Correct call?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Justme,

I think he is saying that the appeal has to be unmistakable, and that a fielder can't just kick the base out of frustration, or accidentally touch it in passing.
As long as it its obvious to everyone that it is an appeal, a live ball appeal need not be verbalized, unless multiple runners are involved. Then you would need to specify which runners' action you are appealing.

The case book situations he is refering to are on page 71, 8.4.2 Situations A and B.

[Justme]

Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve
Justme,

I think he is saying that the appeal has to be unmistakable, and that a fielder can't just kick the base out of frustration, or accidentally touch it in passing.
As long as it its obvious to everyone that it is an appeal, a live ball appeal need not be verbalized, unless multiple runners are involved. Then you would need to specify which runners' action you are appealing.

The case book situations he is refering to are on page 71, 8.4.2 Situations A and B.

Steve,

Thanks for the response.

I see the 8.2.3 ruling as an entirely different situation from 8.4.2. While they both deal with a missed base 8.2.3 is talking about 1B in particular, and provides two factors that are different from 8.4.2 A&B: (1) a force play is being made on the runner & (2) is the result of continuing action. As you know there's a big difference between over-running 1B versus the other bases, the runner is allowed to return to 1B without being tagged out unless.......
If a runner over-runs the other bases and the F has the ball he's going to be tagged out, or make it back the the base.

In 8.4.2 Situation A it clearly states that F3 kicks the bag in disguest, he's not continuing the play, that's different than what 8.2.3 states. In Situation B F6 isn't making a play either, again different from 8.2.3.

There is either no force play and/or continuing action in Situation 8.4.2 A&B. That makes it different from 8.2.3 and helps explain to me why 8.2.3 is handled differently in the case book.

[Justme]

Originally posted by PWL

Justme, let me see if I can explain this for you. I don't think everybody got the memo on this one. First base is like force that you can run past legally. If runner misses the base and beats the ball you signal safe and wait for appeal from defense. They can either tag the base or the runner before they return to get the out call. On a force at 2B or 3B and runner beats the throw and misses the base, you signal safe. In this case the fielder can appeal by verbal and tagging the base, or they can simply go over and tag the runner with no verbal. The reason being is that you are not allowed to run past these bases. At home on a force you simply make no call until either the runner tags the base or fielder tags plate with ball. See if that helps you. Rule books sometimes have errors.

PWL,

You are 100% correct and believe it or not that's what I was saying in my last post, in a less direct way than you. I was just pointing out that 8.2.3 & 8.4.2 were for entirely different situations.

Someone had said here that it isn't a legal appeal at 1B unless there's a 'verbal' appeal. I did not agree with that and offered 8.2.3 as my example as to why a verbal appeal wasn't required. 8.2.3 clearly states that if F3 steps on the bag it is an appeal and the runner would be out (if he hasn't returned to 1B by then), even if F3 didn't realize that the runner had missed the base, because it was a force play and a continuation of a play.

Then someone said that 8.4.2 explained it differently. I was pointing out that the differences between the two situations in my last post.

Thanks

[mcrowder]

It doesn't have to be verbal - but it does have to be unmistakeable. I can envision a few unmistakeable appeals that aren't verbal, but not many. It CAN'T be a touch of first within the flow of the game though. There has to be SOME sort of discontinuity to indicate the fielder is appealing the miss, and not just touching the bag. When in doubt... well.... that's kind of the definition of "mistakeable", isn't it... so when in doubt, it's not an UNmistakeable appeal.

[Justme]

Originally posted by mcrowder
It doesn't have to be verbal - but it does have to be unmistakeable. I can envision a few unmistakeable appeals that aren't verbal, but not many. It CAN'T be a touch of first within the flow of the game though. There has to be SOME sort of discontinuity to indicate the fielder is appealing the miss, and not just touching the bag. When in doubt... well.... that's kind of the definition of "mistakeable", isn't it... so when in doubt, it's not an UNmistakeable appeal.

Neither the FED rule book nor the FED case book use the term "unmistakeable" when talking about appeals.

I have quoted both books in pervious posts. Like it or not that's what is written, I didn't make the stuff up.

FED Rule Book:
8-2-5 Peanalty (Art. 1-5) on page 48
Appeal Procedures and Guidlines on page 48 & 49

FED Case Book:
8.2.3 Situation on page 62

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by Justme

Neither the FED rule book nor the FED case book use the term "unmistakeable" when talking about appeals.

I have quoted both books in pervious posts. Like it or not that's what is written, I didn't make the stuff up.

FED Rule Book:
8-2-5 Peanalty (Art. 1-5) on page 48
Appeal Procedures and Guidlines on page 48 & 49

FED Case Book:
8.2.3 Situation on page 62

Justme,

While it doesn't say "unmistakable" in the Fed book, it uses the word "obvious" in its place. So it does have to be unmistakable, which is the same thing as obvious.

[Rich Ives]

BRD - very first item.

FED - "During a live ball appeal the defense must make a verbal appeal unless 'a play by its very nature is imminent and obvious to the offense.' EXCEPT If the action is continuing and the tagged base is a 'force' base, the defense makes the appeal merely by stepping on the missed base."

The attached play says for the first base play, casually touching the base is an appeal in FED but in NCAA and OBR it must be unmistakable.

[SanDiegoSteve]

The examples given for "imminent and is obvious to the offense, defense and umpire(s)" are, missed bases, and tag-ups. That's exactly what they are saying, that a missed base is obviously what's being appealed! So, on these plays at least, no verbalization is ever necessary, unless multiple runners are involved. Then, and only then, do you need to verbalize (which runner is being appealed).

[Justme]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rich Ives
BRD - very first item.

FED - "During a live ball appeal the defense must make a verbal appeal unless 'a play by its very nature is imminent and obvious to the offense.' EXCEPT If the action is continuing and the tagged base is a 'force' base, the defense makes the appeal merely by stepping on the missed base."

The attached play says for the first base play, casually touching the base is an appeal in FED but in NCAA and OBR it must be unmistakable.

[/QUOTE

Rich, That's what I have been saying in my post. I was speaking of FED... I think that my post was clear about that.

As I understood it the original situation posted here was talking about the runner missing 1B when he over-ran it and how the appeal should be handled. I pointed out that if the runner were tagged or the base touched before he returned he would be out, without a verbal appeal. I was trying to explain that in some cases what is consider an appeal in FED is different than OBR (and also NCAA).

[#888]

In all codes, the runner has acquired the base when he/she passes within a body's length of the base and must be appealed to be out. The first call of safe was correct if the runner passed the base before the throw arrived. The second call of safe on the tag would depend on the circumstances i.e. if an appeal was actually in progress. Once the runner touches the base, an appeal for missing the base cannot occur.

[mbyron]

Oh great, another one digging up 3 year old threads.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Oh great, another one digging up 3 year old threads.

cynic