Do you allow the appeal?
 

Here's a good one from the other forum (simplified a bit):

2 outs, R2. Batter singles, R2 crosses but misses the plate just before the batter is thrown out at 2nd for the 3rd out. R2 then comes back and touches the plate. The defense appeals.

The choices (unless someone comes up with another one):

A. Score the run! R2 "scored" on the time play when he crossed the plate. He corrected his baserunning error by touching the plate, therefore the appeal is not allowed. Any appeal would have to be made before R2 touched the plate.

B. Take the run off! Since R2 didn't correct his baserunning error until after the 3rd out, his run does not count.

B.

wow, this is a good one. do we have the advantageous 4th out here? Honestly, I'm leaning toward not allowing the run...can a runner retouch after the third out? I'm leaning toward no...I say "B"

No run.

R2's run counts on the timing play because he passed the plate. When he returns to correct his baserunning error and touch the plate, the 3rd out has already been recorded. When he touches the plate, wave off the run.

If R2 does NOT return and the defense leaves the field, score the run. If R2 does not return and the defense appeals, grant the appeal.

As for the title question: there's nothing for the defense to appeal in the original situation.

I'm assuming OBR here.

In FED, "A" count the run. The defense has to tag the plate or the runner before he retags the plate.

In OBR, according to J/R, this is a time play, no run counts as the runner touched the plate after the 3rd out was made. Now, Rick Roder offered a contradictory interp on this, and you would count this run. I agree with CC, and would go with the J/R interp and not score the run.

A will always be the correct answer. Even if the runner has missed the plate, if he has passed the plate he is considered to have legally acquired until upon proper appeal. It is like any other base.

OBR: This is an out so long as the defense properly appeals prior to leaving the field (7.10 end notes 1 per JEA).

This is a timing play. For all intents and purposes R2 scored before the 3rd out at second base. Even though he did not touch the plate he is considered to have advanced to the plate prior to the out. Absent an appeal his run would count, and since he did retouch, no appeal is possible. Count the run.

Not quite! Defense may appeal until such time as they have left the field after the 3rd out. Sans appeal, we only care if runner comes back to touch HP or not if a following runner scores.

Interesting. So Rick Roder, the "R" in J/R, disagrees with the J/R?

How can you score a run when the third out has already been recorded? If the runner missed the plate, and immediatly returned to touch the dish after the third out he brings his efforts into a time play, hence no run. If he walks away, and prays it wasn't seen, he has a run until a proper appeal.

Not really. CC says so, but the "conflicting" opinion given by "R" is that a runner can return to touch home plate during a dead ball. Not really related to the OP situation, as far as I can see. CC's assertion in the 2004 BRD is in article 459, and CC gives a case play similar to OP that he says "R"'s ruling supports, but I don't see how.

If the defense appeals before the retouch we have an advantageous 4th out, no run scores.

My problem with J/R is that the touch of the plate, by itself, causes the run to be taken off. Think of the mechanic: "Score that run" on the time play when R2 crosses the plate ahead of the 3rd out at 2nd, then "unscore that run" when R2 touches the plate. No thanks.

In all 3 codes, a successful appeal of a baserunning error can only result in a runner being declared out, not a repositioning of events that have already transpired. If R2 has come back to touch the plate, there can be no successful appeal, since the baserunning error has been corrected. The PU would give the safe sign to rule on the appeal. I don't think there is any other option. My answer is A.

OK, however the runner has only aquired the base, he hasn't touched it, by returning, he turns it into a timing play, so how can the run score AFTER the thrid out? The only way the run can remain is if the defense doesn't appeal, and the runner doesn't return to touch the plate.

If the defense can nail the offense for an advantageous 4th out after the third out has occurred, why can't the offense correct a baserunning infraction after the 3rd out. It doesn't seem fair to me if you wave off the run since the defense can get advantageous outs after the 3rd out and the offense can't do anything about it...

