appeal after overthrow
 

sit : R1, 0 outs,
R1 steals on the pitch. der ball is hit to RF where F9 catches the ball and throws to F3 but the throw is wild and goes into the dugout and R1 standing on 2ndbase (R2 thought there were 2 outs or what else).

was this already an "appeal overtrhow" or can the defense still appeal against R1 (if he does not retouch) ?

This was "continuous action." The defense can still make an appeal.

It's not an appeal.

i read the PBUC and J/R for this but couldnt find any examples that cover this.

7.08(d): Any runner is out when...he fails to retouch his base after a fair or foul ball is legally caught before he, or his base, is tagged by a fielder. He shall not be called out for failure to retouch his base after the first following pitch, or any play or attempted play. This is an appeal play.

Another interesting point is that the very next modification they should make to the OBR is changing 7.10 (b)(2) to clarify that if R1 decides to retouch first base in this situation after the ball has become dead, this would be ok (the way it reads now is that if you were anywhere beyond 2nd base when the ball becomes dead, you can't retouch first, which is incorrect as per MLBUM. However, i think this is the actual rule in FED ball).

It says "This is an appeal play" to distinguish it from a force play and any consequences as to whether or not a run scores under 4.09 exceptions. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

PLUS, the throw described is obviously NOT the appeal. It was just a "head off the runner" throw. The appeal would have to be made by tagging first or tagging the runner who is now on 2B. The throw went to 3B. It is not an appeal.

Plays made during continuous action do not negate the right to appeal. Otherwist the fefense would have to stop attempts for other outs and go for an appeal immediately.

No - it says you can't return if you touch the next base when to ball is dead. The ball doesn't die until it goes into DBT. As long as you don't touch the next base after it dies, you can return.

You are corrrect about the FED version.

the throw went to F3 after a fly ball caught. it wasn't heading off the runner, it was thrown behind him. why else would they throw to F3 other than to make an appeal? it's continuous action if they are making a play on an advancing runner. in this case they are making a play on a retreating runner...an appeal play. the ball is thrown away and goes into the dugout. i'm not going to allow them to appeal again. i haven't investigated this, i'm just thinking like i would in a game situation. that is the exact argument i would give when the skipper comes out to see why i won't let him appeal. this is subject to protest if you'd like.

Sorry Bobby, your incorrect. This is continuous action and has no bearing on whether a runner is advancing or retreating to a base. Until there is a definitive break in the action or the ball becomes dead the defense may make as many plays as desired without losing the right to appeal.

I made the same argument here a few weeks ago, and I too was shot down. Apparently this is considered continuous action, although for the life of me I don't see how. I argued that the only reason for the throw to F3 was an obvious appeal play, but the consensus is that it falls under continuous action and does not represent the actual appeal.

They said that if the ball had been returned to F1 and then thrown out of play they would lose the right to appeal. I still think it's a bad interpretation to allow an appeal after throwing the ball in the dugout but I guess I'm wrong in this case.

as i stated, feel free to protest. the burden, however, is on you to prove it. if i'm working the game and that happens, you've got my ruling and interpretation. put your coaching shoes on (or TD shoes, whatever) and make your case for upholding a protest and overturning the ruling. no "he said she said" no "this is what we do around here" or " not trying to pick a fight, just asking you to prove it. i said before i hadn't done any research yet, but now i have. this could get interesting...

If you mean 'F3' and 'defense' here, then I agree with you. This explanation is much clearer, and it is not entailed by your earlier, cryptic, "This is not an appeal," which flatly contradicts the plain text of the rule.

Well, I agree with Bobby here. There is no rhyme or reason to throw to F3 other than to appeal that R1 left early on the catch. As stated in the scenario, R1 was stealing on the pitch so F9 is either appealing or a complete idiot! So when the coach comes out and finishes his tirade, I'm simply going to tell him that it was an appeal in my judgment and he can do as he wishes from that point.

Furthermore, this may be considered "continuous action" at a LL level due to lack of baseball knowledge and training but at the HS and above level I do not agree.

Regards

[/QUOTE]

From the OP

R1 is standing on second base when the ball went into DBT

You as an umpire do the following:

1. TIME as soon as the ball enters DBT

2. I would point to the runner and say Number 23 Home (assumption is that since R1 was stealing he had achieved second base at the TOT)

Now as an umpire we simply observe. R1 now R2 goes on to touch third and now touch home. He did not correct his base running mistake

After the PU puts the ball back into play F1 throws to F3 and appeals that R1 left early.

Why would you not allow the defense to appeal? Just because the defense erred on their throw to F3 doesn't relieve the runner of their base running responsibilities.

