Appeal Play Ruling--NCAA Rules.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

While perusing (I hope I spelled that correctly) May issues of Referee Magazine, the first question in the Test Yourself portion of the Baseball Section is as follows (I will try to make it concise):

Bases load, one out. Ground ball to F4 deep in the hole. Only play for F4 is to get the B/R5 at 1B. The runners on 3B (R3) and 2B (R2) score. But the runner on 2B misses 3B, and the defense successfully appeals the runner on 2B missing 3B. Does R3's run score? ANSWER: According to Referee, NFHS Rules and OBR says yes, and the logic for this ruling is a no brainer. BUT, Referee states that NCAA Rules say that R3's run does not score (R8-S5, Exception).

I do not own an NCAA Rules Book, so would a college umpire please explain the NCAA ruling to MTD, Jr., and I, or did Referee Magazine screw this play up. Thank.

MTD, Sr.

[UmpJM]

Mark,

1. It's "perusing".

2. A PDF of the current NCAA rule book can be downloaded (free) here: NCAA Publications - 2011-2012 Baseball Rules (2 Year Publication)

3. One place you say R2 misses HP, another you say he missed 3B - I believe you meant 3B both times.

The ruling is NOT different in NCAA from what it would be in OBR & FED, despite Referee mag's assertion to the contrary.

As the question was presented it was impossible to answer because it never said whether the R2 had already passed 3B at the time the BR was retired at 1B. Therefore, we don't know whether the R2 was "forced" at the moment he missed 3B.

JM

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Mark,

1. It's "perusing".

2. A PDF of the current NCAA rule book can be downloaded (free) here: NCAA Publications - 2011-2012 Baseball Rules (2 Year Publication)

3. One place you say R2 misses HP, another you say he missed 3B - I believe you meant 3B both times.

The ruling is NOT different in NCAA from what it would be in OBR & FED, despite Referee mag's assertion to the contrary.

As the question was presented it was impossible to answer because it never said whether the R2 had already passed 3B at the time the BR was retired at 1B. Therefore, we don't know whether the R2 was "forced" at the moment he missed 3B.

JM

Coach:

I corrected the typo in my OP. But, I have never heard the argument put forth regarding the location of R2 at the time of BR5 out at 1B. Every play that I have heard discussed where the BR is thrown out at first rather than going after a runner forced to advance has never discussed that question. Thanks for you answer.

MTD, Sr.

[UmpJM]

Mark,

You're welcome.

I believe you may have "mis-corrected" your typo.

JM

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Mark,

You're welcome.

I believe you may have "mis-corrected" your typo.

JM

I fixed it again. LOL, that is what happens when I get excited about the Indians winning.

MTD, Sr.

[DG]

Interesting. There was a FED question similar.

With the bases loaded and one out, B5 hits a line drive to the right field fence. R1 and R2 both score, but R3 is thrown out at home. B5 safely arrives at third, but missed first base. The defense properly appeals B5's missing first. [Rule 9-1-1 Exception d]
No runs score. (Correct Answer)

Now put this same scenario onto what you have and let me know what you come up with.

[DG]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

As the question was presented it was impossible to answer because it never said whether the R2 had already passed 3B at the time the BR was retired at 1B. Therefore, we don't know whether the R2 was "forced" at the moment he missed 3B.

Safe to assume though that R2 with a lead off 2b and ball hit deep in the hole to SS he would have passed 3B at the time the throw reached 1b so he was very likely forced.

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I fixed it again. LOL, that is what happens when I get excited about the Indians winning.

MTD, Sr.

Gotta cut him some slack JM when Mark's Indians are winning.....IJS

Joel

[Dave Reed]

The text of the NCAA rule is different and is ambiguous.
8-5:
j. The individual fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags the runner or the base after the runner has been forced to advance because the batter became a runner;
Exception—No runner can be forced out if a runner who follows in the batting order is put out first. However, if a runner is put out during live action, it does not remove the force on any runners who might subsequently be declared out for a running infraction.
A.R. 1—No run may score on any play when the third out is either a force out or the result of a batter-runner’s failure to reach first base safely.

I've bolded the part that Referee Magazine is probably basing its opinion on.

I believe, but have no way to prove, that the bolded part is intended to apply to situations very similar to the OP.
Bases loaded, B/R is safe at first, attempts briefly to reach second and is tagged out. In this case R2 is still forced to third because B/R was safe at first. So the appeal is of a force out which is the third out.

