Runner Missing 1st base on a force play

[cbfoulds]

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.

K:
As you know, I am, shall we say, "skeptical" about Gee's claim that 7.10(b) is only applicable if the runner touches an "advance base". However, I am in no doubt whatever that there is an Official Interpretation which, at a minimum, incorporates the "leaves the vicinity" concept from 7.10(d) into the enforcement of (b) at all bases. That being the case, it makes no difference on the field if you use (d) alone [Gee's position] or (b), as modified by the "extension" of (d) to all bases.

Now, I remain "skeptical", but, as Rich says, BB guys smarter than me don't read this the way I do; and esp. since there is no sitch [at least that I can think of] where "I'm right, they're wrong" makes any difference, I reckon I'll listen.

--Carter

[Gee]

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.
-----------------------------------------------------

Southump:

Here is what you said in your first post: "......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........"

Let me paraphrase whatyou said in your first post: "IMMEDIATELY" after B/R failed to touch the base in passing the fielder shows his glove appealing for an out. But "AT THAT MOMENT" B/R is already on the base.

Seems pretty clear to me that the B/R never left the immediate area which is usually within the cutout around the bases. Whatever.

Then you say 7.10(d) is not the case here B/R didn't go to the dugout after over running. Who mentioned the dugout, that's handled by the abandonment/desertion ruling.

7.10(d) simply means that if you fail to touch a base in passing and leave the immediate area of that base you can be appealed at any time. However if you stay within that immediate area of the base you must be tagged for the out, an appeal is not allowed. So whatever the B/R did OBR 7.10(d) extended, covers it

You can forget 7.10(c) as it has absolutely, positively nothing to do with a missed base as it simply deals with a legal overun.

I certainly enjoy answering questions or correcting misleading statements to difficult situations and complex rullings. However it does bother me when the same person comes back and tries to contradict me.

If you don't agree with my answer, move on, or come back for more clarification but please don't tell me what you THINK the correct rule is as you did above and were completely wrong and off base. That is about as kind as I can get. G.

[southump]

G: don´t look at the situation in slow motion. But dynamic as hot plays are. Suppose B-R is half step past first and then on that very split second the first baseman swips around, B-R Jumps another step back , then F3 takes an step to him, and ......
G: if you don´t like discussion of a situation which contradicts the way you look at it. Instead of behaving like a "Know it all" Just don´t answer back. I am here to discuss and learn not to argue or bother anyone. Have a good season.

[greymule]

Saw this play at a Phillies game:

BR beats the throw to 1B, misses the bag, and overruns 25 feet or so. (Routine overrun, no turn whatsoever.) Umpire signals safe. F3 then holds the ball up to the umpire, stomps on 1B, and waits for a call. (I don't know whether F3 said anything. It didn't look like it. But I don't think it would have mattered.) Umpire just looks at F3 and makes no call.

Then, as BR is returning to 1B, F3 tags him. Umpire signals out.

[Gee]

Could be more than one reason.

The calling umpire might allow more than 25 feet as his "immediate area" but I doubt it. The usual allowance is 13 feet which is the boundry of the cutout.

Or the calling umpire might have needed a verbal. Either way, the tag once made becomes an appeal and if it was a third out and a run scored prior to the tag it would be nullified. G.

[greymule]

Of course I am only estimating the length of the overrun. I should have noted, however, that F3 did not immediately "appeal." It took a few seconds, and the returning BR was nearing 1B when the tag of the base and then the tag of the runner occurred.

[Kaliix]

Rich,
Some rules are written more clearly and intelligently than others.

I was not discussing 7.08(a)(1) but since you brought it up, that rule, specifically the 3 ft rule from a direct line between bases, pertains only to when a runner is trying to avoid a tag, with the exception of avoiding a fielder making a play on the ball.

That is why a runner is allowed create his own baseline.

Saying that my reading of the rule is only an interpretation is nonsense. It reminds of me of Clinton arguing the defintion of the word "is". Certainly some written sentences, paragraphs, etc. are open to interpretation. However the point of writing rules is that they be written so that they clearly and specifically define the parameters of a game.

