Force play or time play?

[JJ]

Hmmmm....If R1 is tagged between second and third, I've got a time play UNLESS the defense appeals that R1 missed second base. That's a "fourth out" and the defense can pick the inning-ending out that's most advantageous to them. Logically, they should pick the appeal play, which would be a force out, which would negate the run.

JJ

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JJ

Hmmmm....If R1 is tagged between second and third, I've got a time play UNLESS the defense appeals that R1 missed second base. That's a "fourth out" and the defense can pick the inning-ending out that's most advantageous to them. Logically, they should pick the appeal play, which would be a force out, which would negate the run.

JJ

I agree. It seems that RefMag either failed to post part of the situation, or missed the answer (neither of which is paticularly rare).

[mbyron]

Maybe the question is this: R1 is tagged while off base. If that's the only play on him, then his out is NOT a force play. In other words, if the defense merely treats him as a runner off base, tagging him by itself does not constitute a valid appeal.

If he's tagged in order the APPEAL the missed base, then his out IS a force play.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Maybe the question is this: R1 is tagged while off base. If that's the only play on him, then his out is NOT a force play. In other words, if the defense merely treats him as a runner off base, tagging him by itself does not constitute a valid appeal.

Yes, that was Rita's OP question.

J/R has a nearly identical play (except with R1 & R3 instead of R1 & R2). The tag of R1 - who is returning to 2nd base to correct his baserunning error - is neither an appeal nor a force out, and it's a time play at the plate.

What I can't understand is: J/R says a subsequent appeal of R1's miss is not allowed. Why not? The tag of R1 is certainly part of the continuous action caused by and following the batted ball (how can it NOT be if there is a time play at the plate), so, according to MLBUM and everyone else, the defense does not lose it's right to appeal R1's miss.

BTW: Rita - great catch and thanks for initiating a discussion involving something other than clothing!

[SanDiegoSteve]

J/R would indeed be wrong in this case. The defense may legally appeal the missed base, which would result in an advantageous fourth out, and no runs score as the 3rd out would be the result of a force.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

J/R would indeed be wrong in this case. The defense may legally appeal the missed base, which would result in an advantageous fourth out, and no runs score as the 3rd out would be the result of a force.

Why would J/R be wrong? A runner who misses a base is still assumed to have touched the base until proper appeal. The runner was retreating back to second and was tagged. A tag in itself is not a proper appeal. The tag should have come with a verbal appeal as the tag was applied. Thus, the defense lost it's right to appeal. The defense erred when it tagged the runner instead of making the proper appeal first.

You cannot have the runner make two outs in this situation.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Why would J/R be wrong? A runner who misses a base is still assumed to have touched the base until proper appeal. The runner was retreating back to second and was tagged. A tag in itself is not a proper appeal. The tag should have come with a verbal appeal as the tag was applied. Thus, the defense lost it's right to appeal. The defense erred when it tagged the runner instead of making the proper appeal first.

You cannot have the runner make two outs in this situation.

The defense does NOT lose its right to any appeals if all action is continuous action of the same play.

In this case, all of the action was after BR hit the ball. It is all part of the same play and tagging R1 does not cause the defense to lose their right to appeal. J/R is wrong if they say the defense does lose the right in this play.

And, for the post about the runner being out at 2B if he is in the vicinity, what a load of crock. If R1 is tagged while off of 2B, he is out. Not at a base, he is just out. He can be tagged while off 2B and then appealed for missing 2B. The tag is while he is off a base, the appeal is having him out at 2B.

You can't have him out at the same base if he missed it twice. For example, on a fly ball, R1 misses 2B going to 3B. Then, he misses it going back to 1B after the ball is caught. Now, the defense can't appeal both of them to get 2 outs. They can only appeal 1 miss of it and have him out 1 time. But, tagging a runner off base is not the same as calling him out at a base. Calling out at a base is a force play. Big difference.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Why would J/R be wrong?

It wouldn't be the first time.

It's (relatively) rare, but it happens.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

I concur and so does J/R.

From the manual: "An appeal of a runner's failure to touch or retouch can be upheld if such appeal occurs (a) while the ball is live, and (b) before the next pitch or post-continuous action play...and (c) as the first and only appeal of a certain runner's failure to touch or retouch a certain base, and (d) any appeal throw made after continuous action has ended does not become an overthrow."

In the two examples cited, all relevant conditions requisite to upholding an appeal have clearly been met. J/R contradicts itself in denying the appeals in those two examples.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It wouldn't be the first time.

