About the 234 known OBR errors

[nopachunts]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

What if R1 slide past (not touching) the base as F4 bobbled the throw. R1 gets up and tries for third where he's tagged out. Do you now allow an appeal that he missed second? How (or why) is that different from the OP?

Bob, In your scenario is the base ever tagged by a fielder in possession of the ball? If R1 has slid past 2B without touching it and then went to 3B and 2B was tagged by a fielder and the ball, I would allow an appeal for a missed base.

In Larry1953's scenario, 2B was not tagged by a fielder and the ball.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by nopachunts

Bob, In your scenario is the base ever tagged by a fielder in possession of the ball? If R1 has slid past 2B without touching it and then went to 3B and 2B was tagged by a fielder and the ball, I would allow an appeal for a missed base.

In Larry1953's scenario, 2B was not tagged by a fielder and the ball.

In both plays, the runner is tagged out during "live action" and then the defense appeals that R1 missed second (it's assumed that the appeal is correctly performed).

[Larry1953]

To remain obtuse, the play was on a forced runner. The rules say such runner can be put out if either he or the base he was forced to is tagged before he touches said base and no run can score if such force out is the third out.

Many times you see F3 snag a liner while diving toward 1B while R1 is off the bag simply with his lead. 1B then crawls over a foot or two to tag the bag. Technically this is an appeal play and 1B hardly has the time to make a verbal appeal. As part of continuous action with BU being aware of the circumstances, the runner is always called out if he does not make it back in time. It seems to be a similar situation with the OP where the runner is scrambling to get back to 2B and the BU knows he missed the bag.

[nopachunts]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Many times you see F3 snag a liner while diving toward 1B while R1 is off the bag simply with his lead. 1B then crawls over a foot or two to tag the bag. Technically this is an appeal play and 1B hardly has the time to make a verbal appeal. As part of continuous action with BU being aware of the circumstances, the runner is always called out if he does not make it back in time. It seems to be a similar situation with the OP where the runner is scrambling to get back to 2B and the BU knows he missed the bag.

You can't use dissimliar plays to justify each other, Adios Amigos.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

To remain obtuse, the play was on a forced runner. The rules say such runner can be put out if either he or the base he was forced to is tagged before he touches said base and no run can score if such force out is the third out.

Many times you see F3 snag a liner while diving toward 1B while R1 is off the bag simply with his lead. 1B then crawls over a foot or two to tag the bag. Technically this is an appeal play and 1B hardly has the time to make a verbal appeal. As part of continuous action with BU being aware of the circumstances, the runner is always called out if he does not make it back in time. It seems to be a similar situation with the OP where the runner is scrambling to get back to 2B and the BU knows he missed the bag.

An appeal needs to be "clearly intended". That happens when F3 touches first after catching the fly -- it's the only reason he does it, and everyone knows why he's doing it. It doesn't (usually) happen when F4 tags R1 who slid past second -- that looks like a tag of someone who is off the base, and not an appeal.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

An appeal needs to be "clearly intended". That happens when F3 touches first after catching the fly -- it's the only reason he does it, and everyone knows why he's doing it. It doesn't (usually) happen when F4 tags R1 who slid past second -- that looks like a tag of someone who is off the base, and not an appeal.

Understood. But in the J/R case, the defense makes a relaxed play appeal, indicating their appeal intentions on what had just transpired. I suppose the crux of the matter is that J/R interprets that you cannot make a fourth out appeal at the same base the same runner made the third out. I can see the rationale in that.