If the rules are not clear and allow for "interpretation" then they should be rewritten so that they are clear, precise and mean what they intended to mean. Extending another rule, 7.10(d) by an interpretation to cover what another rule already clearly defines is wrong.

7.10(b) seems well written and cannot be over-ridden by an extension and interpretation of another rule.

If the rule is does not state what it should then rewrite it.

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

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.

[Kaliix]

Gee,
You still have not answered my the main point, which is what is wrong with rule 7.10(b) "Any runner shall be called out on appeal, when (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."

Let's look at the rule. It first states that the ball must be in play, meaing that it cannot be dead, since there are no dead ball appeals. Fair enough.

Second, the rule states that the runner may be advancing or returning to a base. It mentions nothing about immediate area or how close or far a player can be to have an appeal be made.

The last part states, "he fails to touch each base in order before he or a missed base is tagged." This sentence states that the play is appealable if the runner does not touch each base in order. It makes no mention of touching an advance base to be considered having touched the bases in order. In fact, the last part of the sentence refers to a missed base. A definition of missed is "to fail to hit something" or "to fail to contact". So, obviously, if the runner fails to make contact with the base on the way by, it is a missed base.

This is what constitutes failing to touch each base in order, missing a base. That is why the rule states that a runner is out on appeal if he misses a base and it is contacted before he can touch it. Because obviously then, it wouldn't be a missed base.

Why if the 7.10(b) states what it does is there any reason to "extend" 7.10(d) to all bases? 7.10(d) does not even state anything about the "immediate area".

Again, it sounds like someone decided to create an interpretation of a rule when a rule already exists to deal with a runner missing a base and how it is appealed.

Originally posted by 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.

[sabattis]

Altho other umpires that I work with and I have been instructed that no "accidental apeal" is to be upheld, the 2004 NFHS Case Book 8.2.3 (added this year) says...and I'm shortening it..." B1 hits slow roller to F5, arrives but misses 1st base...F3 catches ball off the bag, thinks runner has reached safely, but F3 casually steps on bag anyway...B1 is out as a result of continuing action."

REAL intereseted in replies. Don't know what MLB ruling would be.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by sabattis
Altho other umpires that I work with and I have been instructed that no "accidental apeal" is to be upheld, the 2004 NFHS Case Book 8.2.3 (added this year) says...and I'm shortening it..." B1 hits slow roller to F5, arrives but misses 1st base...F3 catches ball off the bag, thinks runner has reached safely, but F3 casually steps on bag anyway...B1 is out as a result of continuing action."

REAL intereseted in replies. Don't know what MLB ruling would be.

The case play was NOT changed when the rule was changed. This was an error. Ignore the case play.

[Gee]

Mr K, I'll try this one more time.

If a runner TOUCHES first and then TOUCHES second and then misses third and goes half way to home he has TOUCHED first and second, that's all he has TOUCHED, he has not TOUCHED any bases after TOUCHING the first two in order therefore he has done nothing wrong.

Having done that, how can the runner possibly be guilty of TOUCHING bases out of order if he has only TOUCHED first and second, they are in perfect order?

Now, if the same runner TOUCHES first and then fails to TOUCH second in passing and then TOUCHES third he has now TOUCHED one and three but not two, therefore once he TOUCHES three he's guilty of TOUCHING the bases out of order and appealable.

If you only TOUCH #1 and then #2 you are in order. If you TOUCH #1 and then #3 you are out of order, simple as that.


There is absolutely nothing in 7.10(b) concerning a missed base until AFTER they have been TOUCHED out of order AND appealable so if you have only TOUCHED #one and #two there is no violation but if you do TOUCH one, the second you TOUCH three you are guilty of having TOUCHED the bases out of order and are appealable.

If you don't fully understand that, there is no sense in going any further because that is the basis for the extention of 7.10(d). Once you grasp that fact let me know and I will answer the rest of your questions. G
---------------------------------------------------


[Edited by Gee on Aug 16th, 2004 at 12:58 PM]

[Atl Blue]

If you are going to “quote” the case book, quote it all, because it makes a mess out of this entire discussion:

*8.2.3 SITUATION: B1 hits a slow roller to F5 and arrives safely but misses first base. F3 catches the ball with his foot off the base and casually steps on first base, though he believes the runner has beaten the throw. RULING: B1 is out. Because a force play is being made on the runner and is the result of continuing action, F3 is not required to appeal the missed base and needs only to complete the force out.

