Little League 9-12 year olds.
2 outs.
R1 is on second and R2 on first.
B1 hits the ball into the RC gap for extra bases.
R1 scores, as R2 is crossing home, he actually misses home plate. The Plate umpire witnesses R2 missing the plate.
But in the interim, the defense throws out B1 as he slides into third base for the 3rd out.
But I might ad, the out happens before R2 returns and touches home plate.

SHOULD THIS RUN BE ALLOWED...? Timing, Base not legally (touched/occupied) yet by R2, is the ball dead after the 3rd out, thus not allowing the retouch by R2....?

Also, neither of the coaches saw the miss at home, I'm just a parent who happens to have 24 years of experience but now retired from umpiring, who watches for these things from habit, while attending son's games. I have a very good relationship with the League Umpires, they are old school friends of mine from years ago....

Run scores unless appealed.

Wait a second. Are you saying that the runner who came back and touched the plate, would be called out on appeal, even after he "retouched" the plate?
I'd say once he retouched the plate, his run was in the books for good. He "scored" before the 3rd out was recorded, and unless the appeal was sustained on him before he came back and touched the plate, he's still considered to have scored, right? The ball didn't become dead just because the defense recorded the 3rd out elsewhere, did it?
Therefore, he could, and did legally retouch HP. Count the run no matter what here, I'd think.......

Is it because, even though it was the third out, the ball is still live until the fielders leave the playing area?

And, Would that be an example of a fourth out?

Could you also state the Rule, or a Case Number, I couldn't find it for Lil' League.

In FED I know an appeal is not necessary. Umpire can call him out if he witnessed runner missing base.

You make a good point Mike, he came back and touched HP, even though it was after the third out was made. I would think if the defense could appeal the run after the third out, the runner should be allowed to come back and touch after the third out.






[Edited by thumpferee on May 2nd, 2003 at 09:45 AM]

FED changed that rule.
 

Missed bases must be appealed in some way, shape, or form. If you do FED, you know what I mean.

While the general statement is true that a runner "crossing" the plate is considered to have touched the plate, J/R very specifically addresses this situation that if the runner returns to touch the plate after missing it, then the time of the actual touch will supersede the time that he crossed the plate when considering a timing play. In your situation, the run would not score per J/R.

So the next question to address is how accurate is J/R in its writings. NAPBL and JEA address the general concept of the runner crossing the plate without touching it, but neither address a runner returning to the plate after missing it---and how it relates to a time play. When this has occurred in the past---when J/R has been more specific in what they address vs. the other authoritative writings---I've found their writings to have been proven accurate.

The runner gained the advantage of beating the play without the required touch, but the defense then had its appeal rights intact--the offset of providing the benefit to the runner who did not abide by the rules. However, the runner changed the timing of the play when he returned and eliminated the defense's right to appeal by touching the plate. In doing so, he changed the time of the touch as it relates to timing. IMO, there is good logic of fairness in this area specifically addressed by J/R.

I see no reason to alter from J/R here.


Just my opinion,

Freix

Did they change the FED rule this year TwoBits?

I have 2002 Rule book.

But, even tho it was a rule, you wouldn't see me callin' someone out without some mention of it from the opposing team!




[Edited by thumpferee on May 2nd, 2003 at 09:53 AM]

Where have you been for the past 2 years?????
Missed bases in Fed now require the defense to appeal to gain the out.


Freix

In germany Bfair! lol

And it hasn't been 2 years, it's been 1.

2002 Case Book 8.2.1 a,b,c,d

I never understood nor agreed with the old rule!
Glad they changed it!

[Edited by thumpferee on May 2nd, 2003 at 10:00 AM]

No, it's been two years.

The case book didn't quite catch up to the rules change last year, but the rule *was* changed.

I was going by the 2002 Rule Book which I stated Bob...

There you go picking me apart again......!!!!!!!

The 2002 Rule book has the changes in it. The 2003 case book has the changes listed, and some cases that deal with the new rule, but still has some cases that weren't changed to reflect the new rule.

If you were using the rule book, it should have been clear.

If you were using the case book, you might have been confused.

You only would have had the "wrong" information if you were using a 2001 or prior book.