More accidental appeal absurdium

David Emerling · #1 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 22, 2002, 11:29am

R1 and R3. 2 outs. Batter hits double. R3 scores easily. R1 misses 2nd and ends up on 3rd. Now we have R2 and R3, two outs. All action has ended. Pitcher has the ball and is ready to pitch to the next batter. He comes set. He attempts a pickoff of R2. The attempt is unsuccessful but, in the process, F6 happens to touch 2nd base.

Is that a successful appeal of R3? Inning over?

If so, good luck on your walk to the parking lot after the game.

bob jenkins · #2 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 22, 2002, 12:21pm

I've changed my mind on this. I don't think it's an appeal.

I just think the FED takes the force-out wording seriously and strictly -- if the base is touched before the runner touches the base, the runner is out (and, yes, I'm paraphrasing, so don't pick apart the sentence).

In the specific instance you mentioned, though, it's no longer a force play. Notice that the "play" (Fed definition -- TOP to dead ball or ball back to F1) is over. That's how I'm justifying not calling the out on this play.

David Emerling · #3 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 22, 2002, 12:53pm

So, what if the pitcher stepped off. Tossed it to F6 in a non-threatening manner. In other words, it is clearly *not* an attempt to pickoff R2, then F6 says, "We appeal that the runner on 3rd missed 2nd?" You'd have to honor that appeal, wouldn't you? And, if you do, wouldn't that nullify the run that scored since it *is* a force play?

Quote:

Originally posted by bob jenkins
I've changed my mind on this. I don't think it's an appeal.

I just think the FED takes the force-out wording seriously and strictly -- if the base is touched before the runner touches the base, the runner is out (and, yes, I'm paraphrasing, so don't pick apart the sentence).

In the specific instance you mentioned, though, it's no longer a force play. Notice that the "play" (Fed definition -- TOP to dead ball or ball back to F1) is over. That's how I'm justifying not calling the out on this play.

Roger Greene · #4 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 22, 2002, 01:18pm

Bob,
Are you saying that if the accidental appeal is part of continuing action on the original play to recognize it, and if the accidental appeal is on a subsequent play, to require that it be unmistakable?

Interesting concept. And it would solve some (but not all) of the problems with the accidental appeal.

Do we have any supporting rulings?

Roger Greene

[Edited by Roger Greene on Mar 22nd, 2002 at 12:26 PM]

David Emerling · #5 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 22, 2002, 01:27pm

I, too, like that interpretation. I hereby declare this as an OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION! Somehow, I don't think I have the clout to utter that phrase.

Quote:

Originally posted by Roger Greene
Bob,
Are you saying that if the accidental appeal is part of continuing action on the original play to recognize it, and if the accidental appeal is on a subsequent play, to require that it be unmistakable?

Interesting concept. And it would solve some (but not all) of the problems with the accidental appeal.

Do we have any supporting rulings?

Roger Greene

[Edited by Roger Greene on Mar 22nd, 2002 at 12:26 PM]

bob jenkins · #6 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 22, 2002, 05:00pm

Quote:

Originally posted by David Emerling
So, what if the pitcher stepped off. Tossed it to F6 in a non-threatening manner. In other words, it is clearly *not* an attempt to pickoff R2, then F6 says, "We appeal that the runner on 3rd missed 2nd?" You'd have to honor that appeal, wouldn't you? And, if you do, wouldn't that nullify the run that scored since it *is* a force play?

If you grant the appeal, it's a force out. But, I don't recognize the accidental force-play after the play is over.

Notice that the FED has definitions for both FORCE OUT and FORCE PLAY.

I contend, with no support other than my desire to read it to conform to my version of common sense, that the "accidental out" can happen only on a force-play. (And, yes, I'd like to see it removed there, as well.)

Roger Greene · #7 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 22, 2002, 05:45pm

Bob,
I went through the definitions in the Fed book. I think this could be a supportable position on the accidental appeal when it does not occur on the initial play.

14 Fed games so far. Two live ball appeals and one missed base. The missed base was not appealed. No accidental appeals have reared their ugly head.

It will hopefully be a moot point.

Roger Greene

greymule · #8 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 22, 2002, 06:05pm

Bob is right. What we've all been calling an accidental appeal can occur only on force plays and is really an accidental force out that looks something like an appeal. It is an outgrowth of the case book play in which the runner beats the throw at first but misses the bag, and the first baseman tags the base "though he believes the runner has beaten the throw." The question is, At what point is that force play no longer in effect? I don't have my case book with me, but I think it mentions "continuing action," one of the universe's undefined terms.

The case book and at least one of this year's situations dictate that the accidental force out be called significantly after the missing of the base. So it would be nice to know exactly what has to happen so that the runner or the base being "accidentally" tagged has no effect. We've seen that an intentional walk does not nullify the opportunity for the accidental appeal. Before an intentional walk, there is often a time out. Is the accidental force in fact off only after the opportunity for appeal is lost (i.e., a pitch)?

Actually, I'm more concerned about precisely when a following runner's being put out does or does not eliminate the force play, accidental appeal or not. "If he was forced at the time he missed the base" isn't holding water under analysis. That's another thread, though!