Pete Booth

Pete, the side of this argument ozzy and i are on is that the defense erred on it's attempt to appeal already by throwing the ball out of play. there is only one reason to throw to first base in this situation, to appeal that R1 had not retouched. and, by rule, if the dfense errs on it's attempt to appeal, they lose their right to appeal, so oz and i are not going to allow another attempt. again, i'm inviting a protest, but you've got to tell me what, exactly, you are protesting, and present your argument for the protest to be accepted. if you do that i will consult with my partner and then we'll decide whether or not to accept the protest.

Here is the thread in which my very same argument was shot down and the reasoning behind it. I'm still in Bobby and Ozzy's camp with this one.

http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...tinuous+action

bobby and ozzy,

The defense only loses its right to appeal if they throw the ball out of play during an appeal attempt that occurs after the continuous action of the play during which the baserunninig infraction occurred has ended.

While this is not explicitly spelled out inthe text of the rules, it is supported by the following from the MLBUM (my emphasis):

JM

[/QUOTE]

Hey it's Friday so let's have some fun. I'll play the rat (what else is new)

Here's the call on the field

1. Time
2. Number 23 awarded home (2 bases from TOT and again assumption is that R1 now R2 was already on second base at TOT)

Upon receiving his base running awards R2 does not go back and re-touch first base but goes directly to and touches 3rd and home in order.

The PU puts ball back in play and F1 throws to F3 appealing that R1 left early.

Your ruling on the field is that the appeal would not be allowed.


Me: "Blue can I have TIME"

You: Ok skip We have Time

Me: Why are you not allowing the appeal

You: You give me your explanation

Me: I hear what you are saying but R1 did not fulfill his base running obligations

You: Skip that's my ruling

Me: Ok Blue I protest

Now I guess we will see what happens

The play involved "continuous action" and therefore, IMO, the defense does not lose their right to appeal. In addition just because the defense erred does not relieve the base runner from fullfilling his base running responsibilities.

I think J/R and Carl's BRD mention "continuous action" when it comes to appeals so I will do some research over the weekend.

This is similar to the following:

B1 hits a rope to F9, misses first base and realizes his mistake on route to second base. He retreats back to first where the ball from F9 sails over F3's head and into DBT.

The umpire calls Time and makes the awards. If B1 does not go back and re-touch first base he can be out on appeal.

Pete Booth

JM,

that was the argument i was waiting for. good work. now look farther down on the page. do you have a #6? i'm in the PBUC manual, not the MLBUM, so it may be different, though our #3's are the same.

Could the rest of us who don't have the PBUC manual get in on this too? How about posting the citation?

bobby,

The MLBUM #6 contains the "unmistakeable" provision:

(Steve, I posted the text of #3 in my post above.)

If the defense catches a batted ball in flight and then throws in the direction of a base that a runner obviously left early and has a retouch obligation, that qualifies in my mind as an "unmistakeable act".

In the discussion of missed base and retouch appeals, J/R also adds the proviso that the runner is subject to appeal if the appeal occurs (again, my emphasis)

JM

JM...so aren't you proving our point or making our argument for us? If it is an unmistakeable appeal, why doesn't it count as an attempt of an appeal when F8 throws it into the dugout? Doesn't #6 here clarify that the appeal is not part of continuous action?

the #6's are the same in both. so what it comes down to is the definition of continuous action, which i haven't found anywhere. my argument is that continuous action is qualified as play being made on advancing runners. this allows the defense to continue making plays on runners without being subject to losing their right to appeal. it should not, however, act as a safety blanket that would let them err on this unmistakable attempted appeal and still be allowed to appeal after throwing it out of play.

Exactly my point also! Most people do not realize that the "double up" is really an appeal play. Well, the throw from F9 (in my judgment) is an appeal, not a continuous action play. therefore, if you wouldn't allow a 2nd appeal on the "double up" from F4, why would you allow a 2nd appeal because F9 made the throw. The whole argument on this is "coach's thinking" which as we know is not usually correct. Furthermore, once I say "in my judgment", you are pretty much "dead" as a coach.

Regards

bobby and Steve,

That's not how I read it.

The only place I know of where the term "continuous action" is defined is in J/R:

The way I read the MLBUM and J/R is that the defense cannot lose its right to appeal during the continous action of the play during which the baserunning infraction occurred. Once action has relaxed (i.e., the "continuous action" of the play has ended) the defense can lose its right to appeal by throwing a pitch, making a play on a runner, or throwing the ball out of play as part of an appeal attempt.

JM

ending when the runners have ceased trying to advance! there it is!

JM I think it's time to ask Rick on this one.

Do you have Rick's E-mail address and then we can get some authoritative opinion on this matter.

IMO, you cannot let R1 "off the hook" for not completing his base running responsibilities. Since we had continious action the defense does not lose their right to appeal.