If my surmise is correct, the the bolded part is really only a clarification, and the same ruling is implicit in the other rule codes. But Referee Magazine probably took the bolded sentence literally and ignored the contradiction to both the preceding sentence and to baseball common sense.

[robbie]

Originally Posted by Gulf Coast Blue

Gotta cut him some slack JM when Mark's Indians are winning.....IJS

Joel

Go TRIBE !!!

Awsome, Huh?

[greymule]

Peruse is an interesting word. It originally meant to examine in detail; scrutinize but now simply means to read carefully or thoroughly; study. However, peruse was so often used ironically that it took on a third, quite different, meaning: to read in a casual or leisurely way.

Dave Reed—I'm sure you are correct about the bolded words.

R2, R1, one out. Batter gets a hit down the RF line. R2 scores, R1 misses 2B and proceeds to 3B. BR is thrown out at 2B trying for a double. R1's miss is then appealed. It's a force play for the third out, and R2's run is nullified, even though "a runner who follow[ed] in the batter order [was] put out first."

You're right. It's badly written.

[UmpTTS43]

Consider this and see if clarifies how the NCAA wants appeals of missed based by forced runners handled.

Play: Bases loaded, one out. The batter triples. R1 missed second and the batter-runner missed first. The defense successfully appeals against the batter-runner, then R1. The appeal out of the batter-runner removes the force against R1. R1’s appealed out (third out) is not a force out; R2 and R3’s runs count. If the defense had appealed R1's' missing second as the first appeal and then the batter-runner’s missing of first, no runs would have scored since the third out was for the batter-runner not attaining first base.

[greymule]

Play: Bases loaded, one out. The batter triples. R1 missed second and the batter-runner missed first. The defense successfully appeals against the batter-runner, then R1. The appeal out of the batter-runner removes the force against R1. R1’s appealed out (third out) is not a force out; R2 and R3’s runs count. If the defense had appealed R1's' missing second as the first appeal and then the batter-runner’s missing of first, no runs would have scored since the third out was for the batter-runner not attaining first base.

Is this an official NCAA case play? If it is, then my example above would be wrong in NCAA. And so would Play 106-243 [p. 145] in my 2006 BRD, which is of course possibly out of date now. (In fact, it may even for its time have been incorrect in one particular: it asserts that in NCAA, an appeal of a runner forced at the time the play started, not at the time he missed the base, remains a force throughout the play. Some NCAA umpires on this board insisted that "at the time of the miss" was the criterion, as in Fed and OBR.)

The play given in the BRD to demonstrate "order of appeals" involves an obvious non-force and an obvious force, not a force removed because a following runner had been put out. Still, it's hard to believe that NCAA follows neither Fed nor OBR but instead follows ASA softball, in which a putout of the BR instantly and permanently removes all forces, including appeals.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by greymule

Play: Bases loaded, one out. The batter triples. R1 missed second and the batter-runner missed first. The defense successfully appeals against the batter-runner, then R1. The appeal out of the batter-runner removes the force against R1. R1’s appealed out (third out) is not a force out; R2 and R3’s runs count. If the defense had appealed R1's' missing second as the first appeal and then the batter-runner’s missing of first, no runs would have scored since the third out was for the batter-runner not attaining first base.

Is this an official NCAA case play? If it is, then my example above would be wrong in NCAA. And so would Play 106-243 [p. 145] in my 2006 BRD, which is of course possibly out of date now. (In fact, it may even for its time have been incorrect in one particular: it asserts that in NCAA, an appeal of a runner forced at the time the play started, not at the time he missed the base, remains a force throughout the play. Some NCAA umpires on this board insisted that "at the time of the miss" was the criterion, as in Fed and OBR.)

The play given in the BRD to demonstrate "order of appeals" involves an obvious non-force and an obvious force, not a force removed because a following runner had been put out. Still, it's hard to believe that NCAA follows neither Fed nor OBR but instead follows ASA softball, in which a putout of the BR instantly and permanently removes all forces, including appeals.

I am in total agreement with you. However, this is how the NCAA wants appeals to be handled. This interp came from the March meeting of conference coordinaters. It further clouds the interp that if a previous runner is put out during live play the force is still in effect.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

It further clouds the interp that if a previous runner is put out during live play the force is still in effect.

Yeah, isn't that a bit odd? Did they state any rationale for that?