OK, I know this has been discussed to exhaustion before, but here we go again. If I read correctly, the NFHS has re-implemented the accidental appeal. Case 8.2.3(?) has an * beside it denoting it is revised. It states that if a runner misses first but beats the play, and then the first-baseman "casually" drags his foot across the bag the runner is out. This is the accidental appeal. Am I correct?

Also, because of this is there a mechanics change? Say a BR beats the throw to first. The first baseman's foot is on the bag. The runner crosses the base but misses it, then the throw arrives. Before I called the runner safe if he was a step past the base and waited for an appeal. I assume I immediately call him out now. Correct?

In fed yes. The force is still considered to on.

You mean they got rid of the accidental appeal and then reinstated it?

BR hits a ball off the fence, misses 1B, touches 2B, and on the slide at 3B, the tag is a little late. "Safe!" says the ump, and then, "Out!" for missing 1B.

Hard to believe.

The RUle Book still says "no accidental appeal", but: yeah, the new/revised case seems to say otherwise.

I think you're confusing an accidental appeal with the No-appeal-ump-calls-out of old.

In your play there would be no out at 1B if no appeal was made.

In the play from the NF casebook this seems to be an accidental appeal. The case was revised, so I am assuming that it has changed. Is this only at first base. This is a missed base, so it is an appeal play, and the manner in which it is described in the case book looks like the "accidental appeal".

My other question is this. In the play from the case book, the fielder touches the base AFTER the runner missed it. What if the fielder catches the ball with his foot touching the base AFTER the runner is past the base, but missed touching the base. This used to be taught as a "safe" call and you wait for the appeal. Now am I supposed to call an immediate out, and treat it as an "accidental appeal"? Also, does this apply at other bases?

Fed Rules there are no accidental appeals. Play at first runner clearly beats throw and misses the base 1B has foot on the base.. Mechanic is FU calls safe. Play must be appealed to register an out. Applies to all bases.

I agree gordon, but the casebook says that if the fielder catches the ball off the base and the runner misses the base, the fielder can "casually" step on the base to record the out. Sounds like an accidental appeal. The case is listed as "revised" so I am unclear just what the NF is saying to us.

The case does say F3 is required to appeal the missed base. I'm not certain what the case is trying to tell us. There is no accidental appeal using Fed Rules. I agree on the one hand the case suggests an accidental appeal was made, however in the end it says F3 must appeal. It does seem contradicting unless I'm missing something.

BRD 2005 Pg 9 Sit 1. partial quote,

"EXCEPT:If the action is continuing and the tagged base is a "force" base, (change) the defense makes the appeal merely by "stepping on the missed base. (8.2.3)"

The Ex. play 1-1 discusses B1 beating out a infield hit and missing the bag. "F3 takes the throw and "casually steps on first." Ruling: In FED, since the defense was making a "force" play" as a result of continuing action," B1 is out."

Carl then states that, "It's likely the FED ruling will be modified."

I can't find last years book, so I don't know wht "revision" was made to the case.

There are no casual appeals. I'm not a mind reader I can't tell the difference between casual and accidental. Same play only this time the first baseman casually walks to 1B to kick the dirt off the bag is that casual or accidental?

Lets see they did away with the accidental appeal yet this play cetainly seems accidental. Hope I never see this in a Fed. Game. As Ricky says it would be hard to "splain".

I use the same mechanic, but under the "continuing aciton" section we may be wrong.

Apparently we are. Another "exception" that I will have to keep in mind. I expect that most Coache's by now know that there are no accidental appeals. If you called it as per case book (they never read the case book or the rule book) you will have a "discussion". If you treat it as "accidental" probably " no discussion". Let see how do I want to handle this...........LOL

I believe, it was not to long ago that there was a pretty good discussion about the play at first, NOT being a "force play."

At the time I walked away believing that there could not be a force play at first.

Now, I am truly confused??????!!!!!!

I am reasonably sure that a BR going to first is NOT a force. If you read about ascoring, a run does not count if the third out is a result of a force out OR if the third out is a batter being put out before he reaches first base. If it was a force there would be no need to separate the two would there?

I agree with you. But, I did'nt write it. I'm just trying to understand it???????????????????????????????

BR hits a ball off the fence, misses 1B, touches 2B, and on the slide at 3B, the tag is a little late. "Safe!" says the ump, and then, "Out!" for missing 1B.

<b>I think you're confusing an accidental appeal with the No-appeal-ump-calls-out of old.</b>

I'm aware that the old "no appeal needed" rule went by the boards a few years ago. The above play was indeed possible under the accidental appeal play. If you remember, people were wondering what the mechanic would be.

