Question on Awards with Tagging up

[UmpJM]

Gentlemen,

An interesting discussion (other than all the "noise"). I believe there are (at least) two schools of thought on the proper ruling in regards to the original situation posed in this thread - and that's just under OBR. FED adds its own unique twist to the situation.

Since, in the original situation posed by TussAgee11, the throw which went out of play was made by an outfielder on a ball hit to the outfield, it is "black letter law" (in both FED and OBR) that the award of two bases is a "Time of Throw" (TOT) award.

So, why on earth did I say...

The award in this case is two bases from his "original" or TOP base - so, you award him 3B.

in my initial post on this thread?

Well, primarily because of the following passage from J/R under the discussion of TOT Award(s) (my emphasis):

If a runner obviously has failed to retouch his base before advancing, then a base he has touched or passed is not acknowledged when determining the bases awarded after an overthrow. Hence, such runner's occupied base (from which the award would originate) is the time-of-pitch (or retouch) base (see example 9 below).

...

9----- R1, one out, hit and run. The stealing runner, believing there are two outs, continues toward third base after a fly ball is batted to right field. The right fielder catches the ball, but his throw to first gets by and rolls into a dugout: even though R1 is past second at TOT, first base is acknowledged at the occupied base at TOT, and R1 is awarded third base.

Now, this interpretation from J/R seems quite consistent with the NAPBL ruling paraphrased by Bob Jenkins (post #35 on this thread) while it is materially different from the MLBUM ruling quoted by UMP25 (post #42).

So what is the proper ruling? In the BRD, Carl endorses the J/R ruling and recommends "disavowal" of the MLBUM ruling. He goes on to add the following note:

Note 436: I checked with several of my acquaintances, including two professional umpires. Not one had ever heard of any umpire enforcing the above (MLBUM) interpretation. One pro said he'd never even heard of the interpretation -- but he spoke on condition of anonymity. (grin)

This makes eminent sense to me. After all, even under the MLBUM ruling, if the runner does go back and retouch his base, the origin of the award magically becomes his "original" or TOP base. If he doesn't, he's going to be liable to an appeal. If he fails to retouch and the defense doesn't appeal, they really ought to learn the game a little better.

Now, if the infraction is not "obvious", the MLBUM ruling makes sense to me.

A couple of other points that came up in the discussion...

I believe TussAgee11's initial question was whether or not the runner's "retouch" base counted as one of the two bases awarded. It does not & I'm pretty sure he figured that out.

It was suggested that the origin of the award was based on the last legally acquired base. There is nothing to support such a notion in the rules or any recognized interpretation manual; there is quite a bit to support the principle that a runner who has reached/passed a base is considered to have acquired it legally until/unless the defense properly appeals.

The question was raised as to whether the defense would lose their chance for a subsequent appeal if the throw which went out of play was construed to be part of an unmistakeable but ill-fated attempt at a continuous action appeal of the runner's failure to retouch. After all, they attempted an appeal and "erred" by throwing the ball out of play. They have not and will still have the opportunity to appeal (assuming the runner does not correct his infraction while the ball is dead) when the ball is again made live.

The FED ruling on the play is materially different from the OBR ruling in the situation where the runner liable for appeal on his failure to retouch has reached/passed a succeeding base and is unable to return past that base before the ball becomes dead. In FED, the runner cannot correct his failure to retouch in this case and is liable to be called out on appeal even if he goes back and retouches while the ball is dead.

Unless the umpire judges that the fielder intentionally threw the ball out of play in order to prevent the runner from retouching and the runner was attempting to return. Then his award is two bases beyond his TOP base.

JM