Missed first base
 

BR running to first on a ground ball. The first baseman stretches to catch the throw, with just his toes on the edge of the bag.

The BR (maybe even in an attempt to spike the first baseman) runs inside the line and trips over the heal of the first baseman, never touching the base. They both fall to the ground, although the first baseman keeps his foot on the bag and catches the ball.

The runner arrives first, but never touches the base. Is the foot part of the base? do you call him safe waiting for an appeal? or do you have an out?

Wow. You're kidding right? "Is the foot part of the bag?" Really? I guess you've removed all doubt now.

As to the rest ... what do we normally do when the runner beats the throw, but misses the bag?

So, you have a first baseman with his foot on the bag, the runner steps directly on his foot, but technically never touches the bag, just the foot.
YOU would call him out on appeal??? Good thing I never umpire with you!

but you said F3's 'toes just on the edge of the bag.' Which is it?



I'm sure Mike's heart is broken now, but perhaps he'll get over it. Someday.

I was using another situation to stress a point. Get over it.

Simple answer, without any comment - OUT. F3 has foot on base with ball before BR touches 1B.

It's just funny to see you (again) rip into the first person who dares offer an opinion on your sitches. Which change with every post.

OK, back to the box for you

Really? .......

I have the batter-runner safe until put out on proper appeal.



Tim.

First... that's not what you asked at all. Second - in such a scenario, I find it incredibly doubtful that BR would not touch the base at all. Not without breaking someone's ankle.
Finally ... something we agree on.

(Did you REALLY ask ... "Is the foot part of the bag?"!?!?!?!)

Really ... so if BR misses first base and is 10 steps past, and F3 then catches the ball on the bag, based on this axiom, you rule an out?

We are being overrun, fellas. No wonder Tee and the true bigdogs here no longer post.

If you want to call it out on appeal, fine. We don't know how close the foot on foot and ball to glove were apart. If it's bang bang, I call out. Given that,
it's because that's the way I was originally taught - runner doesn't touch base but passes it, I was taught, don't make SAFE call. Since joining this forum I have seen many say the way to do is call the runner safe, then let defense appeal the missed base. I have been trying to get clarification from some in our organization, but I haven't gotten any response. However, I am beginning to lean in the direction of the safe/appeal. I'm still not 100% convinced it's right to call a runner safe that hasn't touched the base, but I'm getting there and definitely see the logic.:)

Did anyone cite the code in this?

In OBR, it's a missed base, but last I remember, in Fed the BR was out if he missed 1B and F3 then caught the ball. Did Fed change their rule?

Really ... so if BR misses first base and is 10 steps past, and F3 then catches the ball on the bag, based on this axiom, you rule an out?

Yes, at least when I used to do Fed.

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.

Well, we went over that. He changes the sitch as the thread develops/deteriorates, to match his current argument. He calls it 'emphasizing a point,' I prefer 'making facts fit theory' :D

Did you only do FED during the brief but ill-fated "Accidental Appeal" period? If so, you're right, but that ruling didn't last long, and exists in NO code that I'm aware of currently.

You're calling him safe because he beat the throw, and is not yet out. And if the folks that taught you the mechanic would attend any clinics outside your organization, they would be educated in the way we are supposed to call this situation.

BG,


This is from Evans. In most umpire's opinions this is as definitive as it gets.


“SAFE” is a declaration by the umpire that a runner is entitled to the base for which he was trying.

Professional umpires are trained to render the "safe" signal and voice declaration at first base even though the batter-runner missed the base but is considered past the base when the tag of first base is made. This becomes an appeal play and the batter-runner would subsequently be called out for failure to properly touch the base. This is the proper mechanical procedure at all bases involving force plays. On plays which require a tag, professional umpires are instructed to make no call until the runner legally touches the base or the runner is tagged before legally touching the base.


Tim.

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.

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.

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

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.

Yeah, my error. Another for the box.

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.:D

As Tim said: Call him 'Safe' and wait for a proper Appeal. That being said, IF the runner is past the bag and then the throw arrives --- this is a continuation of the original play (the attempt to retire BR before he reaches the base) and NOT an Appeal.
Remember, an Appeal must be an "unmistakeable act" which this throw (IMHO) is not.
Now if F3 should tag the BR before he touches the bag -- or the bag while making an Appeal (Blue! he missed the Bag!) now he is out.

This IS how it is taught.:rolleyes:

Does it happen often? Not in my experence! Usually the BR returns to the bag before anyone even thinks about an appeal.

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

Thank you. I appreciate an honest answer without the sarcasm.