Pete Booth

Gentlemen,

Perhaps the following 2 case plays from the MLBUM will convince you that the defense does not lose its right to appeal if it throws the ball out of play in a "continuous action" appeal attempt:

and....

Now to me, it is obvious that in both of these plays the defense threw the ball out of play during a "Continuous action" appeal attempt and, according to the MLBUM, the defense still has the opportunity to appeal should the runner fail to complete his baserunning obligation while the ball is dead.

Clearly, according to the MLBUM, the defense has NOT lost its right of appeal.

JM

the first scenario is continuous action as the play is being made on the runner going into third. that play is not relevant to this discussion. the second play, however, is very much like what we have been discussing. i don't agree with it, but if that's what it says in the book, then the protest will be upheld. i have an email in on this sitch as well. i'll let you know what he comes back with. good discussion on this one, y'all!

Game, set, and match! I think this is enough evidence to prove the point, along with the definition of continuous action.

Nice work sleuthing through the MLBUM, JM!

This play is not an appeal as in our scenario. The ball is following the runner but it does explain what happens when a ball goes out of play and the runner's responsibility.

This play is very similar to ours in that it is an unquestionable appeal on the runner. Again, a good example of how to handle a ball out of play and the runner's responsibilities. In our scenario, the award to R1 would be home but R1 must return to 1st base, then proceed to his award. If R1 failed to do this, the defense would be able to appeal as this is not part of the original appeal (confused yet?).

I do not have a MLBUM so I will have to wait for Bobby to get an answer on this.

Regards

I have to agree with Bobby, Ozz and SDS's initial gut, no further appeal is allowed. Because of the error. In 7.10 end notes....


"Successive appeals may not be made on a runner at the same base. If the defensive team on its first appeal errs, a request for a second appeal on the same runner at the same base shall not be allowed by the umpire. (Intended meaning of the word “err” is that the defensive team in making an appeal threw the ball out of play. For example, if the pitcher threw to first base to appeal and threw the ball into the stands, no second appeal would be allowed.)"

The defense clearly made an error in it's initial appeal. Although in the description, the rule book uses the pitcher, a clear catch and throw behind the runner in an attempt to appeal the runners leaving the base early, wouldn't this also meet this criteria?? To allow a second appeal is in clear violation of this section of the rule. I too, will sit along the sideline and wait.

[QUOTE]Here is the Case Play again

There is no second appeal.

The Case play is practically the same as this OP

R1 Hit and run line drive to F6 who throws to first.

Let's stop: Everyone knows F6 is throwing to F3 to double up R1 just like the OP

However, F6 throws the ball into DBT.

We have 2 errors on the play.

The defense threw the ball into DBT so they are penalized

The runner did not tag up properly. Upon receiving the award R1 MUST correct his base running mistake or he could be called out on appeal as the case play indicates.

Now after the PU puts the ball back into play, if F1 for some uknown reason should throw over F3's head and into DBT while appealing then you would not allow another appeal.

FWIW in FED the point is moot.

Pete Booth

if you don't mind i have a question here, i think the F9 throw is an appeal play, so you know where i stand. now let's just say the throw comes into F4, the runner is at second, F4 now throws to F1 standing behind the mound, continuous action, pitcher saw that R1, now R2 "left early", he throws to F3, ball goes into DBT. i think that is also an obvious appeal, and would not let them appeal after the ball is put back in play. how did i do?

steve

I guess it's the continual action concept that had me struggling on this one. From reading you post again, you have a good argument. I still wasn't agreeing with it though. So..I started fishing...been through PBUC manual, OBR, J/R, JEA and finally broke out the JEAPU manual and guess what I found...yep.. the exact op play!! And damn if it doesn't agree with you. I guess that's why we are discussing this stuff, to keep it fresh, dust off the cob webs. I won't forget it again. I bow to your greatness....good thing I got two months to get it back.:o

Thank god the beers good and cold, I'm gonna be here a while:D

while i still whole-heartedly disagree with the enforcement of this rule, it is indeed considered part of continuous action. kudos to those on both sides for presenting good arguments.

After receiving a copy of the "sacred book", I am able to read it for myself (close to 20 times). I am convinced that this play was in fact continuing action (I too, do not like it but that is the ruling) so I stand with a Sam Adams and salute all those who called it.

Now for a special toast to the provider of the "sacred book" (you know how you are and I owe you one) - tip 'o the hat and down the hatch!

Regards

Three days later, you got it right.