This play was also possible: Abel on 1B. Baker singles to right. Abel misses 2B and goes to 3B. F4, holding the ball, kicks dirt off 2B before throwing to ball to the mound. Abel is out on the accidental appeal at 2B. The accidental appeal could be either a tag of the base or a tag of the runner.

Continuing action seemed not to play a part in the accidental appeal. (Does Fed even recognize continuing action?) Some people were even positing that only a pitch could "break the spell." Example: Abel doubles but misses 1B. With Baker at bat but before a pitch, F1 tries to pick Abel off 2B. Abel is safe, but F6 tags him. Out on the accidental appeal.

I don't think anyone was claiming that call should be made, but the rule was not clear about when the accidental appeal was no longer possible. I suspect most would have ended the possibility when the ball got back to the mound.

[Edited by greymule on Mar 4th, 2005 at 12:33 PM]

A force out is defined as:

A force out is a putout during which a runner who is being forced to advance is tagged out or is put out by a fielder who holds the ball while touching the base toward which the forced runner is advancing.

reading that how can a runner going to first not be a force out?

<b>. . . how can a runner going to first not be a force out?</b>

The <i>batter-runner</i> runs to 1B. The BR is technically not a runner.

Believe it. The BR at 1B is not a force play, even though 99% of the time it might as well be.

OBR 2.00 " A FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses his right to occupy a base by reason of the batter becoming a runner."

So our YOU saying, that the batter-runner is forced to first because by his own action, he is now a runner and no longer a batter?????? I'm not buying it.

speaking NFHS There are so many different codes and i think Illni ref is talking NFHS


Greymule I am not saying your wrong but please give me a example

[Edited by Gmoore on Mar 4th, 2005 at 01:02 PM]

Refer to rule 2-24-1. BR does not meet this definition. As per Fed Rules.

Refer to 9-1-1 and you'll see that BR is treated separately as respect to a runner being forced. This being the case BR is not "forced" at first. The net effect as it concerns a run being scored is that they are treated the same.

Incidently this is a moot point as it pertains to this thread.

2-24-1 is defination of force out

9-1-1 is how a team scores with exceptions on how a run is not scored

2-7-3 A batter-runner is a player who has finished a time at bat until he is out out or until playing action ends

2-24-1 has everything to do with a runner. It describes how a runner is forced out.

9-1-1 Makes a point of illustrating that a run cannot score if the third out were a result of a force AND that a run cannot score if BR is put out at first. If the out at first was a force out as per definition there would be no need for this rule. Ergo BR cannot be a "force out". Although they are treated the same.

Nowhere in 2-24-1 is BR ever mentioned. It refers specifically to runner(s) being forced to advance.

I grant you that most people think the out at first is a force out and you can also if you like since it's treated the same as a force out, however you want to look at it, it really has nothing to do with this thread.

I believe that the casebook is simply a misprint. As we all know when FED changes a rule it always screws up somewhere in the edit of either rulebook or the casebook. It takes two to three years to work all the bugs out. As I remember the asterick means a change but the edit doen't reflect it. I can't find last year's casebook but if someone does I feel certain this is what happened.

<b>I believe that the casebook is simply a misprint.</b>

This may well be true. Probably an artifact that wasn't deleted. It happens all the time.

Incidentally, a more accurate term for "accidental appeal" would have ben "accidental force" play. Unfortunately, to be fully precise, we would have had to call it the "accidental force or BR out before touching 1B play."

I spoke to a friend of mine on the phone today regarding this rule. He is a very good umpire with College World Series experience who is also well versed in NF rules. I respect his interpretation.

His take was this. Any time you have a PLAY at a base you need to make a call. If the fielder did not touch the base on a force, or the fielder missed the tag on a tag play, you HAVE to signal safe even if the runner missed the base. Only have a "no signal" if there is no PLAY on the runner.

He also said that his information on the "revised" NF case was that the "accidental appeal" was back in.

Just relaying what he told me.

OK, I'm gonna do this real slow:

2-29-3:A force play is a play in which a runner ...

The batter is not a runner until he reaches 1st base. Once he stops being the batter, he becomes the batter-runner, a special critter.

...loses his right to occupy the base he occupies ...

the batter has no "right to occupy" home; and, indeed, never "occupies" home at all.

...and is forced to advance because the batter becomes a batter runner.

Now, how can the Batter be "forced to advance because the batter becomes a batter-runner"? Kind of a tautology, yes?
Batter is forced .. because he's forced .. by his becoming a BR.

AIN'T NO FORCE ON BR @ 1st.

Not that it makes a bit of difference, since in all but the rareset TWP, you can pretend you don't know this and officiate the play like it WAS a "force". You can even SAY that BR is forced at 1st, and only umpires will know that you are being ignorant; and most of them won't care. Of course, when the TWP actually happens in front of you, you'll blow the ruling; but, again, only umpires will know.

