Award after throw goes dead

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by greymule
If someone leaves a base too soon and advances, he does not legally occupy the next base and is subject to being called out on appeal.

Yes, he can be out on appeal, but for the purposes of awards, he does legally occupy the next base. He also legally occupied the base he left too soon or missed.

Maybe somebody can list the ways in which a runner can illegally occupy a base. All I can think of offhand is that a runner cannot legally occupy a base if a preceding runner is already legally occupying it.

On hand, I'd say you are right. (That assumes you aren't running the bases in reverse order to confuse the defense.)(

[blarson]

I don't know if things have changed but Rick Roder had this to say on this ruling in an email exchange in 2003.

"The technicality in MLB 5.10 regarding initially giving the guy home is something very few MLB umpires even know about; in reality they would award the runner third and call him out on appeal if he didn't return to retouch.
In other words, enforcement mirrors the PBUC wording."

Bob

[southump]

Carl, I read the thread carefully and I still not understand it fully. Maybe because of my english. Anyway in this case, I would like to ask if appealing to first would not constitutes a second appeal on the same runner on the same base. The first one was the throw from the outfielder, so that would be somehow the philosophy for the bases asssignment?.

[Rich Ives]

Originally posted by southump
Carl, I read the thread carefully and I still not understand it fully. Maybe because of my english. Anyway in this case, I would like to ask if appealing to first would not constitutes a second appeal on the same runner on the same base. The first one was the throw from the outfielder, so that would be somehow the philosophy for the bases asssignment?.

A better argument would be that the defense erred on the appeal, thus negating the second chance.

However, as the interp books tell us how to handle the play and don't take either into consideration, we have to play it the way they want it played.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by southump
Carl, I read the thread carefully and I still not understand it fully. Maybe because of my english. Anyway in this case, I would like to ask if appealing to first would not constitutes a second appeal on the same runner on the same base. The first one was the throw from the outfielder, so that would be somehow the philosophy for the bases asssignment?.

No, the throw from the outfield is an appeal during continuing play. The ball goes dead. If the runner does not retouch the base he left early before touching a succeeding base after the ball has gone dead, that infraction occurs AFTER the original throw. In effect, it's the runner's second mistake that the defense would appeal.

The clear intent -- and the way it's interpreted in all of the manuals -- is that during relaxed action, no runner may be appealed twice at the same base.

Good point!

[cowbyfan1]

I have one question about all this. Is there not a rule that says if the runner is beyond a base from the original base, that he cannot go back and retouch the original base if the ball goes dead? Is this an exception to the rule?

What about FED (8-2-5)? If due to 8-2-5 he cannot go back and touch first, do you award home in that case? Or give him third? What if he heads back to first anyways, retouches it and then goes to third, do you ignore the retouch because of 8-2-5?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by cowbyfan1
I have one question about all this. Is there not a rule that says if the runner is beyond a base from the original base, that he cannot go back and retouch the original base if the ball goes dead? Is this an exception to the rule?

What about FED (8-2-5)? If due to 8-2-5 he cannot go back and touch first, do you award home in that case? Or give him third? What if he heads back to first anyways, retouches it and then goes to third, do you ignore the retouch because of 8-2-5?

You're right about FED, but the thread, which I began, dealt only with the difference between OBR 7.06(i) CMT 2 and MLBUM 5.10.

In OBR, for a runner to be in peril of an out on appeal, he must advance to and touch a succeeding base AFTER the ball goes dead.

R1 leaves early and is between second and third when the ball goes dead. If he returns to first, he'll get third, no appeal. If he continues and touches third, he is out on appeal.

That's NOT the rule in FED, as you pointed out.

[cowbyfan1]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

You're right about FED, but the thread, which I began, dealt only with the difference between OBR 7.06(i) CMT 2 and MLBUM 5.10.

In OBR, for a runner to be in peril of an out on appeal, he must advance to and touch a succeeding base AFTER the ball goes dead.

R1 leaves early and is between second and third when the ball goes dead. If he returns to first, he'll get third, no appeal. If he continues and touches third, he is out on appeal.

That's NOT the rule in FED, as you pointed out.

OK then how would this be handled per my questions with Fed?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by cowbyfan1

OK then how would this be handled per my questions with Fed?

Award third. Let the runner retouch first (if he wants to). Grant / uphold the appeal at first if it's made.

