Missed Home

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by SAump

The OP tells you what the catcher did.
It fails to provide information about the runner.
Which option is close enough to meet the "established" criteria?
How long does immediately take?
About as much as option A) scrambling back to tag the plate from the area near the dugout.
Where does immediate vicinity begin?
About as much as B) heading toward the dugout from the area near the plate.
Where is R2, how did he get there, and what did he do afterwards?
I am willing to give either team the benefit of doubt.
But I need that info to make a ruling on this play.

you cant have more info.,.. The OP was from the College Stude guide.. Quit reading into the question so much... The runner didnt not Immediately return to the plate, therefore in A F2 would have had to tag the runner as he was making an attempt to return to the plate by Immediately scrambling back. In be He ( the runner) got up and headed for the dugout and wasnt gonna make and attempt to return to touch the plate. I put the answers here again for you to read..




In (a), R2 is not out and the run counts. F2 would have had to tag him for the appeal. In (b), it is an appeal play and R2 is out since he left the plate area heading for the dugout. The runner has to make an Immediate effort to return, of course this is a judgment call.[/QUOTE]

[SAump]

Yes, the correct answers have been given a 1/2 dozen times, or more.
What I have been trying to say, put down the book.
The catcher is standing on the plate with the ball, "I'm appealing!"
A) Did he make it up to gain an unfair advantage, or B) is he alert to the actions around him?
In A) I would allow the runner to correct his mistake. In B) I would grant the appeal.
The direction the runner is facing, either scrambling back or headed to, has no bearing on my call.

Who ran past the plate to avoid a tag play?
Had he slid into the plate, there would have been a tag out or a safe ruling.
Had he stayed relatively close to the plate, there would have been a tag out or safe ruling.
Yes, I would use the dirt area around the plate in my criteria for granting an appeal too.

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by SAump

Yes, the correct answers have been given a 1/2 dozen times, or more.
What I have been trying to say, put down the book.
The catcher is standing on the plate with the ball, "I'm appealing!"
A) Did he make it up to gain an unfair advantage, or B) is he alert to the actions around him?
In A) I would allow the runner to correct his mistake. In B) I would grant the appeal.
The direction the runner is facing, either scrambling back or headed to, has no bearing on my call.

Who ran past the plate to avoid a tag play?
Had he slid into the plate, there would have been a tag out or a safe ruling.
Had he stayed relatively close to the plate, there would have been a tag out or safe ruling.
Yes, I would use the dirt area around the plate in my criteria for granting an appeal too.

A) Did he make it up to gain an unfair advantage, or B) is he alert to the actions around him?


Did you read... The Catcher missed the tag,and the runner missed home, So F@ jump up and said" i'm appealing".. then F2 threw the ball to 2nd to try and retire a advancing BR... when/where was he trying to gain a unfair advantage? He knew that he missed the tag and R2 missed home, so and for him to gain a unfair advantage?....


The direction the runner is facing, either scrambling back or headed to, has no bearing on my call.

The direction the runner is facing.. where was that in the OP?... all it said was he was scrambling back to home... and then he ( the runner) left the plate area headed fro the dugout.

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by SAump

Who ran past the plate to avoid a tag play?
Had he slid into the plate, there would have been a tag out or a safe ruling.
Had he stayed relatively close to the plate, there would have been a tag out or safe ruling.
Yes, I would use the dirt area around the plate in my criteria for granting an appeal too.

Ran past the plate? where in the heck are you making this stuff up from?... the runner missed home,Have you never seen a runner miss home on a slide where he is just sticking out hand to touch the plate?...

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by SAump

Yes, I would use the dirt area around the plate in my criteria for granting an appeal too.

The "dirt area" should not be used to determine whether or not a runner who missed home can come back and correct his mistake. As long as he has not reached his dugout, he is allowed to go back and touch home. If such runner reaches, but does not enter, the dugout, and is making an attempt to touch home, he must be tagged for the out.

Even though the "dirt area" was included in the D3K senarios, it has no place in determining when a runner can correct his non-touch of home. The protest would/should be upheld if one should arise. We cannot make up arbitrary rules for which there is no support.

There are only two instances when a player cannot go back and touch home. One, as stated, when he has entered the dugout, and two, when a following runner has scored.

[Kevin Finnerty]

It took a while, but this post settles it. I'm with TT.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

The "dirt area" should not be used to determine whether or not a runner who missed home can come back and correct his mistake. As long as he has not reached his dugout, he is allowed to go back and touch home. If such runner reaches, but does not enter, the dugout, and is making an attempt to touch home, he must be tagged for the out.Even though the "dirt area" was included in the D3K senarios, it has no place in determining when a runner can correct his non-touch of home. The protest would/should be upheld if one should arise. We cannot make up arbitrary rules for which there is no support.
There are only two instances when a player cannot go back and touch home. One, as stated, when he has entered the dugout, and two, when a following runner has scored.

Omitting the possibility of a quick tag out or to acknowledge a proper appeal play in situation A is also an arbitrary ruling on your part.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SAump

Three wrongs do not make a right. Omitting the possibility to acknowledge a proper appeal play in situation A is also an arbitrary ruling on your part.

I am tempted to respond with "nor do an infinite number (or 1130 to date) SA posts contain a right", but if I did, I'd have to delete my post.

Please, stop trying to stir the pot. The correct answer has been given.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by SAump

Three wrongs do not make a right. Omitting the possibility to acknowledge a proper appeal play in situation A is also an arbitrary ruling on your part.

I was only responding to your incorrect interpretation of being able to use the "dirt circle" as some imaginary boundary that prohibits a runner from returning to the plate. Acknowledging a proper appeal requires acknowledging and understanding the proper rules. I have no idea what you are trying to convey in "situation A." Merely standing on the plate and stating that they are appealing does not constitute a proper in and of itself.

[UmpTTS43]

Coach, you are right about me ruling on the improper appeal being acceptable, but according to the AEA (Albert Einstein Annotated) concerning the relative time and space involved with this play, I stand my ground.