Runner slides past bag

[Dave Reed]

mbyron,

Good ol' caseplay 8.2.3 is still in the book. It first appeared in 2005, and was widely believed to be in error and would be revised. So far it hasn't been.

8.2.3 SITUATION: B1 hits a slow roller to F5 and arrives safely but misses first base. F3 catches the ball with his foot off the base and casually steps on first base, though he believes the runner has beaten the throw. RULING: B1 is out. Because a force play is being made on the runner and is the result of continuing action, F3 is required to appeal the missed base and does so by stepping on the missed base.

See Accidental appeal and mechanics question. for an example thread.

For any reader here who wishes to argue that a runner can't be forced to first, see the wrangling in the above thread, and then please ignore the issue. It isn't central to the current topic.

Anyway, 8.2.3 is the basis for the ruling in the BRD.

ETA: Actually, 8-4-2(i) is cited as the basis for the ruling; 8.2.3 is simply related. Childress claims that accidental appeals have been abolished, but not accidental outs.

Any runner is out if he:
"i. does not retouch his base before a fielder tags him out or holds the ball while touching such base after any situation (8-2-1, 2-3 and 4). Umpire may also call him out at end of playing action upon proper and successful appeal."

8-2-1 "An advancing runner shall touch first, second, third and then home plate in order, including awarded bases."

Personally, I am not convinced that CC is correct.

[Ump153]

Fed has disavowed Situation 8.2.3 to the point of issuing emails to state interpreters and taking, for them, the extraoardinary step of responding to questions from umpires directly, stating that the change in the rule that eliminated the accidental appeal should be the authority and that Situation 8.2.3 should be considered in error.

This has been gone over and over. The result is the same. The Rule Book rules....there is no accidental appeal in FED

[Dave Reed]

And yet, in spite or extraordinary measures, somehow it remains in the Case Book!

A serious question: How do we know that the FED Rule Book trumps the Case Book?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

And yet, in spite or extraordinary measures, somehow it remains in the Case Book!

A serious question: How do we know that the FED Rule Book trumps the Case Book?

We don't.

But, other case plays have been added in which the "accidental appeal / accidental force play" is not allowed.

I'll take the new case plays over the old case plays.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

And yet, in spite or extraordinary measures, somehow it remains in the Case Book!

A serious question: How do we know that the FED Rule Book trumps the Case Book?

According to NFHS the casebook is "supplement to the Rule Book". It is intended to clarify (insert loud gaffaw here) the rules, not state the rules.

When it comes to this topic, I'll take the word of the NFHS executvie director and the rules committee. The accidental appeal was eliminated by rule.

Who the heII knows why they have failed to update the case book. This isn't the first time.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

ETA: Actually, 8-4-2(i) is cited as the basis for the ruling; 8.2.3 is simply related. Childress claims that accidental appeals have been abolished, but not accidental outs.

Any runner is out if he:
"i. does not retouch his base before a fielder tags him out or holds the ball while touching such base after any situation (8-2-1, 2-3 and 4). Umpire may also call him out at end of playing action upon proper and successful appeal."

8-2-1 "An advancing runner shall touch first, second, third and then home plate in order, including awarded bases."

Personally, I am not convinced that CC is correct.

Nor am I convinced, much as I hate to be on the other side of Carl. For one thing, 8-4-2(i) addresses "retouch" of a base, which seems to address retouch appeals and not missed-base appeals.

For another thing, 8-4-2(i) does not support the ruling in the case. The issue is whether the runner who is forced to 2B and passes 2B without touching it and is subsequently tagged is a force out. Nothing in this rule says so.

For yet a third thing, the idea of an accidental out is not relevant to the OP, since the fielder intentionally made a play on the runner and tagged him off the base. Indeed, to rule that this is automatically a force (without the necessary explicit appeal) seems precisely to re-institute an accidental appeal, since by merely tagging a runner off base the ruling grants an appeal and reverts the play to a force out. The ruling thus seems to be internally inconsistent.

Finally, since NCAA and OBR are both on the same page here, and there seems to be confusion only for FED, until I see explicit guidance from FED on this play, it seems to make sense to go with a ruling consistent with other FED principles and baseball practice.

So for FED case book writers who are looking into the thread, here's my proposed new case (replete with the deplorable FED "R1 on third" usage).

PLAY: R1 on third, R2 on first, two outs. R2 is stealing on the pitch, and B5 grounds to F6 in the hole. F6 fields the ball but comes up with it too late to get R2 at second base. As he sets to throw to 1B, he notices that R2 has rounded second base and throws to F4 behind him. After R1 crosses the plate, (a) F4 tags R2 off the base. (b) F4 tags R2 off the base and states "he missed the base!" RULING: In (a), R2 has acquired second base by passing it, so this is a time play. R1's run counts, since the force was removed on R2 when he passed the base. In (b), this is an appeal play: if the umpire rules that R2 touched second base, then the ruling in (a) applies and R1's run counts; if the umpire rules that R2 missed second base, then his out is a force play and no run can score since it was the third out of the half inning.