The following situation occured in a game I was umpiring.

Batter-Runner hits a grounder to an infielder who throws to 1st base in order to retire the runner. The throw is not in time however the runner misses 1st base and touches a point beyond the base. Should the runner be called immediately out for the bag being tagged by the fielder before the runner or does this require an appeal play on the runner for missing 1st base?

It requires an appeal.

Can you show me reference to a rule because other senior umpires have told me that he should be called out immediately

Well they are idiots. I don't have a rule book in front of me so I can't give you a reference. But think of it this way. R1, batter hits to F9. R1 advances to third, but steps over second base on his way by. F9 throws ball in to F6, who is standing on second base. Would you call R1 out immediatly in this situation?

There's nothing specific in the rules. In fact, a literal reading would make the "other senior umpires" correct because first base was tagged by the fielder before BR "touched" the base.

But in "all" (I hesitate to use that word, because someone will point out an exception), when the book refers to a runner "touching" a base, it means "touching or passing". Since BR passed first, he can't be put out by "normal" play. It must be appealed.

Here's a play from J/R: A runner is
advancing to first or home and runs by the base, missing it, and continues running for several steps, ignoring the fact that he missed the base. The fielder, now in possession of the ball, shows the ball to the umpire and
steps on the base, claiming the runner missed it: action is relaxed, so this is an appeal, and the runner is out.

Not arguing w/ anybody, but have two questions:

1.) Does the time interval make a difference:
A= BR steps over/ misses bag at same time ball arrives;
vs.
B= BR misses base & is 2 steps past when ball arives ?

2.) Do you signal safe (in either A or B, above) before F3 appeals the missed base?

Carter

In your first question you ask if it matters if he is safe by the ball reaching at the same time as the runner passing over base or if the runner is clearly past the base at the time the ball arrives. There is no difference because had he touched the base at the same time the ball arrived or if he has tocuhed the base and gone 2 steps over the base then the call would be the exact same. There is no difference in how the play should be interpretated. The second question is in part what I'm trying to ask.

There is clearly a difference between the play you describe and the one I am asking about. In the play you describe there is no play being made on the runner at the time that he misses the base. In my play there is a play being made on the runner at that time. If the runner was tagged after missing the base in your play then he is clearly out for being tagged off the base. I believe that on a force play at first base if he is tagged after not having touched the base it would be an appeal play and clearly would be out. My question is if the umpire should wait for an appeal to call him out for missing first base or does a force play by definition require the runner to touch the base to be called safe?

The play I speak of is different beacuse there is a play being made on the runner at the time he misses the base. In your play because it is not a force play the runner must be tagged and if he is tagged off the base then he is clearly out. The question I ask is if the runner is required to actually touch the base to occupy it and be called safe in a force play situation.

Oh, crap; I thought that part of the thread title was merely surplusage.

THE PLAY ON BR @ 1st IS NOT A FORCE PLAY. See: 2.00 "Force Play".

My questions related to what I thought your issue was, namely, when BR passes, but does not touch 1st base, is he called out immediately, or is it an appeal play?

My 1st question was, does timing matter? 'Cause I can see a case being made for banging BR out immediately in A [BR & ball arrive at the same (or virtually)instant]; whereas in B [BR clearly past base when ball arrives] things are gonna look peculiar if you call him out when the ball arrives after he is 2 steps past the bag: makes good sense to require some indication by F3 that they are appealing a missed touch.

My second question applies to both A & B, presuming you DO NOT bang him out in A. A similar discussion arose this spring about proper mechanics at Home plate when the runner fails to touch home: either with or without an attempted play at the plate, do you signal SAFE, or nothing?

[Edited by cbfoulds on Aug 6th, 2004 at 04:26 PM]

THe J/R play and your play are exactly the same (ignore the J/R part of the play that refers to home).

If the batter-runner is past first with both feet (such that he couldn't touch first without stopping and retreating) treat it as if he touched first. If there's a play being made, signal safe. If there's no play, signal nothing.

Then, if there's an appeal, rule on it.

With any luck, you'll get the appeal before you make your call -- someone on the defense will chime in, "the runner missed the bag" almost as soon as he's passed it.

Oh, crap; I thought that part of the thread title was merely surplusage.

THE PLAY ON BR @ 1st IS NOT A FORCE PLAY. See: 2.00 "Force Play".

My questions related to what I thought your issue was, namely, when BR passes, but does not touch 1st base, is he called out immediately, or is it an appeal play?