It was a time play to begin with. R2 crossed (acquired) the plate ahead of the 3rd out. The touch doesn't create a new time play, it just corrects a baserunning error. I understand your disagreement on this point, but I still can't see how touching the plate can take off a run that has already scored (absent an appeal).

simple.. timing...timing...timing.... If the runner was attempting to return immediatley I would hope I was aware enough to see what was going on and wave off the run to begin with. As you said, it was/is a timing play to begin with, therefore, no run would score as the runner missed the plate, was attempting to touch it when the third out was made BEFORE he was able to touch the plate, no run scores. Regardless, it is a time play, the third out was made before the runner legally touched the plate. That's my story and I'm sticking to it1

If that's the case and the run should score, then why wouldn't a run score when the third out is made at first base when the runner scored BEFORE the out occured? Afterall, he legally touched the plate before the out.

Continuous Playing Action
 

An umpire must remain "neutral" in regards to a missed base, as not to alert the defense.

The last time by would not apply to the runner, the first time by scores the run.

A runner cannot nullify the score by any legal action, such as retouching a base in the belief he had missed the base.

You would lose this on protest and be relegated to machine pitch triple headers ... Just kidding on the punishment - Maybe :-)

A runner has acquired a base when reached or passed, so the only way to wipe the run off is a proper appeal.

Does anyone really need to answer?

Seriously, my guess is that the outcome of a protest is about 50-50. There isn't much authoritative opinion to provide guidance.

Several decades ago, I actually committed this offense as the runner who missed the plate and was returning to touch it when the third out was made, which in this case was the following runner out at home. The ump called the out at home, and then pointed to me and said, "And you don't count!"

What made it worse for me was that my returning caused the following runner to slow down. He would have been safe otherwise. So I created 2 outs and cost us 2 runs. (We won the game anyway, which is evidenced by the fact that I am still here to discuss the matter.)

The next time I came to bat, I asked the ump whether that shouldn't have been an appeal play, and he said, "Maybe you're right." So I assumed for decades that I had been robbed, until a discussion of the play arose on this board a while back. What was apparently agreed upon (at least in OBR), was that by attempting to return, the runner has acknowledged missing the plate, and his run does not score. (This is entirely different from touching a missed base during a dead ball, which is of course permitted in some cases.)

There's certainly a legitimate argument both ways, and maybe in NCAA or other codes there's a case play. But absent a definitive ruling, I would not count the run.

It seems to me somewhat analogous to the play in which the runner from 1B leaves too soon on a long fly that is caught, tries to make 3B, and slides in safe as the relay sails over F5 and into the stands. The umpire awards home, but if the runner returns to touch 1B, the umpire changes the award to 3B. In other words, the runner's acknowledgment of his error causes the umpire to recognize it and take it into account, without any sort of appeal on the part of the defense.

On the other hand, this well-known play seems to be evidence the other way:

Abel on 3B, Baker on 1B, two outs. Ground ball up the middle. F6 gloves the ball in front of 2B and attempts to tag the sliding Baker instead of tagging the base. The tag is missed, but Baker slides past the base without touching it. As Baker scrambles back to the base, F6 tags him before he is able to return. Abel scored before the tag was applied for the third out (a "time play"). The defense appeals that Baker missed 2B, hoping to get a force out—an advantageous fourth out—to negate the run.

Ruling: The appeal is denied and the run counts.

What am I missing here? We all know that no run can score if a runner misses the base he is forced to and is subsequently called out on appeal for the third out. Why in your scenario is the appeal denied?

R2 admits, that he missed the plate when he tried to retouch the plate. now, we have a time play. if he touches home before the 3rd out at 2ndbase, he scores, if not, he doesnt.
if he walks away from home, the defense has to appeal and get the fourth out.

What am I missing here? We all know that no run can score if a runner misses the base he is forced to and is subsequently called out on appeal for the third out. Why in your scenario is the appeal denied?

That play is from a quiz posted on the J/R website [www.rulesofbaseball.com/quiz1.html]. They acknowledge that there is not necessarily a definitive ruling on all the plays they offer, but they believe they are giving the rulings that Major League umpires would likely make on the field. I can't fault your logic, since if the runner missed 2B and was then thrown out at 3B, he could certainly then be called out on appeal for the advantageous fourth out force play on the miss of 2B.

