missed 1st base mechanic

[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.

[mroyal]

I tend to disagree with those who would give a "safe" signal for someone who has not legally acquired the base. Who are we rewarding for not following the rules? The rulebreakers? I would hope not.

FED Umpire Manual (pg 35) "...When an umpire observes a base running error, he should make no verbal or non-verbal statement that could tip either team." (I think someone mentioned that already, but it was a good starting point.)

Two scenerios in my mind here. If its a bang-bang of a play and I clearly see BR missing the bag - BR is out! If it's not that close, I do nothing - as the manual says. 1) I wait for either the defense to make a live ball apeal by touching the base or BR before he aquires the base - BR is out! 2) I wait for BR to aquire the base - BR is safe and I do nothing.

Rule 8-2: Penalty (Art. 1-5): For failure to touch a base (advancing or returning),...,the runner may be called out if an appeal is made by the defensive team. The defensive team may appeal during a live ball immediately following the play...A live-ball appeal (8-2-6d) may be made by a defensive player with the ball in his possession by tagging the runner of touching the base that was missed..."

Our job is not to allow the rules to be broken. As per the manual, no signal is given on a missed base. Let the teams figure it out. Our job is not to make the BR safe when he is not.

During my training in Virgnia, it was always emphasised to limit the amount of stress you put yourself in. Why would I want to "safe" a runner when he didn't legally aquire the base (sorry, running over the base does not constitute touching it) and then bang him on an appeal? That's an argument I'm not going to have.

[mrm21711]

Originally Posted by mroyal

I tend to disagree with those who would give a "safe" signal for someone who has not legally acquired the base. Who are we rewarding for not following the rules? The rulebreakers? I would hope not.

FED Umpire Manual (pg 35) "...When an umpire observes a base running error, he should make no verbal or non-verbal statement that could tip either team." (I think someone mentioned that already, but it was a good starting point.)

Two scenerios in my mind here. If its a bang-bang of a play and I clearly see BR missing the bag - BR is out! If it's not that close, I do nothing - as the manual says. 1) I wait for either the defense to make a live ball apeal by touching the base or BR before he aquires the base - BR is out! 2) I wait for BR to aquire the base - BR is safe and I do nothing.

Rule 8-2: Penalty (Art. 1-5): For failure to touch a base (advancing or returning),...,the runner may be called out if an appeal is made by the defensive team. The defensive team may appeal during a live ball immediately following the play...A live-ball appeal (8-2-6d) may be made by a defensive player with the ball in his possession by tagging the runner of touching the base that was missed..."

Our job is not to allow the rules to be broken. As per the manual, no signal is given on a missed base. Let the teams figure it out. Our job is not to make the BR safe when he is not.

During my training in Virgnia, it was always emphasised to limit the amount of stress you put yourself in. Why would I want to "safe" a runner when he didn't legally aquire the base (sorry, running over the base does not constitute touching it) and then bang him on an appeal? That's an argument I'm not going to have.

But the runner did legally acquire the base and can only be put out on appeal. You have made a post where you make it quite clear you have no intention of listening to anybody else on the board and are going to use the mechanics that you deem fit to use even if it is incorrect. Best of luck to you.

[mroyal]

Originally Posted by mrm21711

But the runner did legally acquire the base and can only be put out on appeal. You have made a post where you make it quite clear you have no intention of listening to anybody else on the board and are going to use the mechanics that you deem fit to use even if it is incorrect. Best of luck to you.

I'm not here to take the majority rule answer from an opinion poll. If the BR leagally acquired the base, then he can't be put out. In this case, he didn't touch the base, so he is liable to be put out - yes on proper appeal. But, the manual says don't signal anything on a missed base. How is that my mechanic? Where does it say in the FED book to "safe" the BR on a missed base? It doesn't. I'm not putting my personal mechanics in here - just following the FED manual.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mroyal

I'm not here to take the majority rule answer from an opinion poll. If the BR leagally acquired the base, then he can't be put out. In this case, he didn't touch the base, so he is liable to be put out - yes on proper appeal. But, the manual says don't signal anything on a missed base. How is that my mechanic? Where does it say in the FED book to "safe" the BR on a missed base? It doesn't. I'm not putting my personal mechanics in here - just following the FED manual.

Following the FED manual can be very dangerous. All the interps I've ever heard says that the runner is considered safe unless an appeal is made. Don't you agree that not making any call whatsoever would be tipping off the defense that the runner missed the base? If I were the F3 (which was my position in my playing days), I would have known immediately that the runner missed the base when the umpire didn't make any call at all. So the "signal" in this case is the lack of a signal, which tips off the fielder, which in turn creates an unfair advantage and gives away the appeal. It's up to the defense to be alert to the runner missing a base. A runner acquires the base when he touches or passes the base. If he misses the base, he is subject to being called out ON APPEAL. No appeal, no out.

[mroyal]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Following the FED manual can be very dangerous. All the interps I've ever heard says that the runner is considered safe unless an appeal is made. Don't you agree that not making any call whatsoever would be tipping off the defense that the runner missed the base? If I were the F3 (which was my position in my playing days), I would have known immediately that the runner missed the base when the umpire didn't make any call at all. So the "signal" in this case is the lack of a signal, which tips off the fielder, which in turn creates an unfair advantage and gives away the appeal. It's up to the defense to be alert to the runner missing a base. A runner acquires the base when he touches or passes the base. If he misses the base, he is subject to being called out ON APPEAL. No appeal, no out.