My 1st question was, does timing matter? 'Cause I can see a case being made for banging BR out immediately in A [BR & ball arrive at the same (or virtually)instant]; whereas in B [BR clearly past base when ball arrives] things are gonna look peculiar if you call him out when the ball arrives after he is 2 steps past the bag: makes good sense to require some indication by F3 that they are appealing a missed touch.

My second question applies to both A & B, presuming you DO NOT bang him out in A. A similar discussion arose this spring about proper mechanics at Home plate when the runner fails to touch home: either with or without an attempted play at the plate, do you signal SAFE, or nothing?

[Edited by cbfoulds on Aug 6th, 2004 at 04:26 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]

I have witnessed that exact play at the plate regarding the runner missing the base on TV. The MLB umpire waits until the play is over to make a call. The catcher and runner usually both clue in and attempt "finish the play". The catcher's appeal must be made by tagging the runner and not by touching the plate. If the runner leaves the basepath and enters his dugout he clearly "abandons his efforts to score" and never touched the plate he cannot return to touch the plate and the catchers may at that time appeal the missed plate by touching the plate with the ball in his posesion before the next play.

If there is no appeal and a new play begins the run counts even though the scoring runner never touched the plate. I believe that his can be interpretated that the run scores (i.e home plate was touched)unless the play is apealed."innocent (safe) until proven guilty (out)" In the fist case at first base the late throw to the base can be seen in equivalence to a late tag at the plate. In both similar situations the umpires should react the same way and because the MLB umpires on TV always wait until the play is finished at the plate before making a call I think that the way Peter (AKA His High Holiness) deals with the play is the best way.

Jordan

The rules consistently treeat a missed base as requiring an appeal. If no appeal is made, the base is considered to have been touched.


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

See the approved rulings in 4.09

<i>Approved Ruling: No run shall score during a play in which the third out is made by the batter runner before he touches first base. Example: One out, Jones on second, Smith on first. The batter, Brown, hits safely. Jones scores. Smith is out on the throw to the plate. Two outs. But Brown missed first base. The ball is thrown to first, <b>an appeal is</b> made, and Brown is out. Three outs. Since Jones crossed the plate during a play in which the third out was made by the batter runner before he touched first base, Jones' run does not count.


Approved Ruling: Two out, bases full, batter hits home run over fence. Batter, <b>on appeal</b>, is declared out for missing first base. Three outs. No run counts.</i>

See PLAYS A & B under 7.10(b)

<i>PLAY. (a) Batter hits ball out of park or ground rule double and misses first base (ball is dead)_he may return to first base to correct his mistake before he touches second but if he touches second he may not return to first and <b>if defensive team appeals</b> he is declared out at first.
PLAY.(b) Batter hits ball to shortstop who throws wild into stand (ball is dead)_batter runner misses first base but is awarded second base on the overthrow. Even though the umpire has awarded the runner second base on the overthrow, the runner must touch first base before he proceeds to second base. <b>These are appeal plays</b>.</i>

There is clearly a difference between a missed base and a missed base with a force play being made. In a missed base situation in which the runner is not forced to that base if there was a play on the runner it would be an easy call based on a tag. However in this situation the original question was if a runner must touch the base to be called safe during a force play and a throw to the base. Should the umpire say what gets to the base first the runner or the ball or should he ask what crosses the base first? (does it matter in a force play if the base is missed?)

You assume correctly, and thanks for your replies.

I have always prefered not to have to make 2 different calls [ "Safe! Yes, he's Out: Missed the bag!"]on the same play, even if there is a "good reason", like this appeal situation. The ensuing "conversations" with unhappy coaches are shorter and less confusing for all the participants [incl. me].

Using the "ain't nothin' until it's something" approach on the original play posted, I certainly agree that you cannot bang BR out until there is an obvious appeal [tagging BR off-base (beyond the bag) would suffice, I think], even in my situation A.

My point was that the timing should not matter. If you would wait for an appeal on R1 missing second, then you should also wait for an appeal on the BR missing first.

I like Bob's defintion of missing a base "If the batter-runner is past first with both feet (such that he couldn't touch first without stopping and retreating) treat it as if he touched first. If there's a play being made, signal safe. If there's no play, signal nothing.

Then, if there's an appeal, rule on it."

If the ball gets to first before the batter has missed the bag and gone by with both feet, the BR is out. Read Bob's advice above for the rest.

