Do you allow the appeal?

[Publius]

To deny this run, you have to do one of two things:

1. Without an appeal, ignore the universally accepted (except, apparently, by a few posters here) concept that passing a base, absent an appeal, constitutes a legal touch.

2. With an appeal, rule the runner out for missing the base. To do that, you have to uphold a missed-base appeal on a runner who came back and touched the base prior to the appeal. There is nothing in the rules that states, or even suggests, that the touch was not legal.

Good luck with either of those.

[greymule]

There is nothing in the rules that states . . .

These words apply to a whole lot of plays that require consideration, analysis, explanation, and ruling outside the rule book. As just one of countless examples, nowhere does the OBR book state specifically whether or not a runner's yelling, "Hey!" while running behind a fielder under a popup constitutes interference. If all we had were the rule book, we could legitimately conclude that it is a form of interference, but through deliberation outside the rule book, we know that it is not.

The U.S. Constitution—the "rules" of our country—can be fit into a small pamphlet, yet what has been written about interpreting those rules could fill a library, and the debate continues to this day. In the same way, the volume of material written about how to rule on plays far outweighs the rules themselves. There's a reason that even with the J/R, Evans, MLBUM, PBUC, BRD, there are still plays nobody's sure about.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by greymule

There is nothing in the rules that states . . .

These words apply to a whole lot of plays that require consideration, analysis, explanation, and ruling outside the rule book. As just one of countless examples, nowhere does the OBR book state specifically whether or not a runner's yelling, "Hey!" while running behind a fielder under a popup constitutes interference. If all we had were the rule book, we could legitimately conclude that it is a form of interference, but through deliberation outside the rule book, we know that it is not.

The U.S. Constitution—the "rules" of our country—can be fit into a small pamphlet, yet what has been written about interpreting those rules could fill a library, and the debate continues to this day. In the same way, the volume of material written about how to rule on plays far outweighs the rules themselves. There's a reason that even with the J/R, Evans, MLBUM, PBUC, BRD, there are still plays nobody's sure about.

Three quotes come to mind:

"The rulebook contains a finite number of rules for an infinite number of possibilities." Tim Stevens

"Some times you just have to umpire." Jim Evans

"You've got to remember, that these are just simple farmers, these are people of the land, the common clay of the new west. You know . . . morons."
The Waco Kid

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by GarthB

"You've got to remember, that these are just simple farmers, these are people of the land, the common clay of the new west. You know . . . morons."
The Waco Kid

Hahahahaha. My favorite movie. Not only is it authentic frontier gibberish...

[Robert E. Harrison]

In SC we still call the old fed rule that has the umpire call all dead ball appeals (missed bases or no tag ups) immediately upon the completion of play and time called. Would we call this play any differently?

[justanotherblue]

So we seem to be lost on acquiring vs. touching a base with continual action, or in Roders words unrelaxed action. I haven't read any post that ignores the fact that one can acquire a base or score a run when he only passes the base, leaving the runner vulnerable to appeal as Publius seems to suggest, what's being lost and subsuquently ignored is the time play involved in the touch of said missed base in relation to the time of the third out and the time of the touch of the plate. So with that said, I need another cup of coffee, I think I'll add some Baileys to it, and continue on with the day.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Publius

To deny this run, you have to do one of two things:

1. Without an appeal, ignore the universally accepted (except, apparently, by a few posters here) concept that passing a base, absent an appeal, constitutes a legal touch.

2. With an appeal, rule the runner out for missing the base. To do that, you have to uphold a missed-base appeal on a runner who came back and touched the base prior to the appeal. There is nothing in the rules that states, or even suggests, that the touch was not legal.

Good luck with either of those.

Your principle 1 is not correct: passing a base is treated as a legal touch, it does not constitute a legal touch.

And that's not the issue here anyway. The issue is: to take the hard case (runner passes plate, defense records third out, runner returns and touches plate), did the runner score when he passed the plate or when he returned to touch it?

You seem to think that he scores when he passes the plate. On your view, then, the only reason to return to touch the plate is to prevent the appeal.

I disagree: a runner scores when he touches the plate before 3 are out (4.09a). If he misses the plate, he'll be treated as touching it, but he's liable to being called out on appeal. If he returns to correct his mistake, the time of scoring is then when he touches, not when he passed the plate (since passing the plate was a mistake, I'm not giving the offense credit for it). Since the time of scoring is now after the third out, no run.

[Steven Tyler]

I'm trying to figure how some posters are implying if the runner goes past the plate he is good to go if he doesn't try to return to touch base and no appeal by the defense. By this, they are essentially saying the runner has touched the base. Now, they want to reverse themselves into a time play by implying that when the runner goes back to touch the plate they would take the run off the board. This play is either an appeal or time play, not an either/or play.

If you're going to make it a time play call the runner out the moment the B/R is out, even if the runner doesn't return to touch the plate and make the appeal process a moot point. By going back and touching the plate, all the runner has done in actually touch the plate twice if being considered past the plate is considered a touch until upon appeal.

This clearly is an appeal play once the runner went past home, not a time play.

[_Bruno_]

i'm not sure about correcting the baserunning mistake after the 3rd out,
but lets say we got 1 out and the play happends.
when would you count the run of R2 ? when he reached home plate or when he touched it ?

