Tag or no?

[soundedlikeastrike]

The appeal must be obvious, in your sit. I signal safe and say "no he didn't" attempt, nor fake, to second. D has to tell ya what their doing.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

The appeal must be obvious, in your sit. I signal safe and say "no he didn't" attempt, nor fake, to second. D has to tell ya what their doing.

OBR yes they do, but not in FED. See 8.2.3, which has BR out after F3 "casually steps on first base, though he believes the runner has beaten the throw."

How FED knows what F3 believes is another matter...

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by mbyron

OBR yes they do, but not in FED. See 8.2.3, which has BR out after F3 "casually steps on first base, though he believes the runner has beaten the throw."

How FED knows what F3 believes is another matter...

Perhaps you were still out of the country at the time, but FED eliminated the accidental appeal. They failed to clean up the case book, however. They sent memos out to ignore 8.2.3 I don't know why it's still there.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Perhaps you were still out of the country at the time, but FED eliminated the accidental appeal. They failed to clean up the case book, however. They sent memos out to ignore 8.2.3 I don't know why it's still there.

I was aware of eliminating the accidental appeal. The existence of the memo would be decisive, of course.

I found 8.2.3 most recently in the 2008 "Rules by Topic" that NFHS publishes. Weird that this edited treatment of the rules would still have a banished case play.

I'll stop posting that FED wants an out here.

[sri8527]

yep, had a brain lock there, came too me in the middle of the day, had forgotten about the change, thanks for not being too harsh on me.

steve

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I was aware of eliminating the accidental appeal. The existence of the memo would be decisive, of course.

I found 8.2.3 most recently in the 2008 "Rules by Topic" that NFHS publishes. Weird that this edited treatment of the rules would still have a banished case play.

I'll stop posting that FED wants an out here.

Set aside whether it was an accidental appeal or not. The out was given by stepping on the bag, no tag was required.

"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."

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bluehair

Set aside whether it was an accidental appeal or not. The out was given by stepping on the bag, no tag was required.

"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."

You can't set aside the issue of an accidental appeal -- that's the whole point of this case, and why FED seems to have in some sense set it aside.

[johnnyg08]

But you're not going to simply signal out when the defense has no clue that they're appealing...remember when the old FED appeal required no action by the defense...the umpire simply called it on a missed base? That wasn't too long ago...

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by bluehair

Set aside whether it was an accidental appeal or not. The out was given by stepping on the bag, no tag was required.

"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."

There's stepping on the missed base and there's stepping on the missed base. When it's down with obvioius intent to appeal, ring up the out, when the field trips over it or just touches it as he passing by...that's not an appeal in FED...anymore.

[tjones1]

Garth -

Is that memo on the NFHS website? Thanks.