FED: What happens to R1?

[bobbybanaduck]

the only incorrect procedural thing is the actual out call by the BU. he should have noted the out mentally in case there was an appeal on the swing, then signaled the out after overturning the swing on appeal.

[mrm21711]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

the only incorrect procedural thing is the actual out call by the BU. he should have noted the out mentally in case there was an appeal on the swing, then signaled the out after overturning the swing on appeal.

PBUC & Jaksa/Roder discuss this potential situation. I am not aware of any FED publication even discussing the instance.

In this case, BU must be aware that the runner's status (R1 in this example) can change retroactively. In the case of PU ruling a checked swing, Batter is awarded first and R1 moves up on the walk. However, if PU appeals the swing to BU and he rules a strike, the runner's (R1) status would then change and he is no longer forced to advance to second and can be tagged out, ect. In cases of a checked swing and a throw to second by the catcher, the BU should observe the play and observe/judge whether or not the runner was tagged before reaching the base. However, he will make no call. Should the PU then appeal the swing, BU will make his ruling. If BU rules a swing, he would indicate the swing and then turn to the runner (now on 2B) and emphatically rule him out.

[UmpJM]

mrm21711,

I believe FED Case Play 10.2.3H is relevant.

JM

[mrm21711]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

mrm21711,

I believe FED Case Play 10.2.3H is relevant.

JM

Nice find. It appears FED & PBUC differ. I, for one, tend to disagree with the FED case play but such is life.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

mrm21711,

I believe FED Case Play 10.2.3H is relevant.

JM

Surprised to hear the following passage was different from opinions expressed above. Will this web discussion become more descriptive? I'm interested in hearing more about the FED caseplay, with or without the inclusion of the dropped 3rd strike scenario.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SAump

Surprised to hear the following passage was different from opinions expressed above. Will this web discussion become more descriptive? I'm interested in hearing more about the FED caseplay, with or without the inclusion of the dropped 3rd strike scenario.

FED has a rule to the effect that "the umpire shall rectify any situation where a decision that was reversed has place a team at a disadvantage."

So, when the call is changed from "ball" to "strike" on the check swing, if the offense was put at a disadvantage, then the out should be nullified. That usually happens when R1 is NOT stealing, but advances toward second on the "ball" call.

If R1 is stealing and is "thrown out", then there wasn't any disadvantage and the out stands.

NCAA and OBR do not have such a rule. The rules are written for older players and the players should know not to advance until the final decision has been reached.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If R1 is stealing and is "thrown out", then there wasn't any disadvantage and the out stands.

I have to agree. In the Case Book play given, the runner trotted after hearing the PU call "Ball Four." In the OP, the runner was stealing, so there was no disadvantage.

[voiceoflg]

Thanks, all, for the responses. Thanks a bunch!