As Peter said, Pro schools do teach that when a B/R fails to touch first base in passing (with both feet) he should be signaled safe simply because he beat the play. JEA teaches that mechanic and further says that it should be used at all other bases, including home, on FORCE plays only.

When a runner fails to touch any forced base in passing, he has done two things. He is assumed to have touched that base and subsequently has removed the force, PENDING APPEAL.

At first it is a whole different ballgame due to the fact that first is not a forced base.

When the B/R runs THROUGH first base and fails to touch it he must be appealed. Like at home plate, a subsequent tag of the runner is an obvious appeal and once the appeal is satisfied for the third out any runs that have previously scored on the play are disallowed due to the fact that the B/R was retired before TOUCHING first base.

If the B/R fails to touch first and ROUNDS it he has removed the "TOUCH" and a tag of the runner would not be an appeal but just an off base out and any runs that have scored are allowed. However, if that same runner leaves the immediate area he can then be appealed under OBR 7.10(d) extended, to nullify any runs that have previously scored on the play. OBR 7.10(b) cannot be used until the runner reaches his advance base. G.

[Edited by Gee on Aug 9th, 2004 at 08:55 AM]

Gee, you had me agreeing there right up to the last paragraph.

Rule or ruling for "If the B/R fails to touch first and ROUNDS it he has removed the "TOUCH" ... and any runs that have scored are allowed", please?

Did you mean 7.10(c): ["[BR] overruns ... 1stB and fails to return immediately ..."]? O/W what does missing home have to do with anything here?

And, if I am understanding you correctly, by what ruling or logic does 7.10(b) not mean exactly what it says: "[Any runner is out on appeal when ...] with the ball in play, while advancing or returning to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he, or the missed base, is tagged"? As I read that rule: if BR misses 1st and, w/BR halfway to 2nd - F3 tags the base while holding the ball and appeals that the runner missed, then BR is called out on the appeal. If there is AO/R to the contrary, I have never seen it.

--Carter

UmpJordan wrote:

<i>"There is clearly a difference between a missed base and a missed base with a force play being made. In a missed base situation in which the runner is not forced to that base if there was a play on the runner it would be an easy call based on a tag. However in this situation the original question was if a runner must touch the base to be called safe during a force play and a throw to the base. Should the umpire say what gets to the base first the runner or the ball or should he ask what crosses the base first? (does it matter in a force play if the base is missed?)"</i>

Try this Approved Ruling in 4.09

<i>"Approved Ruling: Following runners are not affected by an act of a preceding runner unless two are out. Example: One out, Jones on second, Smith on first, and batter, Brown, hits home run inside the park. Jones fails to touch third on his way to the plate. Smith and Brown score. The defense holds the ball on third, appeals to umpire, and Jones is out. Smith's and Brown's runs count."</i>

Note that Jones failed to touch third base - a base to which he was forced. The AR STILL requires an appeal.


Also, go read 7.10(b) again. Nowhere does it say "unless forced."


[Edited by Rich Ives on Aug 8th, 2004 at 10:04 PM]

I look at it this way.

If the ball and the BR arrive at about the same time and the BR foot misses first base, call him out immediately. If the runner is clearly past first I would do nothing and wait for an appeal or runner to touch first, then make the call, one way or the other.
My thinking on this is if the runner had rounded first and went to second, it is obvious he is safe at first, unless by the appeal. With a "banger" at the bag, it is easier to sell it. If the coach comes out and argues, you look him dead in the eye and say "Coach, your runner has still yet to touch first base" That would, more than likely, end the arguement right there.

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.

CARTER
 

Gee, you had me agreeing there right up to the last paragraph.

1. Rule or ruling for "If the B/R fails to touch first and ROUNDS it he has removed the "TOUCH" ... and any runs that have scored are allowed", please?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Once the runner passes first and rounds it he is assumed to have touched it and has removed the force (TOUCH), pending appeal.

If the runner is then tagged out for the third out it would not be an appeal play it is simply an off base out and for that reason all previous runs would score. Why wouldn't they? The runner was not put out BEFORE reaching first.
---------------------------------------------

2. Did you mean 7.10(c): ["[BR] overruns ... 1stB and fails to return immediately ..."]? O/W what does missing home have to do with anything here?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No, I meant 7.10(d). About thirty years ago MLB extended 7.10(d) to all bases, not just home, in order to make a missed base appeal the same on all bases.