However, J/R apparently figure that the rules governing a missed base—that the runner is in the immediate vicinity and attempting to return, so an appeal is technically not yet possible—simply put the runner out without liability to be put out again for the advantageous fourth out. (The fact that he initially slid past the bag establishes a "touch" for the purposes of scoring the run.)

from J/R

If a runner misses home plate and does not return to touch it, a time play is judged according to the time he passed the plate. If he returns to touch home, the passing of the plate is negated and the time play is judged according to the actual touch of the plate. EG: R2, two outs. The batter singles to center field. The throw to the plate is relayed to second base and R2 misses home plate just before the batter-runner is tagged out:
(a) If R2 proceeds to his dugout or position and all infielders leave fair territory (no appeal), R2's run counts. [NFHS 8.2.2n]
(b) If the defense appeals R2's miss of the plate, he is out and there is no run.
(c) If R2 returns to the plate and touches it after the out at second base, his "touch or pass" of home plate has then occurred after the third out, and cannot be counted; this is a time play.

So, admission of guilt creates a time play. But if the confession were obtained under duress, we have grounds for an appeal!

Sorry Bruno. Your interpretation is a good one. One of two good ones, each maintained by numerous experienced and learned umpires.

I wonder if the Gitmo inmates have formed a baseball league?

Then bring on your protest. It's a time play, the runners return to touch in continual action causes his run to not count. Yes, your right, the runner aquired the plate, however he didn't touch it, leaving himself vulnerable to appeal, there is a difference as we all should know. As I stated before, his only hope of his run remaining is if the defense didn't see his err and he keeps on going. A runner can't advance after the third out. If he can as you seem to insist, by allowing him to touch and count his run, give me the reference with case plays.




.

He aquired the bag, when he slid past the base, the continual action, with the fielder making a play on the runner as the runner attempted to get back to the bag, takes away the appeal, making this a time play.

JEA 5.06 C&U: "When the runner misses home plate but crosses it, for all legal purposes he shall be considered as having touched it. To nullify the run the defensive team must properly appeal."

The missed base appeal can be upheld only if the runner or the missed base was tagged prior to the runner's touching the base, unless a following runner had scored or the runner had touched a base beyond the missed base after the ball became dead.

Since this appeal must be denied by rule, count the run.

You're absolutely right, Publius, as regards missed-base appeals. But the play in question does not involve an appeal: it involves a change effected in the status of a runner by his attempt to return to correct an error. In this case, it doesn't matter whether the defense is even paying attention.

You're not going to find the answer to this play in black and white in the rule book.

I agree with your last sentence.

I'm just saying, given the events of the OP (which included, "the defense appeals"), this run scores regardless. When the runner passed the plate, absent an appeal he is deemed to have touched it. The run could be removed on proper appeal if the runner hadn't retouched, but he did.

If the defense doesn't appeal, the run counts since the runner passed the plate before the time-play third out was recorded. If the defense does appeal, the appeal is denied--the runner touched before the appeal was made.

Roder's position is a stretch under current rules and accepted interpretations. You would have to uphold an appeal in which the runner touched the base before the appeal was made. Or, absent an appeal, the umpire would be required to unilaterally ignore the JEA section I quoted.

Either of those, friends, is taking the sh&%ty end of the stick.

Mind if I stretch this out a bit?

At what point does the runner lose the right to return and touch? Is the criteria for abandonment the same as a dropped 3rd strike in each code?

I agree more with Publis in that you score the run regardless. Disallowing the run when the runner comes to retouch is not consistent with the rest of the bases, meaning the runner is "f'd" for missing the plate, whereas he can return and touch any other base without consequence. In this play:

If he retouches home, he's screwed. No run.
If he doesn't, he's screwed. Upon appeal, no run.

That doesn't make sense. That seems to be giving the D the advantage. They can nail runners after the 3rd out, but the offense can't correct their mistake after the 3rd out?

That doesn't seem right...

Yeah -- but who caused the problem in the first place? If R3 touches the plate, then we're not having this discussion.

