BR gets tagged after overrunning 1stbase
 

hi,
BR beats the throw to 1stbase but does not touch it.
while he walks back to 1stbase, F3 tags him without making an appeal like "he didnt touch the bag" or anything else that makes clear, why he tags the runner.

do we call an out here ?

Signal "safe" when the runner beats the ball to 1B, even though he misses the base. When BR misses the bag, I verbalize nothing, just signal.

When F3 tags BR, for me that's an unmistakeable appeal: why else would F3 be tagging him? I don't need a verbal announcement of intent: I'm banging the out.

It's an appeal. It needs to be clear. In some instances, the act of the tag itself might be clear enough (because there's rarely otherwise a tag of BR after overruning first). At some lower-level games, you might get away with asking,"What are you doing?" If the answer is "just playing games" or "seeing if the runner made an attempt toward second", then it's not an out.

What if he simply touched the bag?

nope.

In both of these cases, (either tagging him or tagging the base) you have an out. His action of tagging him or the base is an appeal. Im also not going to signal safe as he runs by due to the fact that I have nothing yet.

I've also got an out if the runner steps over the bag just before F3 catches the ball with his foot on the bag. Simple mechanics are your out you missed the base.

Uhh, I'm pretty sure your wrong on both of these.

Scratch that. I know you're wrong on both of these.

umpjong,

As in all things, do as you think best - but you will be WRONG.

Now, I'll grant you that there is credible difference of opinion as to whether or not a tag of the base can "properly constitute" an appeal in this sitch (I don't think so, but some other people who know a lot about this stuff think it can) so we'll just say, "OK" on that one.

Now, if the batter-runner passes the bag without touching it and the F3 subsequently tags the base, the runner is, by rule, safe until the defense properly appeals. (See Rule 7.10).

The "simple" mechanic may be to do as you suggest, but the proper mechanic is to signal SAFE!.

JM

This same discussion came up earlier (not on a web site). A triple A minor league umpire curled his eyes and made it very clear that this runner is out - period. Bottom line is, he did not touch the base safely prior to being tagged or beat to the base. And then he asked, "why would you reward someone for missing a base?

Looked briefly for Fed variance, if there is one someone can post it. But sometimes common sense does prevail.

I don't believe you. Pro instruction on this play is -- and has been for decades -- as others have posted: if the BR beats the ball to the base, then he is safe, and you signal safe, whether he touches the base or not. If not, then BR is liable to be put out on appeal.

Troll alert.

You can believe what you want, just telling you what he said.
And I do agree with his assessment. Again answer why you would reward a player for missing a base? This play at first base is a little different, as this is the base you can over run. I will agree that the close play discussed (where runner passed base without touching, and ball then being caught by F3 and on base) is a grey area, but again as he explained it, who touched the base first? If this is wrong then post verification. Just relating what I was told.

The reason you signal safe instead of no signal at all is that it is up to the defense to make sure the base was properly touched and if not, to properly appeal. To not make any call would signal to the defense that the B/R missed the base. That qualifies as coaching. The only time you don't signal safe is on a play at home plate where the runner misses home.

BigGuy,

Agree with everything you say, EXCEPT....

On a play at the plate, if the runner is "forced" to home, I think the proper mechanic is to signal "SAFE!" - as you would at the play at first.

If he is NOT forced (and must himself be tagged), then I believe the proper mechanic is to make no signal.

So, it's not that it's at home, it whether or not he must be tagged.

JM

I will point out situation 1 in the BRD, simply because it seems to relate. EXCEPT: If the action is continuing and the tagged base is a "force" base, the defense makes the appeal merely be "stepping on the missed base".

This appears to be unique to FED, and thus the entry in BRD. And your minor league guy appears to be interpreting opposite from OBR, so be careful who you listen to.

Also, make sure you're asking the right question...I work in a profession where on a consistent basis, my customers ask the wrong question, receive the right answer to the question that they thought they asked. So maybe your "source" gave you the right answer, but maybe you asking the wrong question?

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.

FED has an interesting way of making a change, ie email to a few, maybe a newsletter to those who get it, and leave the case book that goes to all unchanged.

What appeal?
 

What would they appeal if the B/R touches first before the defense appeals?

1. One can't "re-touch" that which wasn't touched in the first place.

2. If the B/R touches first, what is there to appeal?