Batter Missing First Base

[Delaware Blue]

Originally Posted by LMan

I don't see the approved ruling saying such.

How about 4.09 Approved Ruling: One out, Jones on third, Smith on first, and Brown flies out to right field. Two outs. Jones tags up and scores after the catch. Smith attempted to return to first but the right fielder’s throw beat him to the base. three outs. But Jones scored before the throw to catch Smith reached first base, hence Jones’ run counts. It was not a force play.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by Delaware Blue

How about 4.09 Approved Ruling: One out, Jones on third, Smith on first, and Brown flies out to right field. Two outs. Jones tags up and scores after the catch. Smith attempted to return to first but the right fielder’s throw beat him to the base. three outs. But Jones scored before the throw to catch Smith reached first base, hence Jones’ run counts. It was not a force play.

Yes, but Smith was already at 1B when that play began. That's a clear case of a timing play.

I'm speaking of R3, 2 outs - grounder to F6. The B/R beats the throw but oversteps 1B, (R3 scores in the interim) U1 correctly signals safe at 1B, then there is an appeal at 1B before (now) R1 returns to the bag.

The approved ruling says that it doesn't matter in this case when R3 crossed the plate - a successful appeal of the B/R before acquiring 1B negates the run:

Since Jones crossed the plate during a play in which the third out was made by the batter runner before he touched first base, Jones' run does not count.

Of course, you have to swallow the premise that the B/R did not 'acquire' 1B when he overstepped it, although the conventional wisdom is that he did (hence the initial safe call).

Is this a contradiction?

[Four-Oh]

Originally Posted by LMan

Yes, but Smith was already at 1B when that play began. That's a clear case of a timing play.

I'm speaking of R3, 2 outs - grounder to F6. The B/R beats the throw but oversteps 1B, (R3 scores in the interim) U1 correctly signals safe at 1B, then there is an appeal at 1B before (now) R1 returns to the bag.

The approved ruling says that it doesn't matter in this case when R3 crossed the plate - a successful appeal of the B/R before acquiring 1B negates the run:

Since Jones crossed the plate during a play in which the third out was made by the batter runner before he touched first base, Jones' run does not count.

Of course, you have to swallow the premise that the B/R did not 'acquire' 1B when he overstepped it, although the conventional wisdom is that he did (hence the initial safe call).

Is this a contradiction?

A ruling and a similar play is discussed in J/R (Chapter 10 - Determining a Run, 1.D(1) and Example D/1, p. 82 in my edition). The interpretation given is that the B/R is required to actually touch first base in order for the run to score. It may seem like a deviation from "touch or pass," but it is in line with the actual wording of OBR 4.09 (a) (1). The B/R may well have acquired first, but that's not enough, provided, of course, the defence appeals.

Further, OBR also has an approved ruling to 4.09, whereby a batter who hits an apparent grand slam with two out, but fails to touch first and is, on appeal, called out, ends the half-inning with no runs scoring on the play.

Any other authorities have a different opinion?

Andrew

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Four-Oh

A ruling and a similar play is discussed in J/R (Chapter 10 - Determining a Run, 1.D(1) and Example D/1, p. 82 in my edition). The interpretation given is that the B/R is required to actually touch first base in order for the run to score. It may seem like a deviation from "touch or pass," but it is in line with the actual wording of OBR 4.09 (a) (1). The B/R may well have acquired first, but that's not enough, provided, of course, the defence appeals.

Further, OBR also has an approved ruling to 4.09, whereby a batter who hits an apparent grand slam with two out, but fails to touch first and is, on appeal, called out, ends the half-inning with no runs scoring on the play.

Any other authorities have a different opinion?
Andrew

Uh, Andrew, if the ruling is in the official rules then different opinions don't matter.

[Four-Oh]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Uh, Andrew, if the ruling is in the official rules then different opinions don't matter.

I suppose you're right... there really shouldn't be any! (slaps forehead). Next time, I'll re-read before posting, especially after midnight!
A.

[greymule]

The following question is undoubtedly familiar to most people on this forum:

R3, R1, two outs. Ground ball up the middle, just past the pitcher's right side. The shortstop gloves the ball in front of second base and attempts to tag the sliding R1 instead of tagging the base. The tag is missed, but R1 slides past the base without touching it. As R1 scrambles back to the base, the shortstop tags him before he is able to return. R3 scored before the tag was applied for the third out (a 'time play'). The defense appeals that R1 missed second base, hoping to get a force out-an 'advantageous fourth out' - to negate the run.

a. The appeal is upheld; R1 is out and the run cannot score since the third out is now a force out.

b. The appeal is not allowed, the run scores.

c. The umpire should simply call R1 out for being out of the baseline, thus avoiding this whole mess.

The correct answer is "b" (the appeal is not allowed, the run scores), at least according to how professional umpires are likely to officiate this play. In theory, Jaksa and Roder agree with answer "a" (the appeal is upheld; R1 is out and the run cannot score since the third out is a force out), but felt it necessary to write the rule as it is likely to be enforced on the field, as in answer "b." The problem lies in the fact that the Official Rules do not specifically define what constitutes an appeal. As our quiz question shows, when appeals meet force plays, the rules are especially inadequate.

We are all aware that the play on the BR at 1B is not technically a force play, as the batter did not "occupy" home plate. We also know that a BR who touches 1B and for some reason retreats toward home plate has not "reinstated the force" at 1B and must be tagged to be put out. But I don't see how those differences would affect the case under discussion.

Is it then the fact that the BR can overrun 1B that allows us to make a successful appeal of a missed 1B even when the BR is retreating? Is being 20 feet down the line not "in the vicinity" of the base? Or does this hinge on the BR actually failing to "acquire" 1B?

On the other hand, I thought we agreed that (in OBR) a BR who beats the throw but misses 1B and then overruns has to be tagged. The defense cannot simply step on 1B and appeal to the umpire while the BR is returning to the base. I saw that play at a Phillies' game a few years ago. BR safe at 1B but missed the base. Umpire calls safe. With the BR down the RF line, F3 returns to the base, steps on it, and holds the ball for the umpire to see. (I don't know whether F3 verbalized an appeal or not.) The umpire did nothing but look at F3, until F3 went and tagged the BR returning to the base. Then the umpire called the out.

This was the third out, but unfortunately a run hadn't scored from 1B in the meantime, so I didn't get to see whether they would have nullified the run.

[greymule]

This is the same as if he had continued to third and defense made a proper appeal.

That may well be, but if so, a miss by the BR at 1B is treated differently from a miss of 2B on a force play, where staying in the vicinity does not have the same effect as running to 3B.

[LMan]

at 2B/3B/HP, if the runner misses the bag and the fielder misses the tag, you signal nothing until the situation resolves itself. 1B is treated differently - if it werent we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Greymule, thanks for the info..but if the BR has to be tagged coming back to 1B, that argues that its a timing play for purposes of appeal....which other people say its not.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by LMan

Of course, you have to swallow the premise that the B/R did not 'acquire' 1B when he overstepped it, although the conventional wisdom is that he did (hence the initial safe call).

Is this a contradiction?

There's no contradiction. At first, the run scores -- BR "acquired" first. Then, upon appel, he's out -- he didn't "acquire" first so the run now does not count.