Missed Base Appeal Question

[mrm21711]

I am going through my 2007 copy of the J/R manual and am slightly confused on the application of this:

In the section on appeals, under Retouch Appeals and Missed Base Appeals sections, J/R writes that: "If a suspect runner is tagged off base, there is a play and an out, but not an appeal; a subsequent appeal of such runner's missed base is not allowed."

I understand the above excerpt. He uses the example of R1 & R3, base hit to outfield, R1 misses 2B on his way to 3B, attempts to return & touch 2B and is tagged off the base by the second baseman. I understand this is NOT an appeal, the runner is out, and the R3 scoring would be a time play in this situation not a force out situation.

However, in Chapter 10 about Determining a Run, J/R gets into advantageous 4th outs that would negate runs, ect. He uses this example:

"Appeal against a runner already out: R3 and R1, two outs. R1 misses second and is thrown out at 3B for the third out. However, defense appeals and the advantageous fourth out is declared for R1's miss of 2B - no run scores since the appeal was a force out."

I am having trouble understanding the differences between the first example and the second. Both are missed base appeal situations. In the first example, is the KEY point the runner in jeopardy of being out on appeal (if an appeal was made) is trying to return to his missed base? Is that the reason there can be no subsequent appeal of his missed base? In both example, a runner who missed a base was tagged out but in the second example, the runner was not trying to return to his missed base to touch/retouch.

Furthermore (this may be redundant but I am obviously going through a brain cramp here for some reason) in the second example, what if the runner attempted to return but got himself in a rundown and was subsequently tagged out? The defense could still appeal his miss of 2B right?

[mbyron]

I think that we have to read the missed-base cases correctly. In the first case you cite, R1 acquires 2B but misses it, and more or less immediately turns around to touch the base. J/R's point here is that the action is unrelaxed at 2B, since the runner is immediately trying to correct his error there. Tagging him out then would NOT be an appeal, consistent with J/R's philosophy about unrelaxed action around a missed base. So it also cannot be an advantageous 4th out appeal.

In the second case you cite, R1 has NOT stopped himself to correct his baserunning error, but has instead proceeded to 3B where he is put out for the 3rd out of the inning. His baserunning error is thus still appealable, in this case for an advantageous 4th out. Although the 3rd out was in a sense "unrelaxed," since it was a live-ball play on a runner, it was not unrelaxed in the strict sense of a runner scrambling back to touch a missed base.

Hope that helps.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by mrm21711

I am going through my 2007 copy of the J/R manual and am slightly confused on the application of this:

In the section on appeals, under Retouch Appeals and Missed Base Appeals sections, J/R writes that: "If a suspect runner is tagged off base, there is a play and an out, but not an appeal; a subsequent appeal of such runner's missed base is not allowed."

Rick's theory on appeals is from the Bremigan interpretation. Rick was a student of Nick and his philosophy on appeals is consistent with the Bremigan interpretation.

It also differs from the PBUC interpretation.

Therefore, you will get differrent answers to question 1 depending upon which authority you are reading.

Bottom Line - Question 1 is in the "grey area" and obviously a point not covered in the rules.

Pete Booth

[johnnyg08]

very interesting...thanks for posting this guys.

[mrm21711]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;582664]

Rick's theory on appeals is from the Bremigan interpretation. Rick was a student of Nick and his philosophy on appeals is consistent with the Bremigan interpretation.

It also differs from the PBUC interpretation.

Therefore, you will get differrent answers to question 1 depending upon which authority you are reading.

Bottom Line - Question 1 is in the "grey area" and obviously a point not covered in the rules.

Pete Booth

What is PBUC's interp?

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by mrm21711

To allow the 4th out appeal in situation 1 and negate the run

Pete Booth

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

To allow the 4th out appeal in situation 1 and negate the run

Pete Booth

Citation, please.

[mrm21711]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Citation, please.

I cant find anything in the blue PBUC manual in the section on appeal plays.

[kylejt]

Would it really be a fourth out, or just adjusting how that third out was made? Force, after the appeal, as opposed to a timing play tag.

Now for the real question: After you've tagged the runner out, could you tag him again for the appeal of the missed base? I know you could step on the bag, but could you tag that retired runner?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Would it really be a fourth out, or just adjusting how that third out was made? Force, after the appeal, as opposed to a timing play tag.

Now for the real question: After you've tagged the runner out, could you tag him again for the appeal of the missed base? I know you could step on the bag, but could you tag that retired runner?

An "advantageous 4th out" is indeed used to replace or supercede what had been the 3rd out. The crucial point is that you would count the 4th out only where it is advantageous for the defense, as when it prevents a run from counting.

A missed base appeal can be made by tagging the missed base or the runner, so yes, you could tag the runner twice. The second tag, however, must be an obvious appeal: someone has to be saying "he missed second!" or some such before I'll grant the appeal.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mrm21711

I cant find anything in the blue PBUC manual in the section on appeal plays.

Well, not all PBUC interps are in the red or blue books. Also, I know that Jim Evans doesn't employ the "relaxed/unrelaxed action" distinction.

Still, I'm not just going to take someone's word for it that PBUC has a different ruling here. I have Roder's ruling in print, and I find "relaxed/unrelaxed" useful and sensible.

[bossman72]

I think the big deal here is that in play 1, it says "a subsequent appeal will not be allowed." I'm confused as to why they would not be able to appeal his miss of 2nd after he is tagged during unrelaxed action...

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bossman72

I think the big deal here is that in play 1, it says "a subsequent appeal will not be allowed." I'm confused as to why they would not be able to appeal his miss of 2nd after he is tagged during unrelaxed action...

The way to picture this is: R1 rounds 2B but misses it. He immediately scrambles back to the base as the ball comes in to the fielder. He's tagged out, off the base, as he reaches for the base.

According to the J/R principle of unrelaxed action, the runner in this situation, not the base, must be tagged to record an out. The rationale is not fully stated, but I suppose the runner is getting some credit for immediately trying to correct his baserunning error. This credit prevents the defense from appealing the missed base after tagging the runner off the base, and thus prevents an advantageous 4th out. A run could score on a time play, for instance.

Those who dislike the J/R principle deny that the runner gets any credit: if he missed the base, then he's liable to be appealed. Moreover, they argue, the "relaxed/unrelaxed" distinction appears nowhere in the rules. This more conservative interpretation declines to put an additional burden on the defense (tagging the runner, not the base, during so-called unrelaxed action) and allows a missed base appeal even when the runner is tagged off the base trying to get to the base he missed.

I have heard the more conservative interp before, but I'd like to know if it's in print (and authoritative).

[johnnyg08]

doesn't it prevent the 'accidental' vs 'obvious' appeal as well?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

doesn't it prevent the 'accidental' vs 'obvious' appeal as well?

AFAIK, no rule code currently allows an "accidental" appeal.