Missed first base

[LMan]

The present mechanic is to signal SAFE, and await an appeal (if there is one). The runner is considered safe when his body passes over the bag. Again, it is up to the defense to recognize that the runner missed the bag and to react accordingly. This goes for all codes AFAIK.

BG, I dont see how your method can work in real life. Runner steps over the bag, then 10 steps later the ball arrives at the mitt and you call OUT? Then I guess you are shouting "he missed the bag!" to the horde of offensive coaches who are having heart-attacks on the spot? You cant call OUT-he missed the bag at the time, because the ball hasnt arrived yet....

I know you said 'banger' for the OUT call, but if there's no one accepted mechanic, then we dont know how close the play has to be to call it one way or the other. Doesnt work. The runner either missed the bag before the throw, or he didnt.

Originally Posted by LMan

The present mechanic is to signal SAFE, and await an appeal (if there is one). The runner is considered safe when his body passes over the bag. Again, it is up to the defense to recognize that the runner missed the bag and to react accordingly. This goes for all codes AFAIK.

BG, I dont see how your method can work in real life. Runner steps over the bag, then 10 steps later the ball arrives at the mitt and you call OUT? Then I guess you are shouting "he missed the bag!" to the horde of offensive coaches who are having heart-attacks on the spot? You cant call OUT-he missed the bag at the time, because the ball hasnt arrived yet....

I know you said 'banger' for the OUT call, but if there's no one accepted mechanic, then we dont know how close the play has to be to call it one way or the other. Doesnt work. The runner either missed the bag before the throw, or he didnt.

If you go on the premise that 8-4-1f (below) is true and the opposite of OUT is SAFE, a runner is not OUT or SAFE until one of two criteria have occurred. The fielder, with the ball touches 1B before the BR touches 1B. This results in an OUT call. If the opposite is true, the BR is ruled SAFE. However, for a BR that runs over 1B, and after he runs it over, without touching it, F3, catches the ball while touching 1B, this then meets the criteria of 8-4-1f and declaring BR OUT. People quote the safe/appeal the preferred method, I just have not been taught using this particular technique. Personally, I think (but can be convinced otherwise) that the safe/appeal method (but only at 1B), is an unfair disadvantage to the defense since the onus should be on the BR to ACTUALLY TOUCH THE BASE. If the defense has done what they were supposed to do, make play, throw to 1B, catch ball with foot on base and runner has not even touched the base, basically he (the runner) gets a free pass unless defense realizes mistake and appeals.

f. after a dropped third strike (see 8-4-1e) or a fair hit, if the ball held by any fielder touches the batter before the batter touches first base; or if any fielder, while holding the ball in his grasp, touches first base or touches first base with the ball before the batter-runner touches first base: or

If the analogy I used is true, how can F3 touches 1B with ball before BR TOUCHES 1B be anything other than OUT? The interesting item regarding this topic is the following. FED rules never refer to the word safe, only out. The word does not even appear in the book, except on page 71, signals. Most of the posters do not like the idea of a no-call and that it is a signal to the defense that the runner missed the base. It's also possible that neither the runner or the fielder touched the base. Who are you tipping off?

I see the logic both ways. I just don't agree with one of the ways.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

If the analogy I used is true, how can F3 touches 1B with ball before BR TOUCHES 1B be anything other than OUT?

Because J/R and other AOs stress that in this case the BR has 'acquired' the bag, subject to appeal. 1B is unique in that the BR can overrun and not be tagged out (assuming no turn to 2B), so an instant return to 1B is not required.

Your cites show where AOs have established a standard mechanic and ruling for a 'gray area'/potential problem area of the rules. This mechanic isn't that new, Im amused that its still being 'debated' anywhere. If your assoc wants to say J/R and Evans are FOS on this one, thats your biz, I suppose.

If this is how yall do it, then whats your association's standard for when to call OUT and when SAFE? When the BR is 1 step past the bag? Only over the bag? 2 steps past the bag? What if he falls down, as in the OP?


What this about 'tipping off?' That phrase appears nowhere in my post. You tip nothing, you are stating a fact: the BR has acquired the base, subject to appeal.

[mcrowder]

I give up. You've been told the answer several times. You've been given as authoritative source as possible in this matter. Yet you continue to disbelieve. There's a word for that.

LMan - don't feed the trolls.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

LMan - don't feed the trolls.

Yeah, my error. Another for the box.

Originally Posted by LMan

Because J/R and other AOs stress that in this case the BR has 'acquired' the bag, subject to appeal. 1B is unique in that the BR can overrun and not be tagged out (assuming no turn to 2B), so an instant return to 1B is not required.

Your cites show where AOs have established a standard mechanic and ruling for a 'gray area'/potential problem area of the rules. This mechanic isn't that new, Im amused that its still being 'debated' anywhere. If your assoc wants to say J/R and Evans are FOS on this one, thats your biz, I suppose.

If this is how yall do it, then whats your association's standard for when to call OUT and when SAFE? When the BR is 1 step past the bag? Only over the bag? 2 steps past the bag? What if he falls down, as in the OP?


What this about 'tipping off?' That phrase appears nowhere in my post. You tip nothing, you are stating a fact: the BR has acquired the base, subject to appeal.