IMO, there's support for any of the three calls, and it will take someone with more than an "opinion" to decide.

I consider J/R as more than just an opinion, as it is widely regarded as the OBR bible.

J/R says wave it off "if the touch is after the 3rd out".

I will guess 100% of the viewers here agree; if a touch of HP comes after the 3rd out, no run.

Seems simple;
1. you can score by "touching" the plate.
2. you can score by "passing" the plate., if no appeal.

I will go out on a limb and say you can't do both.

Runner heads for the DO, he's credited. "Touch" the plate, oooh, too late. To the top of the 13th we go.

OK, lets try this again. Lets start with the mechanics of the play. As the plate umpire, your watching R2 come across the plate as the play on the BR is being made. You notice the missed touch of the plate. You also notice that R2 is returning to touch the plate, so everyone in the stadium knows he missed the touch of the plate. No call should have been made so far during this play. You still have a time play going here, R2s action keep the time play in order. Now BR is out at 2B for the third out BEFORE the touch of the plate. Now I ask you, do you have a run. This is continual action. Publius edited JEA 5.06. So lets put it all in there;

Umpires must be alert for situations in which a runner crosses the plate at about the same time the third out is made on the bases. Unless the third out is a force out, this becomes a "time play" and the umpire must determine whether or not the runner crossed the plate before the third out was made. If he did cross the plate prior to the third out being made, the umpire should signal to the scorekeeper that the run counts. If the third out precedes the runner crossing the plate, the umpire shall likewise notify the scorer that the run does not count.

So how does the run score here? Yes, the runner did cross the plate, so he acquired the plate leaving himself vulnerable to an appeal. The runner attempting to correct his err during unrelaxed actions fails to touch the plate before the third out. In an attempt to protect himself and remove himself from jeapordy. Maybe I don't know what a timing play is, however it sure seems the third out happened BEFORE he touched the plate.

When you have a close play at the plate and a runner slides in avoiding the tag he has passed the plate, therefore acquired it by rule, just as our OP. However he attempts to touch the plate as the alert catcher tags him, he's out, different play yes, however not much different mechanic used in making the call in this play. The continual action keeps you from signaling safe and scoring the run only to remove it when the runner is tagged. Hence no signal and timing. Goes along with damn ...is it Ozzy or Garth, one play one call theory.

When can a runner return to touch his missed base? 7.08k tells us that a runner who overslides or running by and misses home plate and continues on toward his dugout can be put out by appeal, however it also says that if the runner returns immediatly to correct his actions he must be tagged.

So less than two out, his run would count since the there was no play on the runner at home. However the third out was recorded at 2B again BEFORE he could touch the plate, during his attempt to return and touch the plate. So again I ask,....How does the run count?

7.10 also tells us about an appeal on missing home plate. Here again, there is differentiation of attempting to return or adandoning his effort. 7.10 also tells us that no retouch may be allowed during a dead ball. MLBUM 5.3 echos these.

So, is the ball alive or dead after the third out? You tell me.

Bossman says there isn't consistancy with retouching home versus any other base, actually it is the same criteria, except were giving the offense a chance to score if the defense doesn't recognize the missed touch of the plate. Just as the rules are allowing the defense a chance to punish the offense for causing a problem to begin with. The only difference here is there are now three outs. What's the advantage to go back and touch a missed base when there are three outs recorded? The only difference here is were talking a run, versus a missed base. And yes as Bossman also points out, he's screwed, however as Bob also points out, the offense caused the problem to begin with.

Also as Graymule points out, were not aruging the miss or touch of the plate, were arguing if he touched the plate before the third out. Becuase of his change in status from crossing the plate to attempting to touch the plate BEFORE the third out was recorded, which he failed to do.

So again I ask, is the ball alive or dead after the third out is recorded?

If you use the NCAA rule set, a reasonable distance. So if he leaves the dirt and after taking a couple steps is told to go back and touch the plate, he's out of luck.

By whom? Not MLB.

The J/R, in my opinion, comes in second to the JEA, and while both can help provide an understanding of the rules, neither are an OBR Bible.

