7.10(d) is not the case here. B-R didn´t go to the dugout after overruning.
7.10(c) He overruns or overslides first base and fails to return to the base inmediately and he or the base is tagged.
It is clear to me that if F3 appeals even if B-R is "around" it is must probable B-R was out of reach and he is not supposed to pursue him all over the field.
Itis not I didnt understand the thread. I did not read it all. Just tried to think on what the original poster wanted to know