missed 1st base mechanic

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Incorrect. A "purposeful" tag is regarded as a non verbal appeal. What the rule eliminated is the accidental touch, like tripping over the bag.

Also eliminated is the following accidental appeal: BR beats throw to 1B but misses the base. F3 gloves the throw and has his foot on the base. Formerly, his having the ball and touching the base constituted a missed-base appeal, and BR would be called out. (This is the main point of the gone-but-not-gone case.)

So regarding the question about a "purposeful" tag, I would have to rule on what the purpose was. F3 gloving the throw (late) has a purpose, but that purpose is not an appeal. If is purpose is to appeal and he makes that obvious in some way (usually by stating "he missed the base!" or some such), then I will rule on the appeal.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

wow this is gonna be a 5 page thread on this.... its not hard.. the runner is safe until the defense appeals... if a runner leaves a base early on a fly ball, do you call him out cause he left early, or do you wait till the defense appeals? Its not rocket science guys. sorry if i make someone mad.

Originally Posted by David B

Well it's not quite that easy. Thanks goodness we have an umpire who actually wants to learn a rule application.

What they eliminated was plays like R1, BR hits into the gap and R1 misses
2B on the way to third. Until a couple of years ago, if F9 threw the ball in to F6 and he accidentally stepped on the bag, you had an out.

Now, it requires an actual appeal.

Same with the play at 1B, it's a little tricky. And of course you have plays at the plate which are completely different.

So, it's not rocket science, but its not all that easy to understand either.

Thanks
David

And how does your description differ from that of what Umpmazza said?

[DonInKansas]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Also eliminated is the following accidental appeal: BR beats throw to 1B but misses the base. F3 gloves the throw and has his foot on the base. Formerly, his having the ball and touching the base constituted a missed-base appeal, and BR would be called out. (This is the main point of the gone-but-not-gone case.)

How has the BR beaten the throw to 1B if he hasn't touched the base yet? I fail to see the logic here. SO if the BR steps to the side of the base and runs through, you're safing him if he "beats the throw?"

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by DonInKansas

How has the BR beaten the throw to 1B if he hasn't touched the base yet? I fail to see the logic here. SO if the BR steps to the side of the base and runs through, you're safing him if he "beats the throw?"

Yes. A runner acquires the base when he touches it or passes it. If a runner crosses, but does not touch, home plate, and there is no appeal, he scores a run.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by DonInKansas

How has the BR beaten the throw to 1B if he hasn't touched the base yet? I fail to see the logic here. SO if the BR steps to the side of the base and runs through, you're safing him if he "beats the throw?"

1.How do you handle a missed base at second?

No different.

2. "Safing" ? Would the opposite be "outing"?

[BigTex]

Originally Posted by DonInKansas

How has the BR beaten the throw to 1B if he hasn't touched the base yet? I fail to see the logic here. SO if the BR steps to the side of the base and runs through, you're safing him if he "beats the throw?"

OK Don, let me try to help your logic.

If BR hits a ball to the gap, misses first on his way to second. When BR is half way to second, F9 throws the ball out of play. Where are you going to place the BR?

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

When FED removed the accidental appeal from the rule book they neglected to delete that situation from the casebook. Elliot Hopkis acknowledged that fact and issued a statement that that ruling was no longer accurate. He issued a statement again the next year when that situation still appeared in the book

Why it remains unedited to this date is a mystery, but the fact is the accidental appeal has been removed from the rule book, and that was a POE at the time.

That is confusing. I guess its good for us umpires that coaches don't read rule books.

[David B]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

That is confusing. I guess its good for us umpires that coaches don't read rule books.

That is the value of the internet. You have sites like this one that can clarify things that the FED won't address.

Also on the FED site, you have the Interpretations posted on the internet that clarify some of the mistakes etc.,

NCAA does a good job of addressing changes several times a year, problems that are occuring. FED should follow suit.

But as you stated, coaches don't know the rule so you don't have anything to worry about. ..

Thanks
David

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

That is confusing. I guess its good for us umpires that coaches don't read rule books.

No. The rulebook has it right. It's the casebook that wasn't corrected.

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

No. The rulebook has it right. It's the casebook that wasn't corrected.

The ones I deal with don't read either.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

2. "Safing" ? Would the opposite be "outing"?

I hate that expression almost as much as saying, "I balled the pitch." It too sounds a little bit "odd."

[Umpmazza]

[QUOTE=DonInKansas;587888]How has the BR beaten the throw to 1B if he hasn't touched the base yet? I fail to see the logic here. SO if the BR steps to the side of the base and runs through, you're safing him if he "beats the throw?"[/QUOTE]


Everyday today and twice on sunday....LOL come on man did a tornado run through your field..... of course your going to safe him, the runner beat the ball to the base right? now the defense has to appeal that he missed a base...

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I hate that expression almost as much as saying, "I balled the pitch." It too sounds a little bit "odd."

Both expressions make umpires sound as illiterate as some players. My ears cringe when someone tries to make a verb by adding "ing" to just any word.

As for your example, anyone who "balled" anything during a game in public should be prosecuted.

[soundedlikeastrike]

Originally Posted by DonInKansas

How has the BR beaten the throw to 1B if he hasn't touched the base yet? I fail to see the logic here. SO if the BR steps to the side of the base and runs through, you're safing him if he "beats the throw?"

If the BR steps to the side of the bag, he hasn't passed it. Out would be correct.
The play requires the runner to be beyond the bag clearly. Not just his lead foot, hand, or head all the way past..

And the appeal must be clear and obvious: Ex. BR misses 1B, has beaten the throw is called safe. But has missed the bag, BR now turns to the left into fair territory on his return to 1B. F3 with his new gained knowledge of appealing a runner missing 1B, turns and tags the returning runner. Unless he say's something to indicate an appeal of the missed base; I call safe, "no, he did not make an attempt or fake towards 2B.

Originally Posted by yawetag

My thinking exactly. If the defense touches the base, accidentally or on purpose, before the runner returns, I find it hard to believe that I can't call him out. This is rewarding the offense for messing up.

That said, if the defense never touches the bag (or the runner), I've got nothing. The runner will return and touch the bag.

What's the mechanic for the same play at the plate? AFAIK, I make no call until:

1) The runner enters the dugout
2) The runner comes back and touches the plate
3) The defense tags the runner (or the plate if he's making no effort to return)

I didn't see anyone answer these for you:
1. You make no call, the run counts.
2. You make no call, the run counts.
3. You call him out, if he missed the plate and there is "a proper appeal".

The only time you signal anything at any base is when there is a play.
Or in the instance of a time play.
So, if I see you on a grandslam, make 4 safe calls, I'm throwing a peanut at ya from the gallery..

Just remember you don't rule on a runner missing a base or leaving early. You rule on an appeal of a runner missing a base or leaving early.

[ozzy6900]

We are taught that the runner is assumed to have touched the base and we are supposed to let the defense make an appeal. We then rule on the appeal.

The idiotic FED rule of the umpire calling runners out has been removed for a long time now (thankfully) and all the codes agree.