I understand fully what you are saying. I have not been given any indication on how our association treats the issue. The one guy I contacted wouldn't give me his opinion until he had discussed it with others, because even he admitted there were varying opinions. Just because J/R and Evans say this is the way to do it, doesn't make it so unless some group actually adopts these methods as gospel. It would certainly be a lot easier for all of us. In reality, the likelihood of that happening is between slim and none. I am all in favor of standardizing.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

I understand fully what you are saying. I have not been given any indication on how our association treats the issue. The one guy I contacted wouldn't give me his opinion until he had discussed it with others, because even he admitted there were varying opinions. Just because J/R and Evans say this is the way to do it, doesn't make it so unless some group actually adopts these methods as gospel. It would certainly be a lot easier for all of us. In reality, the likelihood of that happening is between slim and none. I am all in favor of standardizing.

Who's opinion are you going to go with?...Some dude leading your assn or Jim Evans...I'll tell you one thing that if you use the Jim Evans mechanic and you give the reason above that is verbatim from Evans, you'll be held in higher regard for adopting Evans mechanic versus what some other guy at the local tavern tells you. I would say there are a few groups who's adopted Evans mechanics. So when you say: Just because J/R and Evans say this is the way to do it, doesn't make it so unless some group actually adopts these methods as gospel Would Major League Baseball be an okay group to adopt his mechanics?? just curious

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

If you go on the premise that 8-4-1f (below) is true and the opposite of OUT is SAFE, a runner is not OUT or SAFE until one of two criteria have occurred.

There are case plays where a runner misses a base to which he is forced (and I'm not trying to start the "a BR in not forced to first" debate), the fielder touches the base and the runner is NOT out.

See, for example, 8.4.2A and 8.4.2B

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

If you go on the premise that 8-4-1f (below) is true and the opposite of OUT is SAFE, a runner is not OUT or SAFE until one of two criteria have occurred. The fielder, with the ball touches 1B before the BR touches 1B. This results in an OUT call. If the opposite is true, the BR is ruled SAFE. However, for a BR that runs over 1B, and after he runs it over, without touching it, F3, catches the ball while touching 1B, this then meets the criteria of 8-4-1f and declaring BR OUT. People quote the safe/appeal the preferred method, I just have not been taught using this particular technique. Personally, I think (but can be convinced otherwise) that the safe/appeal method (but only at 1B), is an unfair disadvantage to the defense since the onus should be on the BR to ACTUALLY TOUCH THE BASE. If the defense has done what they were supposed to do, make play, throw to 1B, catch ball with foot on base and runner has not even touched the base, basically he (the runner) gets a free pass unless defense realizes mistake and appeals.

f. after a dropped third strike (see 8-4-1e) or a fair hit, if the ball held by any fielder touches the batter before the batter touches first base; or if any fielder, while holding the ball in his grasp, touches first base or touches first base with the ball before the batter-runner touches first base: or

If the analogy I used is true, how can F3 touches 1B with ball before BR TOUCHES 1B be anything other than OUT? The interesting item regarding this topic is the following. FED rules never refer to the word safe, only out. The word does not even appear in the book, except on page 71, signals. Most of the posters do not like the idea of a no-call and that it is a signal to the defense that the runner missed the base. It's also possible that neither the runner or the fielder touched the base. Who are you tipping off?

I see the logic both ways. I just don't agree with one of the ways.

I think this mechanic is weighted heavily in favor of the offense and I don't like it at all, however I do use the mechanic since it is the accepted practice.

I think a 'no call' would be much more fair and true to the intent of the rules.

Personally I think Evans and J/R dropped the ball on this one.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

I think a 'no call' would be much more fair and true to the intent of the rules.

Personally I think Evans and J/R dropped the ball on this one.

Oh, ooooooooookaaaaaaaaaaaay.


I think this statement says it all.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

Personally I think Evans and J/R dropped the ball on this one.

If you think this started with Evans and J/R you've lost sight of the ball.

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by GarthB

If you think this started with Evans and J/R you've lost sight of the ball.

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.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

I think this mechanic is weighted heavily in favor of the offense and I don't like it at all, however I do use the mechanic since it is the accepted practice.

I think a 'no call' would be much more fair and true to the intent of the rules.

Personally I think Evans and J/R dropped the ball on this one.

Don,


The runner already knows damned well whether or not he missed the base. To make no declaration at all on the play alerts the defense that there's a potential appeal. All plays on a runner require a call of some kind. Since the runner is safe until properly appealed this is the only mechanic that wouldn't have us playing the 10th man on defense and alerting the rest of the defense that something is amiss on the play.



Tim.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Well put, Tim.

[jkumpire]

I beleive like almost everyone else here that the safe call is the proper call.

But we have to remember that most guys who do Baseball these days on the HS level use FED more than anyother rule set, and FED has made a mess of this interp.

Further, in their embarassment of an Umpire's Manual (though it is getting better) and a Case Book that is not as good as it should be, it gives the average FED ump no guidence on this play. This is one time where if FED would add the right interp. and mechanic for this play, the issue is understood and called uniformly.

The guys in this poster's association are not on the same level of understanding as most of us who are on this board. They are closer to the level of most HS umpires who have no clue about the subtle nuances of calling the game, and FED needs to help them learn what we know. Most HS umpires I know would fight you tooth and nail on this mechanic because it is counter-intuitive to what they have known about the rules of baseball.

To prove it, if you try to tell them you make a safe call, the first response would most likely be: "Then why don't we make a safe call when the runner comes home and misses the plate?" We just have too many FED guys who are ignorant of finer points of umpiring.