Garth,

I see you were unable to find a kitten.

While I can see how a person who has a certain predisposition might misinterpret my comments in such a way as to characterize them as suggesting arguing balls and strikes with a specious "rules" argument, I certainly didn't say that. Nor would I condone it. Not "step balks" either, in case you're wondering.

Since you've decided to contribute your insight, experience, and knowledge to the question being discussed (oops, my bad - your comments didn't even <b>touch on</b> the question being discussed. Anyway,...), I'm curious as to how you would characterize an umpire, who has just blown a call because he misapplied the rules, who facetiously responds to a coach's reasonable and proper appeal with: "Sorry Skip, I didn't see it." ?

Brother. And they wonder why they're called Smittys.

JM

What were you going to protest?

Why do you post here? Go back to eteamz.

Luke,

The play began with one out, R3 and R1 (OBR rules, 14U Travel). Batter hit a line drive to left center. My F8 got a good jump on the ball, and he made a nice running catch. Both R3 and R1 had started on the batted ball. After the catch, they both started back to retouch. My F8, after regaining control, threw the ball towards home. My F1 cutoff the throw, and attempted a throw to 3B to try and double off the R3. While perfectly "on line" it sailed about 5' over my F5's outstretched arm and ended up in the street which runs parallel to the 3B line.

The BU called "time" and awarded R3 home and R1 3B. R3 retouched and then went home. R1, on the other hand, stopped between 1B and 2B when the ball went out of play, and proceeded to touch 2B on his way to 3B before he realized his coaches thought it was important that he retouch 1B.

When he realized this, he did go back and retouch 1B (touching 2B on his way by), then properly proceeded to his "awarded" 3B.

My players then executed a properly constituted appeal on R1's failure to legally retouch on a caught batted ball. I was intending to appeal a misapplication of 7.10(a) Approved Ruling (2) - the runner's retouch of 1B after touching 2B while the ball was dead invalidated his retouch.

The weird thing about this situation was that, due to <b>my</b> screwup, we had arrived at the field two hours before the scheduled game time instead of our customary one hour. We used about a half hour of the "extra" time discussing and reviewing appeals. We actually talked about this situation during the discussion.

When the play happened during the game, and the R1 <b>finally</b> retouched 1B, my F1 looked over and said, "Do it anyway?". I just nodded. I was quite pleased with my players.

JM

(Edited to clarify which post I was responding to.)

[Edited by CoachJM on Jul 27th, 2005 at 02:21 AM]

What makes you think the BU didn't see R1 retouch first legally?

Luke,

Thanks for asking.

I read and post on this forum in order to improve my understanding of the rules. Also, to gain insight into how umpires think. I also enjoy arguing with umpires - especially when they can't eject me. In addition, I find may of the threads on this board darn entertaining. (For example, who would even <b>believe</b> that a post about sunflower seeds would generate <b>77</b> replies? And I'm not even going to <b>mention</b> the drummer boy or the blue dude.)

Since you brought it up, why do <b>you</b> post here?

You <b>rarely</b> contribute anything meaningful to a rules discussion (although when you do, you do seem to know what you're talking about - at least in regard to FED rules).

The vast majority of your posts are simply whines about other peoples' posts. It's a free country, so if that's what floats your boat, <b>I</b> certainly don't have a problem with it. But why bother? Just curious.

Also, why don't <b>you</b> go back to eTeamz?

JM

Luke,

Well mainly because he <b>didn't</b>. <b>Everybody</b> at the game saw him stop on his way back to 1B (he was about halfway between 2B and 1B) and go back and touch 2B. His own coaches were yelling at him to go back and retouch 1B. Which he eventually did, but not until <b>after</b> he'd touched 2B while the ball was dead.

Had the BU granted my request for time, I would have asked him what he'd seen. He didn't, so I didn't get to ask him. But I'm pretty sure he saw the same thing everybody else did.

JM

I think I'LL go back to eteamz.

You guys have become more eteamz than eteamz.

So you admit that you had nothing to protest. Maybe with the play at third, the BU had no idea if R1 tagged up, so he ruled safe. The PU probally saw that R1 never even got close to retouching first, so he told the BU this after the appeal happned.

When was the last time there was a rules discussion? A few months ago on a balk thread which went for many pages.

You could say that about anyone, except Bob Jenkins.

JM, even though a rodent ;), your posts almost always have contributory value...but this ridiculous 'extreme' argument on a straight-up judgment call is right outta the RulesGeek Files...give it up, man (as DIB says ;) ) .... and let us know when you take off your coach's cap and decide to be an umpire again.

....and don't forget there's always a kitten around if you need one ;)

LDUB wrote: "So you admit that you had nothing to protest."

JM did no such thing. The apparent failure of the umpire to see the play does NOT mean there is nothing to protest here.

He did NOT want to protest a failure to actually retouch.

He DID want to protest that the retouch was NOT LEGAL per 7.10(b) Approved ruling (2) "When the ball is dead, no runner may return to touch a missed base or one he has left after he has advanced to and touched a base beyond the missed base."

HE wanted to do this because the runner went and touched 2B AFTER the ball went dead and BEFORE he returned to touch 1B.

Like that matters if R1 retouched first before the ball went dead.

That's not the point. They are saying (quite rightly) that the PBUC and MLBUM interpretations are that <I>after the ball goes dead</i> if a runner advances to a succeeding base (beyond the base where the baserunning error occurred), he is subject to an appeal; and the umpire, if he saw it, will call him out.

The actual ruling in the OBR says that it doesn't matter when the runner advances:

R1 leaves first early and is between second and third when the ball is caught. The throw goes dead before he can retouch second. In the Old Testament, he would be out. Under the new guidelines, he would only be out if he advanced to third <i>after</i> the throw went dead.

You wrote: "Like that matters if R1 retouched first before the ball went dead."

Like it does.

What if the umpire thought R1 didn't leave early?

So you call the pitch a strike, and the offensive manager comes out to you and says he wants to protest. He says that you called a strike on a ball that didn't pass through the strike zone.

JM's protest is the same thing. He saw something, and he assumed the umpire saw the same thing.

I disagree. The OBR Approved Ruling, together with example Play 1 makes it clear that the runner cannot advance to a succeeding base <b>after</b> the ball goes dead.

<hr>
7.10(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.
APPROVED RULING: (2) <b>When</b> the ball is dead, no runner may return to touch a missed base or one he has left <b>after</b> he has advanced to and touched a base beyond the missed base. 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 <b>before</b> he touches second but if he touches second he may not return to first and if defensive team appeals he is declared out at first.
<hr>