Force play or time play?
 

Saw the following caseplay in Referee Magazine:

PLAY: With two outs, R1 on first ad R2 on second, B7 hits an apparent double. R2 touches third and heads for home as R1 misses second and heads for third. Without physically assisting R1, the third-base coach sends R1 back toward second. R1 is tagged out before getting back to second base and just after R2 had crossed the plate. RULING: No runs score. Even though R2 touched the plate before R1'a out, R1 never legally advanced to second base, the base to which he was forced. Therefore, R1's out is a force out and since it was the third out, no run can score. All codes agree. (NFHS 9-1-1 Exception B; NCAA 5-6c Exception 2; pro 7.12)

It still requires an appeal if he's on the third base side to be a force, right? Is there anything in the MLBUM about this?

Rita

I'm not sure just what you're asking.

The runner must be beyond the base to have missed it. :confused:

And of course to get an out the defense must appeal the missed base.

By rule -- and at every level -- a missed base appeal at a base to which the runner was forced remains a force play, with everything that entails. You have the citations.

No matter how this out takes place, with a actual appeal or a tag during continuing action, the third out was a force out. Citations already stated, no runs score. The timing of R2 touching the plate was irrelavant.

J/R agrees with you Rita. According to that manual, the tag of R1 is not an appeal, and it is not a force, so R2 scores on the time play.

I think Rita was saying the force would be reinstated if R1 had retreated past 2nd base.

What if R1 had continued to home and was tagged out there. Would you call that a force out?

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).

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

In the OP, the only possible reason the runner could be returning to 2B is that he failed to touch it and figures the defense will appeal. I would consider the tag out an obvious appeal play (like a runner obviously off a base when a line drive is caught by an infielder) and nullify the run.

Otherwise, even after the runner was put out for the third out, I would allow the appeal on the advantageous 4th out as Steve says.

The statement in the OP, "R1 never legally advanced to 2B," is wrong.

I'm not going to dig out my J/R, but I can't believe the J/R would not allow the advantageous appeal. I suspect the OP is being confused with that play where the sliding (forced) runner misses 2B but passes it and is then tagged out reaching back for the bag.

I think what somebody else is saying is that the runner can't be out twice can he?

So you can't tag R1 out for being off of the base, and then appeal the same runner? Is that correct? I don't know, that's why I'm asking. Thanks.

According to J/R re: Missed Base Appeals:

A missed base appeal of first (rounded), second or third occurs only when action is relaxed and (a) the allegedly missed base is tagged, or (b) the suspect runner is tagged on another base.

NOTE: If a suspect runner is tagged off base, there is a play and an out, but not an appeal; a subsequent appeal of such runner's missed base is not allowed.

There are two relevant examples (edited for brevity).

1. Missed second base, not an appeal, unrelaxed action: R1, R3, two outs, hit and run. The batter singles and R1 passes, but does not touch, second base. F4 recognizes the miss as does R1, who stops his advance to third and scrambles back toward second. F4 gloves F9's throw and tags second before R1's return. Because action is unrelaxed, there is not an appeal. In regard to R3, if there is a tag of R1, there is a time play. This is not an appeal, therefore it is not a force out. An appeal of R1's initial miss of second base is not allowed (Emphasis added)

2. Missed second base, not an appeal, unrelaxed action. R3, R1, two outs. Ground ball gloved by F6, who attempts to tag the sliding R1 instead of the base. The tag is missed, and R1 slides past the base without touching it. As R1 scrambles back to the base, F6 tags him (not an appeal, not a force out) before he can return. R3 scored before the tag was applied (time play). The defense wishes to appeal that R1 missed second base (advantageous 4th out) to negate the run. The appeal is not allowed. (emphasis added)

Sure he can. BR misses 1st and is tagged out at third. The first time he is out is on the tag. He is also out on appeal for missing 1st. Runner is still out, but for different reasons.

Those are two of the most misguided rules interpretations that are out there.

J/R has taken the missed base appeal and made it more difficult than it should be. This is another instance that I disagree with their interpretation. They are applying the missed home plate requirements and applying them to the rest of the bases. If the rules makers wanted it like that, they could have made it so. There is no such thing as relaxed/unrelaxed action. If a runner misses a base and the defense proplerly appeals the missed base by tagging said base, the runner is out whether or not he was trying to get back to the missed base.

J/R has missed the boat on this and refuses to rectify their misinterpretation.