OBR 7.10(b) can only be used when the bases are touched out of order. As you can plainly see in this play, the B/R failed to touch first in passing and never got to second.

That being the case, how did he touch the bases out of order, he didn't touch any? As I said, only if he touched second he then could have been appealable under 7.10(b) OR (d) Extended. Forget 7.10(c) as it is written totally wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------
3. And, if I am understanding you correctly, by what ruling or logic does 7.10(b) not mean exactly what it says: "[Any runner is out on appeal when ...] with the ball in play, while advancing or returning to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he, or the missed base, is tagged"? As I read that rule: if BR misses 1st and, w/BR halfway to 2nd - F3 tags the base while holding the ball and appeals that the runner missed, then BR is called out on the appeal. If there is AO/R to the contrary, I have never seen it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In your play above where the B/R misses first and is half way to second he cannot be appealed under 7.10(b) because he hasn't touched an advance base.

In order to touch the bases out of order the runner has to touch one, then miss one and then touch another, that did not happen so OBR 7.10(b) cannot be used. You have to use 7.10(d) when the runner fails to touch a base in passing and then LEAVES the immediate area (I use the cutout) of that base he can now be appealed. If he stays in the immediate area of the base he must be tagged, an appeal is not allowed, ever. G.

Gee:
Any authority for any of the above, other than your say-so? Like a published "rule or ruling"? 'Cause, from the published rules, what you have written makes no sense.

--Carter

Any authority for any of the above, other than your say-so? Like a published "rule or ruling"? 'Cause, from the published rules, what you have written makes no sense.
------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote an article a few years ago concerning "Last Time BY" explaining the implications of a Missed Base, here is a part of that article:


".....OBR 7.10. says, "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."

That rule literally says that a runner has not "missed" a base, and so cannot be appealed, until he advances to and touches a base beyond the "missed" base. The reasoning is that if the runner proceeds past the missed base and doesn't reach and touch his advance base then he has effectively gained no base advantage under the rules, in terms of the actual bases acquired. He has certainly gained distance - at least temporarily - but he has not run the bases in the improper order and so he has NOT "missed" a base within the original meaning and intent of the rule. This is the true understanding of what is ADVANCING under this rule......"

So in the play you presented where the runner failed to touch first in passing and went half way to second he is not appealable under 7.10(b) because he hasn't touched his advance base and therefore is not guilty of missing a base.

Under todays rules he IS appealable due to the new ruling which extends 7.10(d) to all bases. Obviously, as explained above, you cannot use (b).

I checked your profile for an E-mail address to send you the whole article but it isn't there. If you or anybody else would like a copy, e-mail me at [email protected] and I will send it to you. G.




[Edited by Gee on Aug 9th, 2004 at 03:04 PM]

here's the real deal/..
 

First off, ya got a wacker at first. Safe or out doesn't mean crap.BU see's a missed bag, he does not want a ****house, so he bangs an out. Ball beat runner, right? THAT is what everybody saw. 99% of the crowd has no freaking idea what the heck an "appeal " is, why bother, bang the out sez FU. Keep it simple, huh.

Wish it was simple like that here. Too many "old guru's" do not even look into interps, call the safe and the D coach , more than likely, does not have a clue.....then we come into "coaching"..........tis a no-win situation. Tell em to appeal it, then you are "coaching",.......been there.....done that.....no win situation............

OBR 7.10. "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."

Gee, why are you trying to read into the sentence so much. The meaning seems clear to me. If the BR is advancing from 1st and runs over second but doesn't actually touch it, he has missed the base. He is running like he thinks he hit it and is advancing to another base. With the ball in play, if the defense astutely throws the ball to F4 at second and appeals that the runner missed the base, then the BR IS OUT! And it doesn't matter whether he has reached 3rd yet or not.

All parts of the rule have been met. The ball is still in play (the ball is thrown to F6 from the outfield and he throws to F4 at second), the BR failed to touch second while advancing to 3rd. Therefore if his missed base (2nd base)is appealed and tagged, he is out.

A missed base is a missed base.

The rule doesn't read "while advancing to and touching a base or returning to a base"... It simply talks about advancing or returning to a base and having missed a base while doing so.

The rule could legitimately read "Any runner shall be called out on appeal, when with the ball in play, while advancing to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before a missed base is tagged." I left out both "or" possibilities, but the rule still reads correctly. Missing a base is failing to touch each base in order and if appealed properly, results in an out under 7.10(b).

