Appeal or Out
 

I've been umpiring a long time and had something happen last night at the varsity level I have never experienced before.

I'm on the bases and a great partner behind the dish. Runners on first and second. Two outs. Ball hit to the gap. R1 scores easily. Throw coming to the plate is cut off and the batter is easily thrown out at third for the third out. From my look, runner at the plate should have easily scored before the final out was made.

The problem is that the R2 never touched the plate. After the third out was recorded at third, he touched the plate. The plate umpire ruled no run because the third out was recorded prior to him touching the plate. No arguments from offensive coach.

During our post game, we discussed whether or not this is an appeal play with a potential fourth out. But that usually happens when a force play is created by missing a base.

My question is was the plate umpire correct in not counting the run or should we have done something else?

It's an appeal. Any missed base is an appeal - force or otherwise. He was INcorrect.

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.

Run scores unless and until appealed. Partner missed it.

Agreed, score the run as the base is considered acquired.

That's kind of what I thought. And the appeal likely wouldn't have been timely as he touched the base before any appeal could have been made.

Agree with your agreement!

[QUOTE]Did the runner "pass" the plate and not touch it and then after out number 3 came back and touched the plate OR did he not "reach" home plate at all?

if the latter, then there is no appeal play and the PU is correct.

Example: 2 outs and R2

base hit to right. B1 trys to stretch into a double and is tagged out at second BEFORE R2 crosses / "reaches" the plate.

This is obviously a time play but as PU you will signal No Run because the 3rd out occured BEFORE R2 crossed the plate.

Therefore, in order to your anwer your question correctly we need to know whether or not R3 crossed / passed the plate but did not touch it OR he never "reached" it to begin with.

In order to have an appeal play the runner must have passed / reached a base but did not touch it. If he never reaches or passes a base to begin with then there is no appeal.

Pete Booth

He passed it but did not touch it the first time by

Interesting case, which might not be as obvious as everyone seems to think. I'm assuming FED rules and that the order of events was as follows and in quick but clear succession:

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?

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.

9.1.1c -- it is possible to score a run after the 3rd out. To say that no runs can score after the 3rd out is not true. ;)

That's NOT what Welpe is saying.

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

Pete,
My response wasn't to Welpe, it was to mbyron when he said:
I was just pointing out that a run CAN score after the 3rd out. Sorry if I was confusing.

True, but irrelevant, as this is not an award situation. No runs can score after the 3rd out (unless from an award).

At this point, folks, I think I saw him touch the plate after all. :)