Will this protester win?

[thumpferee]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
The original post:

WE WERE HOME TEAM AND UP TO BAT, . . .

OUR PLAYER ON THIRD TOOK OFF FOR HOME without TAGGING UP TO THIRD BASE HE CROSSED HOME PLATE AND . . .

IT IS THEIR CONTENTION THAT OUR PLAYER HAD TO DOUBLE TAG HOME PLATE. . . .

IT IS OUR CONTENTION THAT HE DID NOT NEED TO TAG HOME PLATE A SECOND TIME BUT ONLY RETURN TO THIRD BASE.


The protest is that the runner did NOT need to re-tag third.

Protest denied!!

Did you mean the protest is that the runner did not need to retag home?

The runner was on third base when tagged. Was there an appeal?

Who protested?

What call did they protest?

I'm lost here!

[Rich Ives]

Read the first post.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by DG
My only opinion offered was on who was correct in their appeal, ie neither. The quote I offered was from J/R which said he had to be within a body's length of home on his return to 3B. If he was on a direct line to 3B when he missed home then he met the J/R interp.

If you think he has to retag on his return to 3B why is protest denied, since that was the protest.

I don't know whether J/R is incorrect or whether you are reading it wrong, but the runner does need to *touch* the base the last time by.

The body-length issue comes in when the runner misses the base on *not* the last time by:

Play: R1, stealing on the pitch. BR flys to right. R1 passes 2nd (within a body length), then (a) passes it again (with a body length) on the way back to first or (b) cuts across the diamond on the way back to first. In either case, F9's throw to first to double-up R1 is wild. R1 retouches first and proceeds to second when play becomes "relaxed" Ruling: In (a) the play stands. R1 corrected his misses of second by touching it the last time by. In (b) R1 is subject to being out on appeal. He "cheated" by cutting across the diamond and cannot correct that miss by touching the base the last time by.

In the original play, R3 missed home the last time by and can be called out on appeal. It's not clear to me, however, if that's what the defensive team appealed.

[DG]

It is pretty clear to me that the defensive team appealed that the runner who returned to 3B did not touch home on his way back, and thus should be ruled out, game over, appealing team wins.

It is also pretty clear that J/R says that when he returned to 3B, if he was within a body's length of home when he passed it, this was close enough. And from the original post it sounded like he was within a body's length, so appeal from the defensive team should be denied. J/R gives examples of plays where close enough, is close enough, and also plays where missing by a large margin is cause for successful appeal. Whether J/R is correct or not is certainly a subject for debate, but given no other authoritive opinion that is well recognized then we have to go with what we can find in print.

[Dave Reed]

Originally posted by DG


It is also pretty clear that J/R says that when he returned to 3B, if he was within a body's length of home when he passed it, this was close enough. And from the original post it sounded like he was within a body's length, so appeal from the defensive team should be denied. J/R gives examples of plays where close enough, is close enough, and also plays where missing by a large margin is cause for successful appeal. Whether J/R is correct or not is certainly a subject for debate, but given no other authoritive opinion that is well recognized then we have to go with what we can find in print.

I agree that we have to go with what we can find in print, but J/R actually says that the runner needs to touch home on the way back to third. And so does the BRD, and Childress claims that the PBUC manuals say the same thing.

J/R treats this topic in two places. In my 2004 edition, page 43 contains:
Touch or pass of a base: A runner who, in the course of running the bases, goes by the base (within a body's length) has either touched or passed the base; in either case he has "acquired" the base. If he has touched the base, he is not vulnerable to subsequent appeal that he has missed that base. If he has "passed" the base, he has failed to touch it, but is considered to have touched it until there is an appeal against his failure to touch. The defense has a responsibility to recognize a failure to touch a base. [End quote of J/R]

So J/R distinguishes between touched, passed, or acquired.

The second passage is the one you quoted early in this thread (page 71 in my edition.)

"A runner is vulnerable to appeal if (1) he does not touch a base when advancing (or returning) by such base (within a body's length) the final time. [7.02] [7.04d] [7.05i] [7.10b] An advance or return "by" a base does not include a complete bypass (outside a body's length) in an attempt to reach a subsequent base safely."

In both passages they require a touch, and by "touch", J/R means "contact." They use "passed" to mean "miss". And if a baserunner doesn't come within a body's length of a base, he hasn't missed it-- he has failed to acquire each base in order, and is subject to appeal for that non-correctable error. Bob Jenkins gave you an example of failure to acquire in order, and it is nearly identical to the third example given following page 71 of J/R.

In summary, J/R says that a runner has to touch (not merely come close) to each base the last time by. Furthermore, the runner needs to acquire each base in order every time they advance or retreat.

[DG]

Originally posted by Dave Reed

I agree that we have to go with what we can find in print, but J/R actually says that the runner needs to touch home on the way back to third. And so does the BRD, and Childress claims that the PBUC manuals say the same thing.