I can't name em all, but a bunch of umpires..

Okay, "bible" was kinda strong.

From JEA:
"JEA 5.06 C&U: "When the runner misses home plate but crosses it, for all legal purposes he shall be considered as having touched it. To nullify the run the defensive team must properly appeal." In the OP he didn't do this, he attempted to touch the plate

The missed base appeal can be upheld only if the runner or the missed base was tagged prior to the runner's touching the base, unless a following runner had scored or the runner had touched a base beyond the missed base after the ball became dead. He didn't miss it, he touched it too late

To be "legal" the runner has to touch home, before the 3rd out is made..

JustanotherUmp asks:
"is the ball alive or dead after the third out is recorded?"

I say, live..
Other wise; that last defensive player, before he crosses the foul line, would not be able to appeal a runner. Cause, the only way to put a ball back into play after time; F1, F2 and all the others in their places, etc. Then "play"..

It's certainly a well-respected opinion, I agree. But, it's still jsut an opinion -- it's not "law" -- that is, it's not an official source from any rules committee, rules book or case book.

And, he has been shown to be wrong before, and changed some of his writings in later editions to refelct thant knowledge.

Evans is just as much of a well-respected opinion. On this play, I've been told, he has a different opinion from J/R.

Coincidentally, I was reviewing some old files last night and came across a piece on 4th outs that Bob Pariseau wrote back in the 90's. This portion comes from the umpire manual used at the old Brinkman school which later became known as the J/R. I thought it might be of interest to some.

"If a runner misses home in passing it, AND [emphasis added] returns to touch it, the time he is considered to have touched the plate is when he actually does touch it. If he only passes the plate (failing to touch it), the time he 'touches or passes' the
plate is the time he passes it. E.G: R2, two outs. The batter singles to center field. The throw to the plate is relayed to second base and R2 misses home plate just before the batter-runner is tagged out: R2 is a run unless he becomes out on appeal for missing home. R2 is not a run if he returns to touch home after the out."

In other words, if the defense doesn't appeal and R2 ALSO doesn't return to retouch, the run scores. However, if R2 returns to retouch on his own the run does NOT score (R2 touched home after the third out was made). Thus if R2 returns while the defense is playing on him, he can't possibly score. Even if he evades the tag to retouch home, he'll have done so after the third out at 2B. So R2's only chance is to ignore the fact that he missed home and hope that the defense doesn't appeal his miss.

It's just possible that this is a HTBT. Suppose the runner is sprinting home and everybody in the park sees him miss the plate and run well past it. He turns around and scrambles back toward the plate as his team screams for him to touch it. The tag of the other runner occurs before the touch. We can even add: after effecting the third out, F3 sees what's happening at the plate and throws home a little too late to get the runner who is scrambling back. With or without the throw from F3, this seems an obvious "no run" to me.

OTOH, what if, while watching the play develop on the other runner, he walks right past the plate and then proceeds about 10 feet up the 1B line to pick up the bat. As he watches the runner be tagged out, a teammate gets his attention and points to the plate in an apparent indication that he should touch it. The runner who missed the plate now takes a few steps back toward it but, perceiving the defense to be oblivious, says in a low voice to the teammate who pointed, "It's three outs. They can't appeal now," or "Aw, they didn't see it," and goes directly to his position without touching the plate. On that one, I think I'd require an appeal.

I realize that there are also plays that fall within these two extremes.

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.

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

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

Under the old fed rules with no dead ball appeal?
 

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?

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. :cool:

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.

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.

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 ?

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. ;)

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.

Quote:

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

I've been doing a fair amount of reading/research here the last couple days. I'm beginning to feel that yes, the runner may return, and in the OP, the runner can retouch and be protected. That said, I also feel that had the runner immediatly attempted to return, he would keep the timing play alive and no run would score. The difference being, he crosses the plate, stops, sees the out on the BR, comes back and touches, instead of missing the plate, immediatly returns and just misses touching before the out at 2B.

