![]() |
|
|
|||
Quote:
He may have missed the memo but several years back FED eliminated the automatic-umpire-calls-it on the missed base plays. Now there has to be an appeal.
__________________
Rich Ives Different does not equate to wrong |
|
|||
Agree with your agreement!
__________________
Trained by the best! Haven't missed one yet! As good as any, better than the rest! ![]() |
|
|||
Quote:
1. R1 passes HP without touching, thereby acquiring the base subject to appeal. 2. BR put out at 3B for the 3rd out of the inning. 3. R1 returns to HP to rectify his base-running error and touches HP. If that's what happened, then some umpires would NOT score the run. The rationale would be that, although R1 initially acquired the base prior to the 3rd out and so provisionally scored, he did so illegally and left himself open to appeal. When he returned to touch HP, his touch was legal but occurred after the 3rd out, when no run can score. That touch would thus negate both the possible appeal AND the run. This might have been the PU's reasoning in the OP. Those who disagree with this interp have 2 unpleasant options if the defense appeals: A) If they uphold the appeal despite the runner touching HP, then they are ruling that the runner cannot ever rectify his error. No rule support for that: 8.2.1D is a clear case of a runner touching HP and scoring after the ball becomes dead, and 8.2.1E and 8.2.2M specify the windows within which base-running errors must be fixed and appeals must be made. This play is within both windows. B) If they deny the appeal and score the run, they're saying that the initial acquisition was good enough to score, even though it was not a legal touch of the base. But this seems to give it to the offense both ways: passing the base was good enough to score, but touching the base negates the appeal. No rule support for such a ruling. I think that the reasoning, but not the rules, would be the same for OBR. Doesn't the (now somewhat outdated) J/R have a case like this?
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
|||
I thought of that, mbyron but the hangup I have with that interpretation is that I'm not sure what support you have for unscoring a run based upon a runner's action lacking a subsequent appeal.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers |
|
|||
Quote:
The rule support is 2-20-1: the inning ended with the 3rd out, and no run can score thereafter.
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers |
|
|||
Yes, but it's not relevant to the situation.
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
|||
Quote:
When he returns to touch it, the previous acquisition is negated, and the legal touch supersedes it. Since that happens after the 3rd out in the OP, the run does not score.
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
FED 8.2.2.M is not applicable because the runner is correcting his miss before the 3rd out. |
|
|||
Quote:
You do not UNSCORE a run by subsequent actions of the runner. In this OP R3 crossed the plate but did not touch it, therefore, for scoring purposes, he is deemed to have "touched it" and score a run for his team UNLESS appealed. The fact that R3 came back to touch the plate is irrelevant and in a way R3 has "tipped" his hand that he didn't touch it so the defense would be wise and appeal it. Pete Booth
__________________
Peter M. Booth |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Appeal | mach3 | Softball | 7 | Wed Feb 25, 2004 09:30am |
The Appeal | clok_strix_3 | Baseball | 12 | Thu May 08, 2003 03:31pm |
Appeal | Prince | Baseball | 3 | Fri May 10, 2002 12:03pm |
Out on Appeal ??? | Bandit | Softball | 2 | Thu Apr 25, 2002 09:28am |
appeal | Whowefoolin | Baseball | 2 | Fri Nov 30, 2001 07:08pm |