IMHO

I'm not reading into the rule, I'm simply reading the words as they are written and their intended meaning.

Let's say a batter hits a gapper, touches first and then fails to touch second in passing and goes half way to third and stops.

Has he TOUCHED the bases out of order? He might have RUN the bases out of order and he might have PASSED the bases out of order but he certainly hasn't TOUCHED the bases out of order. He only touched first how can he be guilty of touching the bases out of order?

That is why he is not appealable under OBR 7.10(b) he must be tagged to get the off base out. That has been changed.

They extended 7.10(d) to all bases circa 1975 in a compromise between the Baseball Umpire Development program, led by Nick Bremigan and MLB to have a "missed base" handled the same on all bases as they are at the plate.

7.10(d) still doesn't allow an appeal the moment the runner fails to touch the base in passing, it just moves it back from touching his advance base to leaving the immediate area of the base the runner failed to touch in passing.

Once he leaves that area (I use the cutout) he can be
appealed but if he stays within that area he must be tagged for the out an appeal isn't allowed, ever. G.

[Edited by Gee on Aug 10th, 2004 at 04:35 PM]

Gee:
I think I've figured out where our disagreement comes from and where IMHO, you "went wrong" on this one.

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".

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-

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.

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."

--Carter

[Edited by cbfoulds on Aug 10th, 2004 at 05:03 PM]

If you cannot tell me why the statement below is wrong then you cannot logically win this debate because the statement below is actual rule.

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

In your scenario from your last post, no the runner has not touched the bases out of order. He has not touched the bases in order before a missed base is tagged. The rule specifically deals with the touching and passing of a base by referring to it as a missed base!

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]

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]

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

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.

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

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.

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....

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?

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.

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]

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.

"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]

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.

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

"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]

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.

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.



[/B][/QUOTE]

At first I thought you wanted to intelligently debate this point but now I see you are incapable of actually using logic and common sense to actually discuss this issue.

To wit:
Number 1: You are right it is semantics. That is exactly what we are talking about. The definition of words and how they can change the meaning of a sentence. Semantics makes a HUGE FREAKING DIFFERENCE when debating the definition of rules!!!

Words must be precisely chosen and carefully applied so that their meaning is accurate and clear.

There is a difference between "OUT OF ORDER" and "IN ORDER". It is the difference between having to touch an advance base to be "OUT OF ORDER" and just missing a base to not touch the bases "IN ORDER"!!!!

It makes all the difference in the world and you write it off to semantics as somehow semantics don't matter. How foolish can you be. It is semantics. It is precisely the meaning of the words and how they are written that is in question.

Number 2: I don't give a rat's A$$ about Nick Bremigan and what he wrote in Referee magazine! What ole Nick said doesn't mean crap if he tries to interpret another rule that is in direct contrast to WHAT THE RULES READ!!!!!

I don't see anywhere in the rule book where 7.10(d) was extended to all bases. 7.10(d) doesn't even contain the additional note regarding the immediate area, 7.08(k) does. And 7.10(d) is specfic to the plate as well, just as 7.08(k) is.

Here's a suggestion: stop trying to argue 7.10(d) applies to all the bases. If someone tried to extend the "interpretation" of 7.10(d) to all the bases then they "SCREWED THE POOCH"! YOU CANNOT INTERPRET OR EXTEND ONE RULE SO THAT IT IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER RULE!!!

The rule as written supercedes anyones dumba$$ attempt to somehow interpret it as applying differently.

If you wanted to include the immediate area interpretation in the rule then 7.08(b) is the correct rule to "interpret".

How about trying to actually make a logical argument against the in order versus out of order problem.

And you STILL HAVE NOT TOLD ME why 7.08(b) stated as follows, "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" is somehow incorrect?

The above is the actual rule that applies to a runner not touching the bases IN ORDER because of missing a base. It states that the runner can be advancing or returning to a base and be called out on appeal before he or the missed base is tagged.

How is that rule wrong??? Did a runner miss a base? Yes! Is the ball in play? Yes! Is the runner returning to a base? Yes! Is the missed base tagged and an appeal made before the runner touches the missed base? Yes! Then all the requirements of the rule have been met as stated in the actual rule. So how is the rule wrong???

Answer the question with something other than some incorrect extenstion of another rule that directly contradicts the actual rule.