Thanks for the examples, dash. I remember reading the second one, but not the first. From the second example, I thought the fact that the runner was in the vicinity of the base precluded the gaining of the advantageous 4th out, but apparently the J/R interprets the first example the same way. I still don't see why the defense couldn't appeal for the advantageous fourth out.

If a runner misses a base and the defense properly appeals the missed base by tagging [it], the runner is out whether or not he was trying to get back to the missed base.

Can't fault your logic, UmpTTS43, since that's the letter of the rule book. But that's not how they call it in OBR. (Just in case anyone is interested, ASA softball does permit an immediate appeal on a missed base. Whether the runner is returning to touch or is in the vicinity is irrelevant. ASA also does not recognize relaxed versus unrelaxed action.)

No, I'm saying that if he's past second, there has to be an appeal of the missed base to cancel the run.

Rita

In that case, I echo mbyron's first post.

How about the appeal being obvious since R1 had attained or almost attained 3B when he ran back. A tag at this point might be equivalent to the unannounced but obvious appeal of a runner leaving early on a caught fly and being thrown out at the base he was returning to.

The 3rd out in this situation is certainly a tag play, not an appeal, and hence, a time play. What is at issue is J/R's muddy ruling that we can't have a 4th out appeal on the play. I don't see why we couldn't, their interp only makes a bit of sense if we are talking about overslide, avoiding tag action in and around a base.

I think grey's interp is what RefMag is saying. R1 stopping, returning, and being tagged "just after R2 crossed the plate" suggests to me he hadn't made a whole hell of a lot of progress toward third, so I don't see it that way.

What I was taught is you can't appeal a missed base by a runner when he is put out AT that base. That is, if R1 is tagged out beyond 2nd base and not in proximity of it (I use the cutout as a guide for "proximity"; some guys I work with and respect say even farther than that), the defense can appeal the missed base for an advantageous apparent fourth out. R1 gains 2nd base when he passes it; once he passes it, the force is removed and if he is subsequently tagged beyond the base, it's a time play. If the tag occurs not in proximity of the base, the defense can appeal the miss for a run-negating force-out. If he's tagged out AT the base (inside the cutout for me) trying to return, no appeal is allowed.

It was explained to me, "He can be out at third, then out at second to supersede it, but he can't be out twice at second. When he's out at second, he's out at second."

The rules citations in the case play say the run does not score because the third out was a force play. How the case play arrived at a force out because a runner was tagged beyond a base he had passed, but not touched, is beyond me unless they rule the tag was a proper appeal, an interpretation with which I cannot abide.

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.

My position on this is we (umpires) always assume that the base runner has touched the base and remains that way unless legally appealed.

That being the case, in Rita's scenario (albeit Referee Magizine's scenario), R1 is caught off 2nd base and tagged for the 3rd out. The run scores unless legally appealed (advantageous 4th out). The mere placing of the tag is not the appeal because we (umpires) do not call an out for missing a base until the defense appeals. In this case, I want to hear from the defense that they are appealing R1 not touching 2nd base.

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.

It wouldn't be the first time.

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

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.

For my newbie brain: In the case where R1 actually touches third, then heads back to second, the force play is on and the run does not score - right? Also, say in the case where R1 touches third, coach tells him to return, and he breaks for second but a tag is made on him, I believe the run would still not score correct?

R1 starts at 1B. If he reaches 3B, retreating toward 2B does not reinstate any force.

I guess I'm reading too much into 7.08(e)? "However, if the forced runner, after touching the next base, retreats for any reason towards the base he had last occupied, the force play is reinstated..."

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 ?

3B isn't the next base. 2B is, for R1.

A runner can only be forced to the next base beyond the one he occupies at the time of the pitch. Beyond that, no force.

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.

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

If defense tags R1 and says nothing as they run off I have a run scored. If they tag him and then say he missed 2nd base I have a missed base appeal and no run scored.

According to J/R, that would not be a valid appeal because the action is unrelaxed.

"An appeal should be clearly intended as an appeal, either by a verbal request by the player or an act that unmistakably indicates an appeal to the umpire"

Given the rulebook language quoted above and not having a copy of JR, how is the runner returning to second any different then the runner returning on a tag up or missing home plate. They are both unrelaxed actions and both appealable errors. How does JR justify this . Or am I missing something.

I'm trying to understand it too. And I found another problem (at least for me).