Now, PLEASE, can we stop having folk constantly posting "what rule says that BR isn't forced?" PLLEEAASSSSEEEEEE??????

[Edited by cbfoulds on Mar 4th, 2005 at 06:37 PM]

<b>He also said that his information on the "revised" NF case was that the "accidental appeal" was back in.
</b>

He is wrong.

I was under the impression this is what a message board was for to dicuss and learn??

2-29-3 tells us what a force PLAY is--correct?

2-24-1 tells us what a force out is---correct?

And please dont cop an attitude you can explain your version and i will listen please show me the same respect.

Gmoore:
This has been thrashed to death here & elsewhere: thus the "attitude".

Your point: "2-24-1 tells us what a force out is---correct?" is useless, as the definition of force PLAY [2-29-3] is the only place where the rule book tells us who is "forced to advance". BR is not "forced to advance" per 2-29-3. BR cannot be a "force out" before reaching 1st. QED.

Ain't "my version": it's what's in the Rule Book. The Rule is the same whether you are speaking FED or OBR.

BR isn't "forced" at 1st [but you will still call the usual play correctly if you can't bring yourself to accept this: you'll only booger the TWP's, only umpires will care, and not many of them.].

You're suffering from a delusion. The purpose of the message board in for minor league and college umpires to strut their stuff and put down umpires who do little league.

It's an ego thing. You're obviously a little league umpire if you don't understand.

Guess I should close my account here to make room ..........
ROTFLMAO-- Which are you?

Hmmm,
 

Bob this is a surprise . . .

I have not seen this attitude in you before.

Odd, just odd.

Just for the "real record" as listed in an early post this whole discussion is about an error in the book.

It will eventually be edited.

Lots of crap made by an error -- I guess I know how pitchers might feel now.

Would you be so kind as to describe the third world play that illustrates the flaw in saying the batter runner is forced to 1B?

If I quoted Jim Evans making reference to the batter runner being "forced" to 1B, would you then consider Mr. Evans to be "ignorant" of the rules?

Have you considered that the whole "batter runner is/isn't forced to 1B" debate might just be an issue of meaningless semantics, simply a "how many umpires can dance on the head of a pin" debate?

Or, maybe it's not. What's the play scenario that demonstrates the difference?

I don't know about NFHS rules, but in case you intend this statement to apply to OBR also, I'd like to demur. A batter-runner becomes a runner as soon as his time at bat has ended, not when he reaches 1st.
From Definitions: A Runner is an offensive player who is advancing toward, or touching, or returning to any base.
6.09 The batter becomes a runner when-- (a) he hits a fair ball; [note that (b)...(h) enumerate other ways to become a runner.] Section 7, especially 7.05, 7.08, and 7.09, contains numerous references which confirm that B/R is a runner.
The batter-runner does indeed have special privileges and responsibilities, but at least in OBR he is also a runner.

And if I quote J/R that he's NOT forced ...?

Like I've written [twice]: only umpires will know, few of them will care. The vast majority of the time, you bet, meaningless semantics. Occasionally, the semantics will get you going in the wrong direction. The FED casebook "error", seemingly re-instating accidental appeals, notwithstanding a clear statement still in the Rule Book, [which is what started this thread] is IMHO, one of 'em ['tho being "forced" seems irrelevent to the case ruling, the language is in there].

As for a TWP where it matters, some months ago, we thrashed the bejesus out of one on this very board: if memory serves, you were "there". To wit:

B gets a hit, makes it to 1st & touches the base safely; for some unknowable reason, he "retreats" back toward, but not all the way to home. Since there is no "force" on BR @ 1st, therefore no "force" to be "reinstated", IN THIS SITCH, BR must be tagged on his person to be out - tagging the base won't do. Furthermore, [and perhaps the only place where it could actually matter] a run scoring from third before BR is out in these circumstances would score, even if the tag [after the touch & retreat] was the 3d out. [3d out recorded on BR AFTER he touches 1st base]

There may be others; they are all TWP's, I've personally never witnessed one where it makes the slightest difference, except semanticly, which I guess includes simply getting the rule right. I'd almost bet that Evans and Roeder haven't [seen an actual play in a game where it makes a difference], either; and their experience is, obviously, far broader than mine.

Dave:
OK, I should have included the words: "..for the purposes of this {"force play"} rule..."; my point was [is] that the BR is a special critter for several rules-related differences from a regular runner - this is one of them. The FED rule indicates that the term runner generically includes 2 kinds of players: the BR and ..any runner who occupies a base. Which references my second bullet: the BR is not "forced" from a base he "occupies", a requirement of a force play.

[Edited by cbfoulds on Mar 5th, 2005 at 05:27 AM]

Gentlemen, I was the one that broke open this cloud. My intention was not to dicuss wether the batter-runner is forced to first or not, because we know that as defined by the rules, he is not. Nor is 8.2.3 correct, because thats wrong too.