You are welcome.
You actually make a lot of the same arguments against this mechanic/call that I made/heard when I was first instructed on it. Had to shake my head many times - take myself in a corner and have a little talk.;)

Then I got it. I guess I had enough (well respected) instructers inculcate me until I "Drank the Kool Aid":D

Sometimes it's not a bad path...if it's a winning path

OH NO! The Phrase Police!:eek:








Way to stay on the topic:confused:

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.

I think I'm in big big trouble

I've been playing baseball all my life and I've never payed MLB a dime in royalties for the use of 'their game'


They may be the accepted authority when it comes to rules and umpire mechanics but unless you were using "owners" in the loosest context possible, it is an absolute misstatement to say they are the owners of the game and rules.

Thanks Tom. That's the kind of information this thread needed to be complete.

For Real ?
 

Hands are part of the bat..... Feet are part of the base. :eek:

As Ricky Ricardo would say " Aye yai yai yai yai ".

Oh, ooooooooookaaaaaaaaaaaay.


I think this statement says it all.

An absolute mistatement? No, I stated what I meant.

An incorrect statement? I suppose it depends on what is meant when one says "baseball."

As far as the rules, there is not doubt to whom they belong. Check your rule book for under whose permission they are published.

Think it's a coincidence that Sporting News stopped publishing the rulebook when MLB decided to publish it?

Do you think the rules are in public domain? Trying printing and selling them.

BTW: If you've been purchasing rule books, you've paid MLB more than a dime in "royalties."

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

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.

Well put, Tim.

Well put, Paul.

Let's Be Careful here
 

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.

You're funny. I'd almost think this was serious if it wasn't so ludicrous.

PS - if you've been playing any kind of ORGANIZED baseball, then eventually, some of your dimes have made their way into MLB pockets. Check your rulebooks, equipment, etc.

Did you only do FED during the brief but ill-fated "Accidental Appeal" period?

Yes. Actually, a more precise term might be "accidental force" (or, for purists, "accidental force or before-the-BR-reaches 1B" period).

I'm glad Fed dumped that rule. It was an odd exception to OBR. The J/R explanation simply reinforces what had long been practice in OBR.

In MLB, the play does not occur often, but if you watch enough games, you'll see it. Most people who frequent this board have seen MLB players beat the throw but miss 1B, and they are routinely called safe until the appeal, which incidentally has to be a tag as long as the runner has simply overrun. In a Phillies' game a few years ago, the BR beat the throw but stepped over the bag and overran several yards. F3 had left the bag after he caught the throw, but he then quickly returned to step on 1B and hold the ball up for the umpire to see. Seemed like an appeal to me. No call. Then he ran and tagged the returning runner. Out.

I'm trying to actually learn here...

If the runner had already returned to first however, would they have called him safe?

Yes, they would have.

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.

Well, technically speaking, not a force. . .:)

Another bad analogy. We aren't talking about home plate here. Different situation. Different rule.

but from an appeal standpoint it's the same type of sitch when you're talking about making a tag versus just touching the base...

Not really.... F3 has the option of tagging the runner or touching 1B. If there's not a force at home then F2 has to tag the runner.

Let's say force play and F2 has the ball and is attempting to make a play on the runner. F2 misses the tag and the runner misses the plate but F2 then touches the plate before the runner touches the plate what would you call?

When it's a close one at first base, when is the batter-runner considered passed first base?

see post #14

Um ... when he passes it.

When the trailing foot has passed the bag.

Thanks LMan, mcrowder and Gaff for the 3 different answers. I guess I'll just pick one and go with it.

Actually ... you got the same answer 3 times.

See post #60.

We, (newbies) to the concept as written, tend to over think this one.
I too was a skeptic when I first read it.
The reason honestly; I'd never heard, nor read it referenced "anywhere" until I saw it in JR. I'll admit, I'd read only "rule books" until 4 years ago.

The first time I walked on a baseball field with Umpires was in 1969, as a very, very, very, young player, (maybe 1 or 2 yrs. old) :') Okay, I lied and said I was 9, to get into LL...
I haven't missed a season since, either playing, coaching or umpiring. Nary one reference, or/nor witnessed account of this BR missing 1B on a close play, that I recall.

So, I feel for you guys that haven't explored the training resources out there, I was you then too..

Regardless, once I simply looked at the logistics of it, it does make sense.

You pass any base without touching it and your safe/credited with that base, until/unless, appealed.

The fact it's a force and or close should have no bearing.