It's (relatively) rare, but it happens.

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Why would J/R be wrong?

See above posts.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

BTW: Rita - great catch and thanks for initiating a discussion involving something other than clothing!

I thought that it was a good deal on some great shirts, and I wanted everyone to know about it. I'm sorry I didn't clear it with you, first. Please make a list of your personal standards and preferences, and I will make a better effort to avoid offending you.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

I thought that it was a good deal on some great shirts, and I wanted everyone to know about it. I'm sorry I didn't clear it with you, first. Please make a list of your personal standards and preferences, and I will make a better effort to avoid offending you.

I wasn't offended and I have no problem with your post about a great shirt deal. I was merely welcoming a discussion about baseball. Maybe you should switch to decaf.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

I wasn't offended and I have no problem with your post about a great shirt deal. I was merely welcoming a discussion about baseball. Maybe you should switch to decaf.

I tried that on Thanksgiving weekend when my stepmother forced it down my throat, and I almost fell asleep behind the wheel. I'll just stop at one espresso and see how that works. ... My bad.

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

J/R has a nearly identical play (except with R1 & R3 instead of R1 & R2). The tag of R1 - who is returning to 2nd base to correct his baserunning error - is neither an appeal nor a force out, and it's a time play at the plate.

What I can't understand is: J/R says a subsequent appeal of R1's miss is not allowed. Why not? The tag of R1 is certainly part of the continuous action caused by and following the batted ball (how can it NOT be if there is a time play at the plate), so, according to MLBUM and everyone else, the defense does not lose it's right to appeal R1's miss.

My J/R is from 2004, and a nearly similar play is on page 84, the last page of Section 10 Appeals. In the 2004 edition, J/R allow the appeal for the 4th out. So apparently dash has a newer edition of J/R which has a changed ruling.

I haven't seen anything in the MLBUM about the subject. But consider the actual rule: (From 7.10(d))
Appeal plays may require an umpire to recognize an apparent “fourth out.” If the third out is made during a play in which an appeal play is sustained on another runner, the appeal play decision takes precedence in determining the out. If there is more than one appeal during a play that ends a half-inning, the defense may elect to take the out that gives it the advantage.

The rule taken as written says that R1 can not be appealed for a 4th out, because he is the runner who made the 3rd out, and is therefore not "another" runner.

So my question is: Can anyone quote an authority (other than an old J/R interp) which says that once R1 has been tagged for the third out, he can be appealed for a 4th out because he missed 2nd ?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

My J/R is from 2004, and a nearly similar play is on page 84, the last page of Section 10 Appeals. In the 2004 edition, J/R allow the appeal for the 4th out. So apparently dash has a newer edition of J/R which has a changed ruling.

I haven't seen anything in the MLBUM about the subject. But consider the actual rule: (From 7.10(d))
Appeal plays may require an umpire to recognize an apparent “fourth out.” If the third out is made during a play in which an appeal play is sustained on another runner, the appeal play decision takes precedence in determining the out. If there is more than one appeal during a play that ends a half-inning, the defense may elect to take the out that gives it the advantage.

The rule taken as written says that R1 can not be appealed for a 4th out, because he is the runner who made the 3rd out, and is therefore not "another" runner.

So my question is: Can anyone quote an authority (other than an old J/R interp) which says that once R1 has been tagged for the third out, he can be appealed for a 4th out because he missed 2nd ?

Dave - that's an interesting point about "another" runner from 7.10 (d). I couldn't find anything about that in the MLBUM, and none of the examples of successful appeals entails an advantageous 4th out against a runner who is already out.

However, J/R specifically addresses it in Chapter 6 -- Runner or Batter-Runner Out, Not Out (citing the same rule!):

"After any given pitch, and before the next pitch, a runner can be out only once, although an advantageous fourth out against a runner already out can supersede the earlier out. [7.10d]"

My J/R is the Twelfth Edition (2008). I wonder what caused them to change the ruling and deny the appeal. Maybe it needs to be un-changed.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

But consider the actual rule: (From 7.10(d))
Appeal plays may require an umpire to recognize an apparent “fourth out.” If the third out is made during a play in which an appeal play is sustained on another runner, the appeal play decision takes precedence in determining the out. If there is more than one appeal during a play that ends a half-inning, the defense may elect to take the out that gives it the advantage.

The word "another" is, I think, one of the 234 errors identified by Evans in OBR.