Under the general definition of an appeal that applies to a runner (missed base or retouch appeals), J/R states it must be obvious, i.e, by voice and/or unmistakable act (7.10 Comment).

J/R defines action as relaxed or unrelaxed, depending on whether the runner being appealed is attempting to reach a base and the ball is at or approaching the base.

Retouch appeals can be made when the action is relaxed or unrelaxed, and the appeal must be obvious. However, if the action is unrelaxed, the appeal "is only obvious when the runner has clearly failed to retouch, i.e., the runner is at or returning from a considerable distance away from his TOP base when a fly ball is caught [sic]." (Emphasis added).

An attempt to "double up" a runner who had left the base on the hit (or pitch) and was trying to beat the throw back would always be an obvious retouch appeal.

But consider R3, one out, fly ball to the outfield. R3 leaves the base just before the ball is first touched (caught). Both the umpire and F5 see R3 leave early. R3 stumbles on his way home and tries to return to 3rd. F5 calls for the ball and stretches for the throw, believing he is making a retouch appeal. The umpire knows F5 is trying to appeal, but according to J/R, it is not an appeal because R3 was not a "considerable distance" from the base when the ball was caught. If it's not an appeal, it's a tag play, so if R3 gets back to the base before he is tagged, he is safe. Any subsequent appeal (if J/R even allows it) is denied because R3 corrected his error before the appeal.

In my opinion, that's not how it should be called on the field. What if R3 had continued home and was safe on a close play? The defense could appeal his failure to retouch 3rd, and the appeal would be upheld because the action is now relaxed. It seems to me that strictly following J/R would result in different rulings on the same appeal.

The rule already says that the appeal must be obvious to the umpire. The stuff about a considerable distance away from the TOP base is unnecessary, and confounds the interpretation IMO.

Getting back to your (and my) problem, J/R says "A missed base appeal of first (rounded), second or third occurs only when the action is relaxed" (and there is no exception for an obvious appeal) so if the runner is scrambling back to the base, he must be tagged to be out. Furthermore, (from the two relevant examples), if the runner is tagged, it's still a time play at the plate, so even if R1 is out, he's out on the tag and not by appeal.

Maybe J/R denies subsequent appeals in those two examples because R1 made it back to the base and therefore corrected his error before the appeal - it's not clear.

So I think your kind of saying, sort of, well not you directly, that if the runner is going back to second for OBVIOUSLY missing the base and the fielder is tagging him for OBVIOUSLY missing the base then we should call him out and allow the run. Assuming it was scored before the tag.

Then if the coach comes out for an explaination we should tell him "Don't go there coach , we don't have enough time to explain it because I haven't quite figured it out myself yet." Although it may seem as though it was "an act that unmistakably indicates an appeal to the umpire", it was only our imagination. And that is a non-protestable call.

OK I get it, I think, well maybe, sort of.

And I was just beginning to completely understand the NCAA DH rule, Not.

Another neighborhood play
 

Baseball may no longer allow the fielder to overstep a base to obtain an out in the classic sense of the ole neighborhood play, but it still allows a runner to obtain a base by overstepping it. The issue here is whether or not a base has actually been obtained when a runner passes by a base left untouched. Difficulties are compounded by the number of outs, advantageous fourth outs which may occur and different league interpretations.

A classic example occurs when R1 overslides 2B and a run scores before a tag occurs {See PBUC/MLB case plays}. One league allows a valid defensive appeal and another one doesn't. An alert fielder may be expected to receive the ball and then give chase after a baserunning infraction. Another example occurs when R3 overruns HP and the catcher makes a verbal appeal before throwing the ball in an attempt to retire a runner at another base. However, after a fly ball is caught, a retouch appeal allows the defensive to either a touch of base or tag of runner and will not require a tag of runner w/in proximity of the base. It isn't a force play, but touching the base is recognized as a valid appeal play.

See above posts.

[QUOTE=dash_riprock;639724]The rule already says that the appeal must be obvious to the umpire.QUOTE]

Let's see. The runner leaves early on the fly ball or line drive, even if just by an eyelash. It's the umpire's job to watch that. The fielder takes a snap throw back to the base. Pretty obvious to me that's what the defense is doing. "Considerable distance from the base" does not even enter the scenario - and that phrase is a judgement situation anyway, so it's not only not relevant, it's pretty silly.

JJ