That sound about fair to most?:D

The time play was crossing the plate before the 3rd out. There was no other time play. You can't "keep a time play alive." Touching the plate was correcting a baserunning error at a base that R2 had already achieved. All the touch did was prevent a successful appeal. If there were no re-touch, a successful appeal would result in the advantageous 4th out and wipe off the run.

The more I think about this play, the less likely I feel it can occur. Runner crosses plate, third out happens and runner comes back to touch home. This touch needs to happen before the infielders leave the diamond. Certainly could happen but not likely. The defense moving off the field is a key element here because if the touch doesn't occur before they are all off, the touch would mean nothing (run would count because the miss wasn't appealed in time) because at some point the half inning has to be considered over. So we are concentrating on the window of time between when the third out is recorded and when the D has left the infield.

In Fed. the runner, after missing home, must return immediately. Immediately is user defined and IMO if he does not (and how could he not within this window of time) his attempt to correct his mistake would be meaningless and it would tip off the defense that they could appeal (of course it could also fool them into thinking they could no longer appeal). The other codes do not make this immediate return a requirement. The touch would still need to occur within this window of time (which as I said would probably need to be considered immediate anyway).

All that being said, I would call it a timing play when the runner reutrned to touch, no run. If the call is protested we've got rules support. You've got to touch the bases. Interpretation-wise we can argue that a touch trumps a pass. All benefit of doubt on a missed base play should go to the defense and all burden of fulfilling the requirments of the baserunning rules should fall on the offense.

D

IMO the timing play ends at the moment the runner either tags the plate or misses the plate, as by rule.

The retouch by the runner is to correct the base running error of not tagging the base, also by rule.

The appeal, also allowed by rule, was not necessary after the tag because the base running infraction was corrected.

Scoring however, is achieved upon the touch of the plate or as otherwise allowed. IMO touch of the plate for scoring and touch of the plate for a timimg play do NOT have to be the same instance in time.

Makes sense to me, except the 4th paragraph, last sentence (my emphasis): I think PU must indicate "score the run" on the time play when the runner crosses the plate (subject to being called out on proper appeal until the miss is corrected). Otherwise, he alerts the defense to the miss of the plate.

First, I remember Rock Hudson and Rip Torn, but where did the writers get "dash" from?

Secondly, the above quote seems a bit like a blanket statement. I believe the correct mechanic depends on the situation. If the runner missing home is forced, PU should signal safe if he beat the throw. If there is a tag attempt, and the tag is missed, then PU should make no signal. I don't know what an umpire should signal if there is no play on the runner.

Regarding a missed base and tag, the PBUC manual says in 3.3:
"Should a runner in scoring fail to touch home plate and continues on his way to the bench, he may be put out by a fielder touching home plate and appealing to the umpire for a decision. However, this rule only applies where a runner is on his way to the bench and the catcher would be required to chase him. It does not apply to the ordinary play whre the runner misses the plate and then immediately makes an effort to touch the plate before being tagged. In that case, the runner must be tagged.
On the play at the plate, should the runner miss home plate and the fielder miss the tag on the runner, the umpire shall make no signal on the play. As outlined in the previous paragraph, the runner must then be tagged if he attempts to return to the plate; if he continoues on his way to the bench, the defense may make an appeal."

[edit to remove some nonsense]

I don't know, but Garth probably does.

The PBUC manual does not contemplate a time play in this example. "Score that run" is not a signal on the miss or tag, only an indication that the acquiring of the plate occurred before the 3rd out at 2nd base.

Does anybody know anyone currently attending JEAPU?? Lets get Jim's view on this one!

Wendelstadt has and interesting view. Check out their message board.

D

From Roder's other book...
 

Hi, all.

Indeed, in the J/R, it does state that the run should be disallowed:
However, in Roder's book "More than 100 Problems with the Official Baseball Rules" (2nd ed.), in Problem 8 (pp. 15-17), Roder notes, at the end of his discussion of the play that:
This, I think, gives us an indication as to how this play should be called, although Roder does go on to say:
which, looking at the length of this discussion, wouldn't surprise me in the least! :eek:

While I originally liked J/R's concept of this play and a literal interpretation of 4.09(a), I'm not sure it squares with the other J/R concept of "touch or pass of a base" (J/R, 9th ed., p.43). It seems to me that the PBUC (although I only know of it from the quotation above) and the JEA (posted earlier) rulings are the way to treat this play.