Well now, where did THAT come from? A batter is “forced” at first, and despite the following rule change, this is an out?

Compare and contrast this situation, taken from the NFHS website:

SITUATION 8: With R1 at first, B2 singles to right field. R1 misses second base as he advances safely to third. The throw from the outfield goes to F4, who catches the ball and stumbles on second base, not aware that R1 did not touch the bag. RULING: Until the defense makes a proper intentional appeal, R1 would not be out. Accidental appeals by the defense are not valid. (8-4-2j)

Well, what’s an umpire to do? Here we have 8.2.3 saying that an “accidental” apeeal of a batter “forced” at first is an out, while the same organization posts a situation where a truly forced runner is NOT out on an “accidental appeal”. Interesting, especially in light of the rule change in 2004:

8-4-2j Add to the end of the rule: There shall be no accidental appeals on a force play.

Then we have the following case, again from the book, about two pages past the first case stated:

*8.4.2 SITUATION B: With R1 at first, B2 hits a double into right center, sending Alto third. However, R1 misses second base. F6 is standing on second when he catches the throw from the outfield. He then throws the ball to the pitcher. RULING: Although R1 missed second, no call will be made by the umpire because F6 did not make an intentional appeal of the missed base.

The simple answer is 8.2.3 (the first case) is just WRONG based on the new rule. But it does raise interesting questions about a batter being “forced” at 1B.

And in OBR, the proper mechanic, as has been stated, is that the BR is safe in this case until tagged or properly appealed, not accidentally appealed.

[Gee]

"SNIP"
"The simple answer is 8.2.3 (the first case) is just WRONG based on the new rule. But it does raise interesting questions about a batter being “forced” at 1B."
-----------------------------------

When they mention a 'force' at first they would be better off to classify it as a "Putative Force" to clear it up and keep it simple. G.



[Edited by Gee on Aug 16th, 2004 at 02:29 PM]

[Kaliix]

Okay Gee, I'll try this one more time just for you.

First off, please get your terms straight. The rule refers to touching the bases "IN ORDER". It mentions nothing of touching the bases "OUT OF ORDER". While this seems like a small point, it means a world of difference and it is what makes your argument fail.

If the BR touches 1st then misses second and goes halfway to third, he has not yet touched the bases "OUT OF ORDER" because he hasn't yet touched 3rd. Agreed.

However, the rule does not specify that the bases cannot be touched "OUT OF ORDER" is specifies that the bases must be touched "IN ORDER".

If the same BR touches 1st and then MISSES 2nd on his way to 3rd, he has failed to touch the bases "IN ORDER" specifically because he has missed a 2nd base.

A runner can fail to touch the bases "IN ORDER" by missing, in our example, 2nd base on his way to third.

Out of order can't really happen until an advance base is touched, I agree with that.

Failing to touch the bases "IN ORDER" happens the moment a runner misses a base. If a runner misses 2nd on his way to 3rd, he has failed to touch the bases in order, due to the missed base, and can be called out on appeal, according to rule 7.10(b) which could 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."

See the difference between "out of order" and "in order"?

And 7.08 (k) is the rule you probably should be quoting as dealing with the immediate area argument after missing home.

Originally posted by Gee
Mr K, I'll try this one more time.

If a runner TOUCHES first and then TOUCHES second and then misses third and goes half way to home he has TOUCHED first and second, that's all he has TOUCHED, he has not TOUCHED any bases after TOUCHING the first two in order therefore he has done nothing wrong.

Having done that, how can the runner possibly be guilty of TOUCHING bases out of order if he has only TOUCHED first and second, they are in perfect order?

Now, if the same runner TOUCHES first and then fails to TOUCH second in passing and then TOUCHES third he has now TOUCHED one and three but not two, therefore once he TOUCHES three he's guilty of TOUCHING the bases out of order and appealable.

If you only TOUCH #1 and then #2 you are in order. If you TOUCH #1 and then #3 you are out of order, simple as that.