Better to find out here than by a protest committee.........;)

Appeal plays come in two flavors. They are "relaxed" and "unrelaxed" appeals. Often the unrelaxed appeal is called a "continuous action appeal." That means that playing action has not ended yet on the play. Relaxed appeals happen after the the ball has been dead and when the pitcher has the ball and the umpire says, "play." Also, relaxed appeals happen after all playing action has ended, runners are stopped on their bases.

The rule that says the opportunity to appeal is lost of the defense errs upon making the appeal i.e. throws the ball out of play, only applies to the relaxed appeal. If an attempt to retire a runner on an appeal that he left his base too soon before a fly ball was touched, as in this OP, results in the ball being thrown out of play, the defense does not lose the right to make that appeal again once the ball has been made live.

However, in the original post, R1 was on 2B when the ball went OOP. That means he does not have the right to return to 1B to correct his baserunning infraction (left his base too soon before a fly ball was touched.) We do not call him out. We allow him to go back to retouch 1B if he wants to. We award him HP if we judge he was at 2B at the TOT, or 3B if he was not at 2B yet at the TOT. If the defense is smart enough, and they know the rules, even if R1 went back to 1B to retouch the base, they could appeal that he left 1B too soon and R1 would be declared out. His retouch of 1B means nothing if he was already on or beyond 2B when the ball went OOP.

Sorry, Richard, that's not true under OBR. Under OBR, the runner is allowed to return unless he touches the "next" base *after* the ball goes out of play.

In FED, you are correct -- the runner is not allowed to (legally) return if he's on (or beyond) the "next" base *when* the ball goes out of play.

whats the call, if R1 is sliding into 3rdbase when the ball becomes dead. i mean, he starts to slide, then the ball becomes dead and as soon as he pops up from sliding, he can't return to 1stbase ?

Yes, that's the rule.

This restriction in FED only applies to situations where a runner has to return to retouch a base that was missed or left too soon before a fly ball was caught. If R2 was stealing 3B and is sliding into 3rd base just as the ball goes OOP because it is hit foul, he can legally go back to 2B.

In FED that would be correct.

However, I wouldn't be too concerned about it seeming unfair to the runner. I would bet that not one HS coach (except maybe those who also umpire) knows the rule. A runner who is on or beyond the next base when the ball becomes dead can not LEGALLY go back and retouch the base he missed or left oo soon. However, he can still go back and physically retouch the base. The retouch is meaningless under the rules, but I would bet that not one HS player or coach (except maybe those who also umpire) would realize that the retouch was not a legal retouch and the runner could still be successfully appealed after he was done taking his base award. However, since it is unlikely that they don't know this rule, they would see the meaningless retouch, believe it was legal, and they would not appeal.

To be honest, it 12 years of doing HS ball I have never seen a runner get caught on or beyond the next base that was missed or left too soon before a fly ball was caught.

I realize the distinction, for some reason I thought this thread was a FED situation.

the "next base" is the next base from where he is at at the time the ball becomes dead not the next base from the base he left early or missed.

example 1: R2 fly ball to F7. R2 leaves early and slides into third. throw from F7 gets by F5 and goes out of play. at the time the ball went out of play, R2 was already at 3B, making his next base home. he can legally go back and retouch 2B while ball is dead before he touches home.

example 2: R1, R2, 0 outs. ball hit to F9. both runners running on contact. after R2 has rounded 3B F9 throws behind R1 to F3. Ball goes out of play with R2 between 3B and home, R1 was between 1B and 2B. runners awarded home and third.

due to their positions when the ball went out of play R2's next base was home and R1's next base was 2B. R2 may legally return and touch 2B before he touches home, his "next base."

There is, indeed, a "second appeal." The first one occurred during continuous action. Regardless of whether the ball was thrown out of play, under OBR, a separate and distinct appeal is permitted. How is this different from the OP's scenario of F9 throwing to F3 to nail R1 who had left early?

There is a confusion of samantics here.

When a ball is throw to a base to "double-off" a runner who left a base too during continuos playing action, this is a appeal, but many folks do not think of it as an appeal. Many folks only consider the "relaxed" type of appeal where it starts at the mound with F1 stepping off to throw the ball to a base, as a true appeal.

Strictly speaking, under the rules both actions are appeal plays.

However, even though the rules are not very clear on this, if a ball is thrown OOP during an attempt to "double-off" a runner who left a base too during continuos playing action, the right to make that appeal again when the ball becomes live is NOT lost. When the ball become live then the pitcher can step off and make the "relaxed" appeal.

If a ball is thrown OOP during an appeal that is "relaxed" the right to appeal that runner at that base is LOST.

Since the site's messaging doesn't seem to work any more, I'd like to post a question publicly to Richard Siegel.

Richard, where are you in Central NJ? I'm in Pennington, three miles north of the Bloods and Crips that control the capital city.

I sent a PM about 5pm.