Let me be the devil's advocate here, but why would following the FED be a bad thing? Isn't that what we're suppose to be doing? It's more of a dangerous thing to pick and choose what we will follow (OBR, MLB) or mix and match. That's not fair to the kids and coaches. We expect them to know the rules.

As far as tipping off the defense, they're they ones playing by the rules. They didnt' miss the tag/base, the BR did. Again, why give the advantage to the rulebreaker? But, I would imagine that not everyone will catch a no-call like this. The bright ones will. And as far as interps go, I'll raise you my interps emphasising the "no call." BTW - giving a "safe" is a "non-verbal" signal - going against the FED manual in this situation.

This might not be fair, but this getting-the-base-even-though-he-hasn't-touched-it would be a failing argument if we applied the logic to the defense. Even if the ball beats the runner, by rule we require the defense to touch the base/runner to earn the out unless the BR/R deserts the base. There is an argument about the fantom tag in situations where safty is an issue, but why would we expect the defense to earn the out but then remove the expectation from the offense to earn the base?

I know not everyone is giddy about the FED. So noted. But unfortunately the FED is what governs the rules for the scholastic games we call. Until the FED actuall says to give a "safe" on a BR missing 1B, I've got nothing until the BR touches or the defense touches. I'm not looking for a loosing arguement from a coach for looking like I don't know what I'm doing (safe one moment, out the next??)

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mroyal

If the BR leagally acquired the base, then he can't be put out.

False, even when the runner touches the base. For example: BR hits a safe single to right. He touches 1B (thereby legally acquiring it) and rounds the base as the throw comes in to F3 behind him. He is tagged off the base for an out.

A runner legally acquires a base by touching it or by passing near enough to it to reach it (arm's length). You don't seem to know this basic definition.

I think you're a troll.

[mroyal]

Originally Posted by mbyron

False, even when the runner touches the base. For example: BR hits a safe single to right. He touches 1B (thereby legally acquiring it) and rounds the base as the throw comes in to F3 behind him. He is tagged off the base for an out.

A runner legally acquires a base by touching it or by passing near enough to it to reach it (arm's length). You don't seem to know this basic definition.

I think you're a troll.

Nice mbyron, but no I'm not a troll. I prefer the FED site, but since it's having issues, I took more time to read some posts here and found this one.

The FED manual says NOT to make a NON-VERBAL statement. So why would you persist in MAKING a non-verbal signal by signaling "safe?" I'm trying to understand the logic of not making a signal (FED) by making a signal (you).

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by mroyal

FED Umpire Manual (pg 35) "...When an umpire observes a base running error, he should make no verbal or non-verbal statement that could tip either team." (I think someone mentioned that already, but it was a good starting point.)

By not signaling you're giving the defense a clue that something is amiss. This is exactly what the manual is asking you not to do.

[mroyal]

Originally Posted by waltjp

By not signaling you're giving the defense a clue that something is amiss. This is exactly what the manual is asking you not to do.

I'm doing exactly what the manual says to do - "...make no verbal or non-verbal statement..." I'm not doing anything with my hands, I'm not saying "safe" or "out." How is that doing anything? By raising my hands and/or saying "safe," am I not making a "verbal or non-verbal statement?"

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by mroyal

I'm doing exactly what the manual says to do - "...make no verbal or non-verbal statement..." I'm not doing anything with my hands, I'm not saying "safe" or "out." How is that doing anything? By raising my hands and/or saying "safe," am I not making a "verbal or non-verbal statement?"

You're only reading half of the statement and leaving out the key part, "that could tip either team."

If a runner beats a throw to a base but misses the base he's assumed to have touched it. It's incumbent on the defense to appeal the missed base. By not signaling 'safe' you're telling the defense that something is wrong. This is a huge signal to the defense and exactly what the FED manual wants to avoid.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by waltjp

If a runner beats a throw to a base but misses the base he's assumed to have touched it.

FED 8-3-8: "A runner acquires the right to the proper unoccupied base if he touches it before he is out."

I don't see anything about assuming he touched it if he passes over it.

FWIW, I've learned from here to call it like others have been taught, but I don't agree with it.

[Tim C]

I certainly hope the NFHS site gets up and running again.

Royal:

Progessive states in the USA have dumped the Federation Umpire Manual YEARS ago. While the rule book frequently changes it appears that nothing has changed in the Fedlandia Manual since the 60's.

Every single authority follows the majority opinion in this thread.

Your arguement that you "get paid to follow FED rules" does not hold water in this case. This is a mechanics question and FED has just fallen behind the times.

Regards,

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I certainly hope the NFHS site gets up and running again.

Royal:

Progessive states in the USA have dumped the Federation Umpire Manual YEARS ago. While the rule book frequently changes it appears that nothing has changed in the Fedlandia Manual since the 60's.

Every single authority follows the majority opinion in this thread.

Your arguement that you "get paid to follow FED rules" does not hold water in this case. This is a mechanics question and FED has just fallen behind the times.

Regards,

Tim,

I'd argue that 'doing nothing' is not following the FED mechanic. 'Doing nothing' gives a signal to the defense that something isn't right. Signaling 'safe' is the correct move to avoid tipping off the defense.

The overwhelming consensus here is to signal safe and wait for an appeal.