Remember that Fed used to have that "accidental force" play, where no actual appeal was necessary. A fielder could kick dust off a bag and be rewarded with a surprise out. So some Fed interpretations found in various books might be artifacts of that extinct rule.

Because the BR beat the throw to the base. Why would you reward a late throw?

I'd show this from the JEA to your AAA MiLB contact.

Professional umpires are trained to render the "safe" signal and voice declaration at first base even though the batter-runner missed the base but is considered past the base when the tag of first base is made. This becomes an appeal play and the batter-runner would subsequently be called out for failure to properly touch the base. This is the proper mechanical procedure at all bases involving force plays. On plays which require a tag, professional umpires are instructed to make no call until the runner legally touches the base or the runner is tagged before legally touching the base.


Tim.

Fed rule?
 

Can someone point me to the fed rule or interp on this play? I was overruled on this topic during a mechanics clinic recently and couldn't find anything in the rule or case book to support my argument.

Thanks

Case Book 8.2.3

The case book is somewhat ambiguous about tagging the base. For example, B/R beats the throw but misses the base. F3 is still standing on the base when the throw comes in but F3 makes no indication that he is appealing. The call is still safe until you recognize that F3 is making a deliberate appeal. It's a fine line but since the "accidental appeal" has been banished, you have no option but to signal safe until F3 demonstrates an appeal. As earlier said, why would you reward the defense for a late throw? The intent is that the defense must RECOGNIZE that the base has been missed and then properly appeal.

I don't see any ambiguity about 8.2.3 in the case book (F3 casually steps on first base, though he believes the runner has beaten the throw. RULING: B1 is out because a force play is being made on the runner and is the result of continuing action). It is clear, very clear. I don't see how you can see otherwise. You have OBR on the brain. See BRD item 1 for additional info.

My first post was this was unique to FED and FMSANS specifically asked for FED case play, which I provided and you disagreed with, stating an OBR interpretation. I agree with you on OBR, but you disagreed with a FED case play, and cited OBR interp.

According to Garth, FED has revoked the ruling in 8.2.3, though it remains in the case book. It's a leftover from the era of the "accidental appeal."

J/R, BRD, Garth...
 

I remember that post by Garth. I don't recall the support he provided, but 8.2.3 is crossed-out in my Case Book.

My support is direct communication between the WIAA and Indianapolis after the elimination of the accidental appeal. That email is sufficient for our state. I remember several other posters here, including state interprters having seen other confirmations from NFHS. I believe Tee can cite an NFHS quarterly or other written confirmation.

I can't believe, after being told that they would "clean up the case book," that 8.2.3 is still there. I have it on my list again this year for when rules and changes are considered.

How much training?
 

[emph added]
Is it training or experience that establishes this mechanic? I've never seen it at Little League! Is there a proper use on the field, or only in the training class?

There is much you won't see in Little League. Perhaps that's why the better LL umpires work other levels.

It's a joke, son.
 

I've worked with many fine LL umpires that also work other venues, if that validates their mechanics in your eyes, and they don't curl their eyes either.

Sorry, I guess I just don't get Little League humor, except of course watching five umpires at the LLWS bob their heads up and down in unison as they check their indiclikitators between pitches. That's a laugh riot.

Thanks, now I remember. That was all I needed to delete 8.2.3 from my book.