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

This clearly is an appeal play once the runner went past home, not a time play.

But what if no appeal is made, Steve? That's the issue here. If no appeal is made, passing the plate without touching it is equivalent to actually touching it, as weird as that may sound.

Your statement above would cause problems if, for example, R3 leaves early on a fly ball caught when another runner is nailed for the third out and no appeal is made on R3, who touched the plate before that third out was made. Do we not count his run because it's an "appeal play," even though no appeal was ever made? After all, he didn't "legally" score.

[PeteBooth]

Using the OP as an example under the OLD FED rule, the run would not have counted.

After playing action was complete, we would have called R3 out for missing home base hence no run would count.

In SC we still call the old fed rule that has the umpire call all dead ball appeals

Then it stands to reason SC still enforces the accidental appeal. Is that the case?

Pete Booth

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by UMP25

But what if no appeal is made, Steve? That's the issue here. If no appeal is made, passing the plate without touching it is equivalent to actually touching it, as weird as that may sound.

Your statement above would cause problems if, for example, R3 leaves early on a fly ball caught when another runner is nailed for the third out and no appeal is made on R3, who touched the plate before that third out was made. Do we not count his run because it's an "appeal play," even though no appeal was ever made? After all, he didn't "legally" score.

I'm scoring the run. They do actually have to touch the base to make the run count, but if they don't, the defense has to make a proper appeal first. Like I said, once he is past the plate, the time play is removed. I don't care if he goes back and touches the base. All the defense can do if he doesn't go back and touch the base is an advantageous fourth out appeal of a missed base. I trying to figure why some will count a run if no touch and no appeal, but will reinstate a time play if runner touches the plate and wipe out a run. That's what makes no sense to me.

I don't know of a rule that says a runner cannot "legally" correct a base running mistake after a third out. That's the defense's job, not the umpire's.

I think the Evans interpretation makes much more sense than what Roder is getting at.

I would have the runner out only on proper appeal.

[UMP25]

I'm not talking about an appeal here. I just wanted to know what you'd do if NO appeal was made. In the OP, you made it sound like no touch = no run if no appeal was made.

[soundedlikeastrike]

Consider:

Same play, BR "safe" on the close tag @ 2nd. Runner misses HP and continues to the dugout say, 1/2 way. ODB say's "you missed it", runner attempts to return as F2 signals for ball from F6, F6 starts his wind up to nail the runner at HP, realizes he won't get him, good pump fake, drawing BR off the bag, SS whirls and tags BR for the 3rd as the returning runner is airborne over, but not yet touching HP plate.. You scoring this?

I believe Garth mentioned it's in a "90's version of JR". Same in my 05 and 06 versions.

It seems, from what I've seen, the only interp, opinion, offered guidance, or whatever you wanna consider it,,offered in publication, say's "wave it off"..

Why not conisder it as another opportunity for an out..remember, we, ah, er, I mean, "they" only get so many.

I'm in the same boat as many here, feel I'm "interjecting" on a missed base appeal by calling the runner out, if feels like it.., but, the above example sways me back to, ha, your out..

If I get back to coaching here in a couple years (fingers crossed, the twin grand studs are now 5).

This play happens; I'm on offense, I'll turn rat and demand the run is scored and protest if I don't get my way..professionally of course, and yeah, I'd do it right. Have em log it, shut my screaming parents and Ac's up, and move on.
Hoping that the protest review board could find nothing in writing other than a rule book, with no other published records to assist in rendering an educated decision. Nah, I wouldn't, but it be tempting...

I'm on defense and they allow the run I'd protest even louder (only in confiction, not audibly).
And, quote my widely accepted, umpire training manual, to the "protest committee", not pull it out of my "gear bag right there", nor "look blue, I've been an umpire for years....

Great topic. So ask your trainers, bring this one up at your next meeting.
We gotta hurry it's almost spring, a consenous would be nice. So what references are being used out there for training at your respective associations?

[jicecone]

OBR 4.09a "Here is a general statement that covers:
When a runner misses a base and a fielder holds the ball on a missed base, or on the base originally occupied by the runner if a fly ball is caught, and appeals for the umpire’s decision, the runner is out when the umpire sustains the appeal; all runners may score if possible, except that with two out the runner is out at the moment he misses the bag, if an appeal is sustained as applied to the following runners."

OBR Rule 7.10 Comment: If two runners arrive at home base about the same time and the first runner misses home plate but a second runner legally touches the plate, the runner is tagged out on his attempt to come back and touch the base or is called out, on appeal, then he shall be considered as having been put out before the second runner scored and being the third out. Second runner’s run shall not count, as provided in Rule 7.12."

I am open for correction but, don't both of these imply (maybe not clearly), that the time the out is registered is considered to be at the time of the miss of the bases.

So in the case of a timing play does this not define the moment we are using as a consideration point here. If the runner is out at the time of the miss, then unless otherwise indicated he is also safe at that moment too. Although the officiall will not indicate this untill the runner has officially satisfy the requirement to touch the base or as otherwise allowed in the rules.

IMO I have (A), the runner as safe here for the play indicated in the first thread.