There is absolutely nothing in 7.10(b) concerning a missed base until AFTER they have been TOUCHED out of order AND appealable so if you have only TOUCHED #one and #two there is no violation but if you do TOUCH one, the second you TOUCH three you are guilty of having TOUCHED the bases out of order and are appealable.

If you don't fully understand that, there is no sense in going any further because that is the basis for the extention of 7.10(d). Once you grasp that fact let me know and I will answer the rest of your questions. G
---------------------------------------------------


[Edited by Gee on Aug 16th, 2004 at 12:58 PM]

[Gee]

Sorry K, Carter tried that above. It didn't work then and it won't work now as like I told Carter, your dealing in semantics and not baseball rules.

So you don't agree with my interpretation of (b) which was reinforced by by Nick Bremigan in a Referee article, and you don't agree that (d) was extended to all bases. You still believe and I'll quote you: "Failing to touch the bases "IN ORDER" happens the moment a runner misses a base."

Then you say, even though we are dealing with All the bases I should use 7.08(k) instead of 7.10(b). Sorry, can't do that. 7.08(k) is specific to the plate where 7.10(d) deals with all the bases since it was extended.


No matter which one you use, they both contradict you when you say a runner is guilty of MISSING the plate the moment he fails to touch it in passing. Under both rules the runner has to leave the immediate area of the plate before he is guilty of MISSING it and appealable. Just like (b) where the runner is not guilty of MISSING his previous base and appealable until he touches his advance base. Oh, I forgot, you don't accept that nor do you accept the extension of 7.10(d) Pick a winner. G.
















First off, please get your terms straight. The rule refers to touching the bases "IN ORDER". It mentions nothing of touching the bases "OUT OF ORDER". While this seems like a small point, it means a world of difference and it is what makes your argument fail.

If the BR touches 1st then misses second and goes halfway to third, he has not yet touched the bases "OUT OF ORDER" because he hasn't yet touched 3rd. Agreed.

However, the rule does not specify that the bases cannot be touched "OUT OF ORDER" is specifies that the bases must be touched "IN ORDER".

If the same BR touches 1st and then MISSES 2nd on his way to 3rd, he has failed to touch the bases "IN ORDER" specifically because he has missed a 2nd base.

A runner can fail to touch the bases "IN ORDER" by missing, in our example, 2nd base on his way to third.

Out of order can't really happen until an advance base is touched, I agree with that.

Failing to touch the bases "IN ORDER" happens the moment a runner misses a base. If a runner misses 2nd on his way to 3rd, he has failed to touch the bases in order, due to the missed base, and can be called out on appeal, according to rule 7.10(b) which could 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."

See the difference between "out of order" and "in order"?

And 7.08 (k) is the rule you probably should be quoting as dealing with the immediate area argument after missing home.

Originally posted by Gee
Mr K, I'll try this one more time.

If a runner TOUCHES first and then TOUCHES second and then misses third and goes half way to home he has TOUCHED first and second, that's all he has TOUCHED, he has not TOUCHED any bases after TOUCHING the first two in order therefore he has done nothing wrong.

Having done that, how can the runner possibly be guilty of TOUCHING bases out of order if he has only TOUCHED first and second, they are in perfect order?

Now, if the same runner TOUCHES first and then fails to TOUCH second in passing and then TOUCHES third he has now TOUCHED one and three but not two, therefore once he TOUCHES three he's guilty of TOUCHING the bases out of order and appealable.

If you only TOUCH #1 and then #2 you are in order. If you TOUCH #1 and then #3 you are out of order, simple as that.


There is absolutely nothing in 7.10(b) concerning a missed base until AFTER they have been TOUCHED out of order AND appealable so if you have only TOUCHED #one and #two there is no violation but if you do TOUCH one, the second you TOUCH three you are guilty of having TOUCHED the bases out of order and are appealable.

If you don't fully understand that, there is no sense in going any further because that is the basis for the extention of 7.10(d). Once you grasp that fact let me know and I will answer the rest of your questions. G
---------------------------------------------------


[Edited by Gee on Aug 16th, 2004 at 12:58 PM]

[/B][/QUOTE]