[southump]

Strictly OBR:

Scenario # 1: runner between 2nd. and 3rd. at TOT and also when ball goes to DBT. He then retraces his steps back to 1st base. Umpire give him 3rd.
# 2: He steps on 3rd. Now he loosses his right to retouch 2nd and 1st and is at risk of been appealed at 1st for an out.
On these two, I think i got it.

#3: He just go back to 2nd. and stands there.

Q #1: Does umpire give him home?
Q #2: Can defense appeal at 1st. or not?

On these two question is where i need clarification to understand this ruling. Sorry Carl and you others guys out there.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by southump
Strictly OBR:

Scenario # 1: runner between 2nd. and 3rd. at TOT and also when ball goes to DBT. He then retraces his steps back to 1st base. Umpire give him 3rd.
# 2: He steps on 3rd. Now he loosses his right to retouch 2nd and 1st and is at risk of been appealed at 1st for an out.
On these two, I think i got it.

#3: He just go back to 2nd. and stands there.

Q #1: Does umpire give him home?
Q #2: Can defense appeal at 1st. or not?

On these two question is where i need clarification to understand this ruling. Sorry Carl and you others guys out there.

I'll tell you what I do, and it's based directly on the casebook comment at 7.05(i).

"If a runner is forced to return to a base after a catch..."

Is your runner forced to return to first? Answer: yes. Then:

"He must retouch his original base even though, because of some ground rule or other rule, he is awarded additional bases."

Is your runner going to be awarded additional bases? Answer: yus. So:

"He may retouch while the ball is dead and the award is then made from his original base."

Whether he retouches is his business. If he does, ok; if he doesn't, I'll call him out on appeal.

He's standing on second; I'm going to do what the OBR says and award him third.

My only point in this thread was: How in the world did those guys of the MLBUM ever get away with saying that R1 between second and third should get home unless he returns to first, when he now gets third.

Imagine this situation occurring in your American Legion game:

"You - home!" (To R1 between second and third)
Assistant coach at first: "Bubba, you've got to tag up."
So Bubba touches second, retouches first, touches second, touches third and heads home.
Cleverly, following the MLBUM ruling, you stop him with: "You - third."

About two minutes later, you're going to turn to the assistant offensive coach and say, just as cleverly: "You - showers!"

[Sal Giaco]

Carl,
Isn't it a coincidince that this same play you guys are discussing is actually #15 on the 2005 NCAA Rules Test..

15. R1 is running with the pitcher's first movement to the plate. The pitch is subsequently hit to the outfield and caught for out number one. The centerfielder's throw sails into dead ball territory, as he tries to double-up R1 at first, who is between second and third when F8 releases the ball. (WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE TRUE?)

____ The runner is awarded home.
____ Since the next base had already been touched, the runner may not go back and retouch first base.
____ The runner must retouch second before proceeding back to first.
____ If the runner is attempting to return to first base, allow him the opportunity to retouch.
____ The runner is awarded third base.
____ If the runner from first does not attempt to go back to first base and the defense initiates a legal appeal, R1 may be called out.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Sal Giaco
Carl,
Isn't it a coincidince that this same play you guys are discussing is actually #15 on the 2005 NCAA Rules Test..

15. R1 is running with the pitcher's first movement to the plate. The pitch is subsequently hit to the outfield and caught for out number one. The centerfielder's throw sails into dead ball territory, as he tries to double-up R1 at first, who is between second and third when F8 releases the ball. (WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE TRUE?)

____ The runner is awarded home.
____ Since the next base had already been touched, the runner may not go back and retouch first base.
____ The runner must retouch second before proceeding back to first.
____ If the runner is attempting to return to first base, allow him the opportunity to retouch.
____ The runner is awarded third base.
____ If the runner from first does not attempt to go back to first base and the defense initiates a legal appeal, R1 may be called out.

It's not a coincidence.

[nine01c]

Last year when we were all scrutinizing this play, I researched (asked) the OBR and the NCAA ruling. The OBR explanation agreed with what Carl is saying here. The NCAA ruling was different (if I remember correctly, no retouch of 1B was allowed). Do they actually differ, or not?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by nine01c
Last year when we were all scrutinizing this play, I researched (asked) the OBR and the NCAA ruling. The OBR explanation agreed with what Carl is saying here. The NCAA ruling was different (if I remember correctly, no retouch of 1B was allowed). Do they actually differ, or not?

You need a copy of the 2005 BRD. (grin) The NCAA rule is the same as the OBR interpretation. See NCAA 8-6a AR 3.