Try! Please! I'm begging you!!! PLEASE!!! :)


[/B][/QUOTE]

K:
Calm down. You will NEVER get Gee to agree with you.
What's more, it doesn't matter:
If you use the rule that you & I agree appears more applicable, you will reach the correct ruling on the field, as long as you remember that the runner has to be outside the immediate vicinity of the base and making no effort to return: THEN sustain the appeal, and which ever rule you rely upon to inform your decision, nobody will be the wiser. If the runner is "in the vicinity" and working on getting back, require a tag of the runner, not an appeal/tag of the base. THAT is an area where Gee is absolutely right, the OffInt is in BRD, as I cited in an earlier post.
Yeah, I know, Gee smugly writes about the rule "obviously" saying something it doesn't say; and for authority cites nothing more persuasive than an article in Referee [which I doubt I've read] and another HE [Gee] wrote a few years ago [If memory serves, it may have been published on the ABUA site, & I think I read it. Don't know if it's still there]. So what?

Even Gee agrees that if runner misses 2d, is half way [45 ft.] to 3d and making no effort to return, and the defense appeals the missed base, runner is out on the appeal. You say (b), he says (d): potato, potahto.

--Carter

MY FINAL ANSWER.
 

Carter, this is my last time by.

Your right I won't change my mind. I'm fully confident in my belief that 7.10(b) clearly means that a runner that has failed to touch a base in passing must touch his advance base before he is guilty of touching the bases out of order and liable to be appealed for a missed base.

Also that 7.10(d) has been extended to all bases including home and further that under today's rules, a runner is not guilty of missing a base, nor is he appealable, until he leaves the immediate area of that base. It naturally follows that a runner is not guilty of missing a base and appealable as soon as he fails to touch a base in passing. Unfortunately, Mr. K. disagrees with all three points.

At least you acknowledge that 7.10(d) has been extended to all bases but you fail to agree that under 7.10(b) a runner that has failed to touch a base in passing must touch his advance base, when applicable, before he is guilty of missing a base and appealable. Let me explain what led me to that conclusion.


After writing 7.10(b) the rule makers found that it would not be applicable to the plate as their is no advance base so to make it compatible they used leaving the immediate area of the plate before the runner could be guilty of missing the plate and appealable and pretty close to (b).

Now I ask you, why did they use leaving the immediate area of the plate for the violation and not the plate itself? As I have said above, they simply wanted to make (d) compatible with (b). Since (b) required touching the advance base and there is no advance base after the plate they chose the immediate area, simple.

If, as you had originally thought, (b) means the runner is guilty of missing a base and appealable the moment the runner passed it, why in the world would they not keep (d) the same rather than make the immediate area applicable. Obviously your original though was wrong.

Circa 1975, Nick Bremigan of the Baseball Umpires Development group didn't like the two different missed base rules and compromised with MLB to extend 7.10(d) to all bases which was successful.

By doing that they achieved two things. 1. They made the missed base rule on the bases the same as the missed base rule at the plate and 2. They narrowed the point of a missed base appeal from the advance base to the immediate area of the missed base so the fielder would not have to leave his immediate area to make the tag.

Now do me a favor. If you don't follow that or don't agree with it that is your choice but absent some reasonably valid counter to my explanation just ignore it. G.

[Edited by Gee on Aug 19th, 2004 at 09:04 AM]

Gee:
I think you have missed the point.

I am comfortable with the OffInt "extending" (d); I've read it; I will apply it; I think K should, too.

I understand your explanation of why you think what you think, it makes sense, although I am conscious that you have never cited any persuasive published authority for your "why" explanation [meaning the "advance base" issue, which is what has K all excited], nor do I see the need for some of the interpretation you insist is necessary.

However, as [I think] you just wrote, I can easily ignore our difference of opinion, since it will make no difference on the field of play. Both you and I will get the play right if it happens while we are on the field. Consequently, I see no point in debating the issue just for the satisfaction of "being right": "A distinction without a difference makes no difference". I make room for the possibility that I might be wrong; even if you don't [ & I make no assumptions about that], we end up in the same place.

Potato vs. Potahto: it's still a spud. ;)

--Carter

Clearly you have no concept of what the English language or what reading comprehension skills mean. You can't even get the language of the rules right. The rule states the batter must not "fail to touch the bases in order" not be "guilty of touching the bases out of order." Are you really that dense?

Explain to me why anyone needed to extend 7.10(d) to all the bases when there is already a rule that covers that specific thing?

Have you ever read Rule 7.08(k)? If you had, and could comprehend what it says, you would realize the absolute folly of needing to extend 7.10(d).