We have two authoritative sources talking about something that we know is wrong and not true. Is BRD just quoting NHFS or is there something there I was missing.

That was the POINT I was making.

Re: Hmmm,
 

You must have missed my flame wars with the egotist known as Windbag.

For the record, I do all levels of baseball, 7 or 8 college games a year (mostly D3) and 4 or 5 little league games a year. The other 100 or so are in between.

OK,
 

Let me get this straight:

If Evans says one thing, and Roder says another who trumps whom?

Not a very tough call:

Roder once published that a pitch that bounces BEFORE a batter swings and tips it, that the ball COULD NOT BE CAUGHT for a foul tip.

Pretty strange. If the same pitch could be hit for a home run why not a foul tip.

Evans set him straight.

While neither Evans not Roder are official in their interpretations I think it is pretty obvious that Evans's work carries much more weight.

Let's thank a FED missprint for this entire thread.

The play where the BR touches 1B and then "retreats" toward home but still has to be tagged is the only play can think of where the out at 1B is not exactly the same as a force at another base.

Maybe there are other examples. Actually, I wish I knew a couple more, so I could better explain to people why the out at 1B is technically not a force.

Obviously, the rules-makers had some reason for specifically excluding the out at 1B from the category of force play.

Of course, people who know better still routinely call it a force out, but that's only because there's no short term for "the BR is put out before reaching 1B."

Evans vs. Roeder
 

Tim:

Let me put this on the record- I have the highest regard for Jim Evans & his interpretive expertise.

My "day job" makes me quite accustomed to finding, evaluating, relying upon and distinguishing various types of authority, precedent, and evidence.

All other things being equal, I believe I would be most likely to agree with his interpretation, where [if] he and J/R conflict.

The principal inequality that exists at present, is that, while Evans' work is unavailable to me, Roeder's is readily accessible, sitting on my desktop as I write.


When someone offers to demonstrate Jim Evans "making reference" to a sitch, I have a couple problems accepting the authority. The first is that I am unable to go read the citation myself. And what comes before and after it. Context is everything. As the current FED boo-boo demonstrates, it is possible to "make reference" to BRFAF and be, not authoritative, but only sloppy/ careless.

The second is that I am wholy dependent upon the accuracy and veracity of the citing individual. Casting no aspersions on anyone posting in this thread, but we have certainly noticed that there are those posting on various umpiring boards who are not above mis-stating a reference to support their point.

Thus, until Jim Evans publishes a version of his JEA for the unwashed masses, the J/R is, for most of us, THE premier available authority for OBR rules interpretation. Here's hoping that the recently-floated possibility of a "mass-market" JEA [at whatever price :D] becomes a reality in the near future.

Ever since FED tried to drop the "accidental appeal", they've been trying to change this play to get it right. I think they still need to work at it.

My advice (and it's just my opinion) is to ignore this specific case play and rely on 8.4.2B instead. It's nearly the same play, except the missed base is second (by a forced R1) and a specific, intentional, appeal is needed. IMHO, this play demonstrates teh "one call" that FED wants us to make.

Mmmmm,
 

Thank you Bob . . .

Bob,

Explain both FED and Pro mechanics to me here. The fielder takes the throw with his foot ON the bag and the runner beats the throw and is beyond the bag when the throw arrives but misses the base.

Do you signal safe and make them appeal, or out because the throw was taken on the base and the runner missed the base?

I assume there is a difference in mechanics between FED and Pro in this same situation.

I understand that if the fielder is off the bag you signal safe and wait for an appeal. The FED is just having a hard time deciding what type of appeal is valid. I'm just having a hard time in the above situation where the throw is taken on the bag.

Also, since a runner is assumed to have gained a base when he passes it, does that change the way continuing action is applied. Example. Runner goes crom first around second on a hit. Before he gets to third, he realizes his mistake and returns to second. The play is continuing. Does the fielder have to TAG the runner since the force was removed?

Do whatever you'd do if the runner had touched the base -- if it's close enought to signal "safe", then do so.

Quote:

I assume there is a difference in mechanics between FED and Pro in this same situation.

Don't make that assumption.

(snip)

Quote:

Also, since a runner is assumed to have gained a base when he passes it, does that change the way continuing action is applied. Example. Runner goes crom first around second on a hit. Before he gets to third, he realizes his mistake and returns to second. The play is continuing. Does the fielder have to TAG the runner since the force was removed?

Yes.

When I went to umpire school MANY years ago I was taught to signal "safe" because the batter-runner beat the throw, which was the play beinig made on the batter-runner. If the defense then appealed that he missed first, I was to rule on that "play".
Times have changed, but I still call it that way, and will until a higher authority tells me otherwise.