Yes -- how can a runner be out for missing a base when he standing on it?

That's what I don't get:(

I'm getting this from the FED book, (yes the only ball I call...sorry I'm such an amateur) 8-4-2i

"Any runner is out when he...does not retouch his base before a fielder tags him or holds the ball while touching such base after any situation (8-2-1 an advancing runner shall touch first, second, third and then home plate in order...)"

It would seem that if R1 missed first base, he would be out as soon as the fielder held the ball touching first base.

The book goes on to give what appears to be another option:

"Umpire may also call him out at the end of playing action upon proper and successful appeal."

Maybe its just the way I'm reading this but it seems that according to the FED book, you can do either - call him out when the ball is held at the bag, or you wait for the appeal? But if you wait for the appeal R1 would already be on the bag.

Maybe I'm just retarded and can't get this!:confused:

Notice the word "retouch" here...as in retouch after a caught fly? Different animal from what we're speaking of, eh?

Just general instructions on how to run the bases.


Tell me, what would you do if a runner passed but missed second base?

Wait for an appeal...correct?

First is no different in that regard.

Relax. You're overthinking this.

blueump, possibly there's some confusion because in OBR, a fielder cannot make an immediate appeal by simply tagging the base and appealing to the umpire, despite a literal wording of the book. As long as the runner is "in the vicinity" of the base (I'm not sure if there are any other criteria), he has to be tagged. Thus, in the MLB play, the umpire did not acknowledge the appeal until the runner was tagged. Had the runner been advancing toward 2B, the defense could simply have tagged 1B.

Other codes (eg, Fed) may be different in this regard. In ASA softball, for example, an immediate appeal is recognized (and in certain situations that could make a difference as to whether a run scores).

It's Still Alive and Well in FED-Land
 

2007 FED Case Book

8.2.3 Situation:
B1 hits a slow roller to F5 and arrives safely but misses first base. F3 catches the ball with his foot off the base and casually steps on first base, though he believes the runner has beaten the throw.

RULING: B1 is out. Because a force play is being made on the runner and is the result of continuing action. F3 is required to appeal the missed base and does so by stepping on the missed base.

An editing error. Accidental appeals were eliminated from FED.

Sometimes it takes years to bring the casebook in line with rule changes.

What documentation do you have that this is an error? The phrase, "a continuation of playing action" appears to be exactly what they want called here based on the rule I listed above.

This is not an appeal, but actually part of the play. Appeals are listed as an alternative way to get an out, but not the only way.

You would assume that if this were a mistake, it would be listed so on the NFS webpage.

The Fed 2002 Case Book worded the ruling slightly differently.

8.2.3 Situation: B1 hits a slow roller to F5 and arrives safely but misses first base. F3 catches the ball and casually steps on first base, though he believes the runner has beaten the throw. Ruling: B1 is out. Because a force play is being made on the runner and is the result of continuing action, F3 is not required to appeal the missed base and needs only to complete the force out.

The above play was marked with an asterisk to indicate a new or revised ruling. See below.

Fed 2001 Case Book:

8.2.3. Situation: B1 hits a slow roller to F5 and arrives safely but misses first base. F3 catches ball and casually steps on first base, though he knows runner has beaten throw. Ruling: B1 is out. Play is being made on runner even though F3 is unaware that B1 missed the base.

It appears that in 2002 Fed included "continuing action" to prevent some of the ridiculous scenarios people were coming up with for the accidental force play (e.g., F4 kicks dirt off 2B as he walks the ball in, forced runner misses 2B and slides safely into 3B where F5 casually tags him and produces accidental force out, pickoff attempt before next pitch happens to be at missed force base, etc.).

I use this mechanic and have no problem doing so, I accept it as the standard.
I don't pretend to know the evolution and history of this mechanic, I only know it's accepted and endorsed by Evans and J/R and the rest of the world.
Since it was brought up on this thread I was simply stating my opinion on the mechanic.
Since Evans and J/R wield so much influence and they endorse this mechanic and since I, IMHO feel it could be handled more equitably a different way, it stands to reason that I feel Evans and J/R are dropping the ball on this one.

I'm on my way to New York at this time and don't have a lot of extra time.

REad throught the Press releases at FED over the past thrree or four years and you'll find an announcement that FED has eliminated the accidental appeal.

Or you can not believe me and call whatever you want. At this point, I really don't care.

Have a great summer,.

Ha Ha, made ya look!

Think of it this way...but at home plate. A runner slides into home plate but the catcher legally and successfully blocks the plate and the sliding runner misses home...if your "touch the base" rule was the case, the catcher could simply touch home and the runner would have no recourse because the catcher wouldn't have to tag the runner...to the original poster...sometimes reading the rules and taking a strict interpretation of exactly what's written will cause you problems if you don't simply think about what really happens on a baseball field. Is that the approach you want to take in all situations...of course not...

I'm not sure who you are addressing in your post but the FED rules, like all rules, don't belong to any one of us...they are FED baseball rules. The case book situation I quoted had nothing to do with a runner missing home, it addressed first base. Also, I didn't say that I called it that way. I was pointing out that it's still in the case book.

Finally, I do not find that "sometimes reading the rules and taking a strict interpretation of exactly what's written will cause you problems" as you say. I find the opposite to be true.

correct, but it's a similar principle...I must be on the board with a bunch of English professors...I get it...we don't "own" the rules..no ship...sherlock

Not really that similar of a principle....was there a force at home? There's always a force at 1B on a fair batted ball.