Unless the defense lodges a proper appeal on R2 missing the plate he's assumed to have scored. So, no appeal in the play as you've presented it, run scores on the timing play.

I know that's the rule in the general case, but I remember reading a case play in which Abel misses the plate and then Baker is out at home for the third out as Abel is returning in an obvious attempt to correct his miss. The "answer" was that Abel's run didn't count. No appeal required. This stuck in my mind because in a semipro game 30 years ago I was actually involved in that play as "Abel."

I was returning to touch the plate when the next runner was put out, largely because he saw me returning and slowed down. (Needless to say, I wasn't the most popular guy on the team for a while.) The ump called the runner out and then pointed to me and said, "And you don't count." When I came up to bat again, I asked him why a miss of home wouldn't be an appeal play, and he responded, "Well, maybe you're right." (I am very thankful we won the game, because it saved me 30 years of nightmares.)

So I was confident that I had been robbed, and looked for substantiation. But in doing so I found (wish I could remember where) a case play identical to the play that happened, and it said the run would not count, the key being that the runner was obviously trying to correct his miss.

Steven Tyler, you posed the play and say you know the answer. What do you say it is?

Is it possible that the case play you recall is one dated back when we used to call a runner out in FED for missing a base without waiting for a proper appeal?


Tim.

Is it possible that the case play you recall is one dated back when we used to call a runner out in FED for missing a base without waiting for a proper appeal?

That's a good surmise, since after the third out the runner couldn't correct his miss, but I don't believe so. I didn't see any Fed publication until many years later. I recollect that this was an OBR play, but I certainly didn't have any official OBR case book and was unaware even of the existence of supporting publications like J/R, PBUC, etc.

I have some recollection of its being in the Sporting News, when they used to have "Hal the Referee" of the Cleveland Plain Dealer to explain rules and pose and answer questions. It also could have been in one of those "Knotty Problems" books or something similar.

Maybe it hinges on just how obvious the miss was and whether it was clear to everybody in the park that the runner was returning to correct a miss.

PS. I do specifically remember writing to Hal the Referee about somebody's claim that, in OBR, a popup that lands a few feet short of 2B and then spins backward across the line between home and 1B into foul territory is a fair ball. Hal either knew the answer himself or asked a MLB umpire, and subsequently published the answer in the Sporting News: foul ball, because it did not go past a base.

This one has me stumped then. I don't see how the run wouldn't score absent a proper appeal. A proper appeal has to be initiated by the defense so as to be unmistakeable to the umpire. I've never heard of an appeal being upheld because everyone knew, or thought they knew there was a miss, yet didn't say or do anything to announce the appeal.


Tim.

This one has me stumped then.

But you might be 100% correct. All I'm going by is memory of a case play reinforced by the fact that I was involved personally in a similar play.

If it was indeed Hal the Referee, who can say the he was correct or even that the MLB umpire he asked was correct? And who can vouch for the accuracy of Knotty Problems or any of a number of similar books?

Choices
 

2006 BRD discusses both possibilities. I would add that scoring the run appears to be more practical than the theoretical alternative of erasing the run. Someone brighter than me may explain when one choice is favored over the other.

With two out, R2 scores from second on B1's single, but fails to touch the plate. B1 becomes the third out when he tries to go to second. Right after the out, R2 returns and touches the plate.

Ruling: Legal. The run scores and the missed base cannot be appealed after R2 touches it.

Ruling: Legal. The run scores and the missed base cannot be appealed after R2 touches it.

Where is this ruling from?

I believe it was stated earlier in this thread. You can't have an out until you have an appeal. R2 went back and touched the base so it cannot be appealed. Once the runner has gone past the base, the runner is considered to have acquired it, and until upon proper appeal, is safe. The timing part is not relevant for a proper appeal once the runner went back and touched it.

No advantageous fourth out.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by BigUmp56
I don't know about others might handle it, but depending on how he came running out of the dugout he just might find himself on the way to the parking lot. I'm not fond of coaches who run at me to argue a call.


Tim.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Originally Posted by fitump56
Even if they stay outside the baselines? What difference does it make if they run, walk or roll as long as they stay outside the lines?

I find coaches who run to the lines funny, like a carnival show, always brings a smile to my face. :D :D

Bob if you feel threatened or upset when a coach runs to a foul line acting like an ***, OK by me. I don't so as long as they stay off the field, I'm not as thin skinned as BigUmp566, as I said, I find them humurous.

People on this forum get some kind of kiddie thrill announcing how in control they are, tough on managers, etc. I think its all bluster and rare action myself but, hey, let them live their fantasies, makes me no repose.

Operative word is interpreted. I don't interpret coaches who stay off the field as any big deal and this "showing up", I really never bought into much of that either. Asses who act like asses are asses. If another player or participant or fan looks at an *** being an *** and somewhow comes to the conclusion that I am the ***, know what, I just located another ***...sitting in the stands. Let me get bent out of shape worrying about how the asses view my skills? Don't think so.:eek:

I don't think it's being too thin skinned to expect a certain level of decorum from a coach or player. I'm sure the umpires that have had to follow behind you and clean up your mess would agree.


Tim.

Name one. Your idea of decorum and my idea of decorum are entirely different. Also, LL vs MSBL 18+ ball are two entirely different, waaaaaaay different, skill environments.

I enjoy a level of high respect and one reason is that I don't pull the plug on adult coaches who actually may have a purpose and point to their anxiety. Your experiences must be different.

Your turn. See if you can refrain from including underhanded, personal slights, it would be appreciated. :D :D

It's nothing personal, believe me. It's a fact that umpires who allow the games participants to act like total idiots because it amuses them leave a mess behind that the next umpire will have to clean up. Your idea of respect and mine are just different I suppose.


And as far as the MSBL league you're so fond of, you can have it. Working mens leagues where too many of the players are overgrown adolescents with poor attitudes is not for me.

Tim.

I believe it was stated earlier in this thread. You can't have an out until you have an appeal. R2 went back and touched the base so it cannot be appealed. Once the runner has gone past the base, the runner is considered to have acquired it, and until upon proper appeal, is safe. The timing part is not relevant for a proper appeal once the runner went back and touched it.

No advantageous fourth out.

Well, I can see the logic of that argument, and you might well be right, but there's also logic that says you can't correct a miss after 3 are out, combined with the fact that the runner obviously attempted to correct his miss. To me that adds a wrinkle that makes this play not quite fit neatly into a black-and-white rule. I was wondering whether you had taken your question from a case play or a ruling. Apparently the BRD 2006 "discusses both possibilities."

Incorrect, try again.