J/R treats this topic in two places. In my 2004 edition, page 43 contains:
Touch or pass of a base: A runner who, in the course of running the bases, goes by the base (within a body's length) has either touched or passed the base; in either case he has "acquired" the base. If he has touched the base, he is not vulnerable to subsequent appeal that he has missed that base. If he has "passed" the base, he has failed to touch it, but is considered to have touched it until there is an appeal against his failure to touch. The defense has a responsibility to recognize a failure to touch a base. [End quote of J/R]

So J/R distinguishes between touched, passed, or acquired.

The second passage is the one you quoted early in this thread (page 71 in my edition.)

"A runner is vulnerable to appeal if (1) he does not touch a base when advancing (or returning) by such base (within a body's length) the final time. [7.02] [7.04d] [7.05i] [7.10b] An advance or return "by" a base does not include a complete bypass (outside a body's length) in an attempt to reach a subsequent base safely."

In both passages they require a touch, and by "touch", J/R means "contact." They use "passed" to mean "miss". And if a baserunner doesn't come within a body's length of a base, he hasn't missed it-- he has failed to acquire each base in order, and is subject to appeal for that non-correctable error. Bob Jenkins gave you an example of failure to acquire in order, and it is nearly identical to the third example given following page 71 of J/R.

In summary, J/R says that a runner has to touch (not merely come close) to each base the last time by. Furthermore, the runner needs to acquire each base in order every time they advance or retreat.

J/R does not say he has to touch on return, but be "within a body's length", on return.

[akalsey]

Protest Denied simply because it's so poorly written that we have a bunch of umpires reading and rereading it and can't figure out who is actualy protesting and what the protest is.

[mbyron]

Originally posted by akalsey
Protest Denied simply because it's so poorly written that we have a bunch of umpires reading and rereading it and can't figure out who is actualy protesting and what the protest is.

Thank you. Quite right.

[cowbyfan1]

I'm sorry I read all this because I now have a splitting headache.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by DG
J/R does not say he has to touch on return, but be "within a body's length", on return.

Then "what he said" is either "not what he meant" or "wrong."

I vote for the former.

[lc_huxter]

I added no opinion on this email. Everything that is in CAPS is from the email. I am not sure why people are having a hard time understanding the email. In a nut shell it says this.

Home team which at the time had a runner on 3rd and 1st. The umpire called the runner safe on 3rd even though he did not touch home on his way back to 3rd base after the catch was made.

Visiting team which was on defense at the time asked for time and talked to the umpire about the situation and the umpire changed his called from safe to out. Which ended the game and the home team lost since it was the 3rd out.

Home team filed a protest at that moment based on the runner did not have to re-touch home on his way back to 3rd.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by lc_huxter
I added no opinion on this email. Everything that is in CAPS is from the email. I am not sure why people are having a hard time understanding the email. In a nut shell it says this.

Home team which at the time had a runner on 3rd and 1st. The umpire called the runner safe on 3rd even though he did not touch home on his way back to 3rd base after the catch was made.

Visiting team which was on defense at the time asked for time and talked to the umpire about the situation and the umpire changed his called from safe to out. Which ended the game and the home team lost since it was the 3rd out.

Home team filed a protest at that moment based on the runner did not have to re-touch home on his way back to 3rd.

The home team should lose the protest -- the runner DID need to touch home on the way back.

[3appleshigh]

I have two separate problems not cronologically though.

1. Improper protest?? - doesn't say it was done at the time of infraction.

and

2. Improper appeal, the coach came out to argue, no actual appeal was made about the runner on third missing home base on the return trip. Or was that the Tag on the runner, was it properly done??

TOO CONFUSING - PROTEST DENIED

[mcrowder]

Reading and re-reading, I see no PROPER appeal of the runner missing home.

Those of you misconstruing J/R to mean that a base passed counts as a base touched need to reread J/R... that's NOT what he's saying. What he's saying is that he's considered to have touched until properly appealed. Pretty simple, actually.

So in this case, while runner missed HP on his way back to third, the appeal at THIRD base is not upheld. A proper appeal of the runner missing HOME is necessary (and apparently not present according to the email).

[DG]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Reading and re-reading, I see no PROPER appeal of the runner missing home.

Those of you misconstruing J/R to mean that a base passed counts as a base touched need to reread J/R... that's NOT what he's saying. What he's saying is that he's considered to have touched until properly appealed. Pretty simple, actually.

So in this case, while runner missed HP on his way back to third, the appeal at THIRD base is not upheld. A proper appeal of the runner missing HOME is necessary (and apparently not present according to the email).

I think the light bulb has finally gone off on what J/R is trying to say, although poorly. The case plays are better.

If R3 left early on a fly ball and has touched and passed home, he need only be within a body's length of home on his return to 3B to be considered retouching home, for the purposes of an appeal for leaving early at 3B. However, he can still be appealed for missing home on his return. A proper appeal during a live ball before another play should be upheld.

EG: R1, one out, hit and run. A fly ball is batted to left-center field and the ball is caught. R1 touches second while advancing past it, but misses second while returning to first: an appeal of second base is upheld, R1 is out.

It think I got it now. Thanks.