The diligence is on the defense; swipe tag at HP runner gets past, but misses the plate, I signal safe on the missed tag. I would do the same in a run down, say between 1st and 2nd, he ain't really "SAFE YET" but he was "on the attempted tag", so signal safe.

Same on the force. Ex. DP ball F4 to SS at 2nd, SS clearly ghost's past 2nd coming no where close, or close for that matter, but clearly misses the bag, as soon as I see the SS miss the bag and continue on with the play, I still signal safe regardless of where R1 is, may only be 1/2 way to 2nd, he's not really safe, safe, I just called the tag attempt of the bag. Now the relay goes past F3, R1 continues on towards 3rd missing 2nd, hey the force is gone, whether he's 1 step passed or 20 steps past 2b.

Any runner that has passed any base is considered to have touched it until there is an appeal.

So the confusion stems when we consider this "FIRST BASE THING" the only difference is, your allowed to run past the bag. Okay, I can run by HP too, see no difference..
The only difference is I have to return to 1st, or do I?
No, I really don't, say R3 breaks for home and F3 throws home, I can take off for 2nd without returning to 1st, gotta be an appeal now right?

So, in nearly winding down to closing; BR misses 1st base but has passed the base, safe is the call on a throw to F3 that gets there "after the pass of the BR".
Now, F3 has the ball and is touching 1B, is that an appeal? Of course not, you must assume he's still begging for the force, safe is the right call.

Now he tags the returning runner who is still off the base? Safe is the call, F3is claiming the "runner feinted or started towards 2nd", he didn't, safe is the call.
Now, F4 while on the bag, say's but he missed it, ah, now we're getting somewhere, out on appeal. Or he tags BR while off base and says "he missed the bag" ah, almost dinner, out on appeal.

Now BR back to the bag and F3 tags him or the bag and says "I'm appealing he missed 1B". Safe, I say's. Since BR had just corrected it, ah well, that's what microwaves are for..

Base loaded winning run on 3rd, two outs.
GB to F1 who kicks it, juggles it and finally flicks a roller towards HP to F2 who's stretching for the throw, gloves the ball while toeing the plate in desperation. Meanwhile the runner is celebrating the win, with his teammates over by the dug out, even though he missed HP, what would you call?

Tell me you'd say "Safe and signal, ball game".

And not stand there making no call.

Unless, the D appealled the runner missing the base, before all had left the field that's what you have.

Don't get wrapped up in the "1B only part of this", think how you call any missed base situation.

And in offense to those that wouldn't call the last play at the plate "safe and ball game".

Remember the only non-call occurs when both Runner and Defender "know that the base was missed" and are both still "going for it"..

All good ... except we don't signal "Ballgame". Just pack up slowly and leave.

The link to this page says "Last Page." If only it were so.

I saw the horse twitch just a little........maybe.

Again I know this is the accepted mechanic and I use it BUT
This is exactly why I feel it is wrong.
F2 is facing away from the plate waiting for the throw. F1 is obviously focused on the ball the other fielders are to far away to know if R3 touched or didn't. The only two people that can be expected to know is R3 and PU.
PU signals safe so everyone assumes the plate was touched.
If I were a coach I'd teach my kids to appeal every single time in this situation at every base, especially at 1st, I'd have my F3 tag every BR called safe. How annoying would that be? But it's the only way as the defense you're going to know.

Hmmmmm, can't agree completely with this.

Any D worth its salt has players/coaches not on the field watching the runners' touch of the bases, and will alert the HC for possible appeals (even if the bag was touched ;) ). Its not like the dugout or coaches' boxes can't comment on missed bases...they do it all the time, as they should.

And, HP is (yet another) different animal. You do NOT signal safe unless the runner touched the plate. If he missed it and the tag was missed, you do nothing, await developments. I think SLAS's example is a case of the runner missing the plate, but the PU deliberately signalling 'safe' to get the game over with.

Well, that's an intergrity issue that simple mechanics cannot address. Once the PU signals 'safe' at the plate, he's safe. It's not like 1B.

LMan,

In SLAS' example, the R3 is forced home. If he beats the tag (of the base) but misses the plate, I believe the proper mechanic is for the PU to indicate SAFE!, just as he would on a BR at 1B.

JM

The sitch was a force play, not a tag.

Because the mechanic is the way it is, it forces bench players and coaches to 'make calls' from the bench. 40-50 ft away in the case of home plate, maybe 130-140 ft away in case of 3b dugout to first. In every other aspect of the game, we umpires detest that thought. In this mechanic we encourage it. I think it can be handled better.