Regards,
Andrew

*The examples in question are:
1. 2 out, R1, extra-base hit, R1 passes home, B-R then out at 3B, R1 returns and touches plate before tag, PU signals R1 safe, but defensive manager argues that R1's run scored after the third out, and
2. 2 out, R2, base hit, R2 passes home, B-R then out at 2B, PU indicates run scores on time play, R2 then returns and touches plate, no appeal (defense leaves field).

The Wendelstedt RAMM, in Reference Play 14 of "How a Run Scores" (p. 99), agrees with Roder. It is a contradiction of "Harry's Hint" on p. 94: "Missed bases should be considered as "touched" for scoring purposes, until they are appealed by the defensive team." (emphasis mine)

By ruling a runner did not touch, even though he passed, the base, the umpire has, in effect, initiated an appeal on behalf of the defense. He'll have to go wash his hands before resuming play.

Tosh. You persist in ignoring the fact that the runner touched the plate after the third out was made. No appeal necessary on a timing play.

By scoring the run, the umpire has, in effect, cheated by denying the timing play. He'll have to go wash his hands before resuming play.

(Simply ignoring the opposing viewpoint, or shouting your viewpoint louder and in ever more insulting terms, is no way to win an argument.)

I'm with Dash on this one. Since the "authorities" seem to be in disagreement, I'm free to choose (and then let the supervisors rule when the protest happens). But that's just me.

JJ

And, of course, the decision could very well depend on whether it's a day game or a night game.:D

Just as you can have a different ruling on backswing interference, after reading and discussing this play with others, I believe you can have two differnt rulings.

If the runner aggressively returns during unrelaxed action, the time play is/should be in effect IHMO. If the runner over runs the plate, comes to a stop, and as long as he doens't enter the dugout, he may return and protect himself against the appeal by touching the plate, during relaxed action.

As it has been pointed out, there really isn't a correct answer to this one, the rules simply don't discuss or cover this play. So not only does it come down to being a day or night game, is it east or west coast, and north or south. Were all have to agree to dis-agree on this one. And may the first portest win.

You make a good point about "let's wait and see" - it would behoove us to do just that. I'll bet that in the vast world of baseball this DOES happen to someone, and hopefully he'll be a poster and we can follow the trail of darts and flames all the way to his protest committee.

JJ

I guess this may be a true case of

OBR9.01c "Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules."

So as you can see, Its covered!!

I'll settle this. I just found one of those 8-ball fortune tellers in a closet.

Hold on. I have to read it the OP.

OK. "Does the run score?"

Here goes.

It says . . .

"Ask again later."

I'll let you guys know.

AAA umpire disagrees with J/R and HW
 

Not saying he's right, but it's the most workable interp I've read. FWIW, it validated part of what I said and repudiated part.

http://theumpirelife.com/messageboar...opic.php?t=123

If you accept that no retouch is allowed after a third out is made (I couldn't find a published source for that interp, but it "seems fair") it clears up the whole matter. If you don't...

I'm running with it.

I'm surprised to see this one make it's way back. I was briefly believing the runner could retouch and be safe, however after more thought, no way, it's still a timing play, he missed the plate period. 4.09 states no run may score after the third out. The runners only hope is the defense missed his retouch of the plate and fail to appeal. His retouch is insignificant, it's after the third out.

Umps like outs
 

Runner stealing 2nd, batter walked, runner decides to run by second without touching it to avoid possible injury.
Remember, he hasn't touched 2nd until after he was tagged out on the LF side of 2B.
Can the defense make a play on him or is he allowed to stay at second?

He's immune from being declared out on a tag BEFORE he reaches second base. Once he touches or passes it, he's liable to be put out if tagged. Because he did reach second base--not touching it is irrelevant--if he proceeds beyond it he's out if tagged.