I'll give you one more chance to read the rule. It's quoted below.

So why if, the rules specifically cover a play at home in 7.08(k), would there be any need to extend 7.10(d) to cover all the bases when that is covered in rule 7.10(b)?

Gosh, that's a great question? Got an answer?

Here's another, does 7.10(b) state anything about touching an advance base to have failed to touch the bases in order?

How about this, if the rule 7.10(b) states that a runner can be returning to a base but if a missed base is tagged before the runner touches it, he is out, on appeal? Where's the part about having to have touched an advance base? It seems the rule covers returning to a missed base? It even says that the runner could be advancing from a base and be out on appeal? Hummmm????

And here's my last really good question? Why would the people in baseball go to all the trouble of "interpreting" these rules in such a convuluted, round about, confusing way when all they had to do was, since first and home are covered by there own individual rules anyways, not just make a slight change to 7.10(b) so that it read the following:
"Any runner shall be called out on appeal, when with the ball in play, while advancing or returing to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he, or a missed base, is tagged, unless he immediately attempts to return and touch a missed base.
Note: Immediately returning to a base is definded as the runner not advancing past the cutout area of the missed base."

I know, I know, that just seems to easy doesn't it?

So, anyone care to answer any of the questions above or are we just going to drop some more chaffe!

I'm on vacation till Monday, have fun!

Well, I had promised myself that I would leave this alone, and it still looks like a spud to me; but I just got my spiffy new 2004 J/R. Lah me, and behold: Rick Roder also seems to think that the appeal for failure to touch a base is governed by 7.10b, with nary a mention of runner needing to reach the advance base before being vulnerable to appeal [see: J/R Ch.9,Sec.II(B)(1), pg. 71]. Guess the reading Gee likes ain't quite so "obvious" after all.:cool:

--Carter

Carter,

I also said I would leave this alone but since you continue in your efforts to prove me wrong I find it necessary to reply. (Small grin.)

I also have J/R but mine is the original editiion and not the new one that you have.

I tried to match up your section with mine and I think I found it in "Appeal of a Failure to Touch a Base".

My edition gives three examples and on the far right they refer to four OBR rules of which one of them is 7.10(b.

All of the examples clearly state that the runner, who was appealed, had touched his advance base and an appeal is applicable under 7.10(b) OR (d)ext.

If I have the wrong section, concerning the above, please let me know as I would be surprised if the book used 7.10(b) when the appealed runner failed to touch his advance base.

As you read further into this section you will find that they use a 'relaxed' and 'unrelaxed action' concept concerning 7.10(d) and the immediate area.

You also must remember that this book is authoritative opinion and not Official as it is basically a teaching manual and a great resource. G.









[Edited by Gee on Aug 21st, 2004 at 11:31 AM]

Yeah, we probably both need to get a life. :)

I think you are looking at the same section.
FWIW, the text is:
A runner is vulnerable to appeal if
(1) he does not touch a base when advancing (or returning)(within a body length) the final time. [7.02][7.04d][7.05i][7.10b]

No 7.10d, no "reaching the advance base" mentioned. :cool:

Well, none of the examples given in the '04 ed. cite a rule by number, and none really addresses the "advance base" issue: the only one where it occurs is a classic "last time by" sitch, not really helpful on this question.

The point I posted earlier was that J/R'04 cites 7.10b, not d for missed base, and never mentions any req. that runner reach or pass the advance base [in either direction].

The only places in this area I can find 7.10d cited are subsections on "Constitution of an Appeal", and "Retouch Appeals", in which d is referenced for the principle [from the cmt/casebook] that an appeal must be obvious and intentional.

The discussion of "relaxed" action is instructive, I think:
"In relaxed action, the runner (whose action is being appealed) is inactive; he is standing on another base, or is well removed from the base at which the appeal is being made. In unrelaxed action the runner ... is trying to scramble to a base ...

Sounds like reaching the advance base is one possibility, but so is appealing a runner most of the way but not yet to the advance base, providing he's not trying to get back.

Quote:

You also must remember that this book is authoritative opinion and not Official as it is basically a teaching manual and a great resource. G.

Absolutely, but it is a darn sight nearer Gospel than your or my opinion.:D

As for our "disagreement", I'm not really worried about which of us is "right": it still looks like the same spud to me. As I posted elsewhere, I'm like a kid w/ a new toy.

The J/R does make it easier to noodle out screwy situations, as much because it makes it easier to find ALL the relevent rules. Obviously, there is a format difference, and maybe also some differences in content, between the '04 and the original edition [from your description]: not having used the eariler, I would not be able to say if the current version is an improvement.

--Carter

Carter,

Seems we have the same section and the text is the same as you quoted:

"A runner is vulnerable to appeal if
(1) he does not touch a base when advancing (or returning)(within a body length) the final time. [7.02][7.04d][7.05i][7.10b].
Then you say that there is: "No 7.10d, no "reaching the advance base" mentioned. :cool:".
>>>>>
Why in the world would 7.10(d) be mentioned? He touched his advance base in all the examples therefore 7.10(b) applies. There is absolutely no need to apply (d).

I realy wonder why you didn't acknowledge, in your recent post, the fact that the runner, in all of the examples given in J/R, did in fact, touch his advance base. It is right there in black and white and I made a direct reference to it, are you trying to evade the facts of the situation?.

Yes, under "Constitution of an Appeal", the whole discussion of "relaxed and unrelaxed action" pertains to a missed base under 7.10(d).

Remember this book is a teaching tool and not an interpretation book. As you write, "they describe "relaxed action" when the runner who has failed to touch a base in passing is inactive; he is standing on another base, or is well removed from the base at which the appeal is being made."

I don't think of it the way they describes it. It means to me that the runner has simply left the immediate area of the base and whether he is returning or not, he is appealable under 7.10(d)ext. Of course if he is standing on another base he can now be appealed under either 7.10(b) or (d).

They further describe "unrelaxed action as the runner......is trying to scramble to a base".

To me unrelaxed action means that the runner has never left the immediate area of the base and therefore cannot be appealed and must be tagged. Does that remind you of 7.10(d)ext?

Then you write:

"Sounds like reaching the advance base is one possibility, but so is appealing a runner most of the way but not yet to the advance base, providing he's not trying to get back."

If the runner reaches the next base, as I said above, he can now be appealed under (b) or (d) but if he goes most of the way he can only be appealed under (d)whether he is returning or not.

As I mentioned before, the runner can be appealed if he is returning, scrambling back or whatever providing he leaves the immediate area of the base.

Think of this: If a runner fails to touch second in passing and stops just before he touches third and starts to return are you going to disallow an appeal and make the defense chase him or get him in a rundown? The answer to that is an emphatic NO, you can appeal him at any time until he touches the now missed base. One of the things they accomplished by extending 7.10(d} was to stop the chasing.

As to our disagreewment, reasonable people disagree. If you don't agree with my understanding of 7.10(b) and do agree that 7.10(d) has been extended to all bases, the problem is solved. With 7.10(d) extended you will, I hate to say never but, never need to use 7.10(b) again, especially in light of the recent "Last Time By" ruling by MLB. Enjoyed your J/R it's a great resource, regards. G.

Well, maybe I misunderstand the advance base issue, but, as I wrote, only one of the 3 examples in the '04 J/R seem to raise advance base issues, and that one is clear last time by, so it's not helpful.

Also, I'm wondering why you seem to be trying to spin past the fact that J/R never mentions adjudicating an appeal under 7.10d?

--Carter

Carter asked:

"Also, I'm wondering why you seem to be trying to spin past the fact that J/R never mentions adjudicating an appeal under 7.10d?"
--------------------------

After you read the explanation for Relaxed and Unrelaxed action you come to Subsection C: Missed base appeals. The several examples on that are all from 7.10(d) Extended.
They do not cite any OBR rule for the first three but it is obviously 7.10(d) extended.

In the next part they discuss what is titled, "A missed base appeal of first (over-run) or home occurs when:". It's funny, because for that they cite 7.08(k) for home and 7.10(d), obviously extended, for first

After you get into it you will find, like I have, that they don't dwell on the real tough, controversial stuff. G.
-------------------------------------------------

Nothing like calling out a 17 yr old thread...but is there a chance anybody has this video clip?

It's relevant today because a similar play occurred in the Boston/Toronto game today.

Worth a try. Thanks!

Sorry, I don't. Do you have a clip on UE of the above?

BTW Thanks for reminding me how old I am :)

17 yrs! Damn!

I thought I had wandered into McGriff's for a moment.

If anything, we should be grateful at how much more accessible tools and resources are today than they were then.

This is nowhere as raucous (for want of a better word at the moment) as McGriff's was. :D