Interesting play this afternoon. Mike Bordick on first, one out. Batter hits a line drive, ball hits the picher's butt and bounces directly to the Texas 3B for the 2nd out. Bordick is rounding 2nd when he realizes that he is going to be doubled off at first. But wait, the 3B throws the ball over the 1B's head and out of play. Bordick is awarded third on the wild throw.

But it's not over yet. Bordick is 2 steps past second base when he realizes what's going on. However, he does not return to tag up at first, instead he goes directly to third. There is along delay as the manager goes to the mound to check on his pitcher who was hit hard, he stays in the game.

When the ball is finally live again, the pitcher appeals to second base and Bordick is out. Toronto manager comes out to gripe, but what can you do if they did not know the rule. Obviously, the Texas manager knew the rule and told his pitcher to appeal.

He appealed to SECOND?

You're kidding, right? The appeal base is first.

Rich

They did in fact appeal to 2nd base, and Bordick was called out.

Apparently years ago in the minor leagues, the Texas manager was managing a team that included both the Toronto manager and 3rd base coach as coaches, and the exact same scenario occurred. Showalter was coaching 3rd base, and told his runner to fake a steal of home. The pitcher then threw to third to try to get the runner, then appealed to 2nd, and was not allowed the appeal.

I found this strange because I thought that if the offense initiates a play, such as a fake steal of home, the defense still has the right to appeal. Maybe the rules have changed since then, though.

Also, I thought that the Bordick appeal should have been at 1st also. Once he's past 2nd base and the ball goes out of play, he's screwed because he cannot, by rule, go back to 1st base and tag up.

I had a lengthy discussion with some umpires in my association earlier this year about a similar "what if" play. What if the batter hits a ball deep in the gap, the runner on 1st has passed 2nd base when the center fielder catches it at the wall. CF sees where the runner is, and immediately throws the ball over the fence. Well, the batter is awarded home, but is out on appeal at 1st base.

In OBR, there is no mention that an appeal can still be accepted if a play occurs that the offense initiated. I do know that in FED rules, the appeal can still be granted if the offense initiates a play. However, with dead ball appeals being allowed in FED, why would anyone appeal during a live ball?

Unless the play is part of continuous action, the appeal should be denied. The defense must appeal before any play that is not a part of continuous action.

That is incorrect. Only runners who touch an advance base while the ball is dead cannot go back to correct the infraction. In the posted situation, Bordick was beyond second already when the ball entered dead ball territory. He could indeed properly retreat to correct his infraction.

Right. But there is mention that an appeal is no longer viable. It's under the notes in 7.10.

So, under OBR, the offense has a chance to bait the defense into attempting a play in order to negate an appeal. A wise defense will ignore the bait if the appeal is viable.

<b>Once he's past 2nd base and the ball goes out of play, he's screwed because he cannot, by rule, go back to 1st base and tag up.</b>

As Jim Porter noted, this is not true in OBR. As I remember, Fed does contain this restriction.

Jim: What constitutes a "play" if the offense tries to bait the defense into something that will nullify an appeal attempt? If the runner on 3B breaks for home and the pitcher fakes a throw or takes a couple of steps toward the runner, is the appeal nullified?

No, a fake throw or a few steps are not considered a play or attempted play. It's got to actually be a tag try or a throw.

Still, how can they appeal this at SECOND base? The return base was first.

Hey, they knew to appeal SOMETHING.

Rich

Thank you to both of you for clarifying. I omitted that I was interpreting these rules with FED rulings...

Rich;

Since R1 had already passed second at the time of the award, he must retouch second and first before going to third. Since he went directly to third, the defense may appeal either base as a missed base.

He must also touch second after retouching first. Now we can get into "last time by" with regards to which touch at second they were appealing. :D

Peter

[QUOTE]Originally posted by His High Holiness

Quote:

Rich; Since R1 had already passed second at the time of the award, he must retouch second and first before going to third. Since he went directly to third, the defense may appeal either base as a missed base. He must also touch second after retouching first. Now we can get into "last time by" with regards to which touch at second they were appealing. :D Peter

Good explanation. It's just hard to believe the players knew the rule. We have a couple of former MLB players coaching youth ball locally and their knowledge of the rules is amazingly minimal.

But the appeal was at 1B, not 2B. Yes, the runner had to return to 1B via 2B, but he had touched 2B legally. Had he <i>missed</i> 2B on the way to 3B as well as left 1B before the catch, then the defense could appeal either 2B as a miss or 1B as left too soon. According to the original post, there was no missed base involved.

Had the runner not retouched 2B on the way back to 1B, then the defense could have appealed 2B as a failure to retouch. I believe the umpires erred if they allowed an appeal at 2B. I'm sure others will weigh in on this soon.

Parallel example: Runner on 2B. Fly to center field wall. Runner leaves 2B too soon and scores. The appeal is at 2B, not 3B. You can't throw the ball to 3B and appeal that the runner did not retouch it.

Where in the book does it say that an intervening base can be tagged?

[Edited by greymule on Aug 11th, 2003 at 11:59 AM]

Bordick was not passed 2nd by the time that the ball went DBA he was 3ft before the bag and had stopped thinking that the play would be made at 1st. upon seeing the overthrow he proceeded past 2nd and therefore could not return. Why they went to 2nd I don't know.

Bordick was required to return to first in order to retouch. When returning, a runner is required to touch each base in order. Bordick failed to do that. Therefore, he missed second in his return to retouch first. That makes second perfectly viable for the appeal, I would think.

Even if Bordick touched second after the ball became dead, and even though by rule he could not return to correct his infraction, second is still one of the bases he needed to retouch. Whether by rule or by choice, Bordick did not properly retouch second as he was required to do.

Are you certain that Bordick could not retouch the bases after the ball became dead? If that is the case, that rule is unfair. The fact he was past 2nd when the ball became dead does not seem like a good reason to penalize him. The fact a player does not know he has to retouch the bases would be a good reason to penalize him.

I did not see the play in its entirety. I saw only a part of it. I am going by reports here.

If the ball became dead before Bordick touched second, then he cannot legally correct his infraction.

If the ball became dead after Bordick touched second, then he can legally correct his infraction during the dead ball.

Those are the rules, and they're aren't always fair.

I saw the replay on ESPN. When Bordick was awaded 3B, he looked confused as to how to get there. He took a shortcut, by-passing 2B. That's why the appeal was made there.

bob

He was prohibited from returning because, <i>after the ball became dead,</i> he advanced to the next base.

As for the appeal at an intervening base, I understand the logic, but I don't think the rules would allow it. I don't think that because the runner had to touch 2B and did not, he can be appealed at 2B. The appeal is at 1B only.

Let's take a couple of extreme examples.

1. Suppose Abel hits an inside-the-park home run but misses 1B. Let's add that the throw home skips into DBT. To get an out, the defense must appeal at 1B. They cannot appeal at 2B or 3B or even home under the theory that Abel, to correct his mistake, would have to retouch home, 3B, 2B, in order to retouch at 1B.

2. Abel on 2B. Baker hits a 420-foot fly to center. Abel leaves too soon, tags 3B, sprints home, and goes into the dugout. The defense must appeal at 2B. They cannot appeal at 3B or home under the theory that Abel would have to retouch home and 3B in order to return and correct his mistake.

I will search J&R, BRD, etc., tonight to see whether I can find a definite answer.

I am not 100% sure of my position, but if I'm wrong, I really learned something.

As I remember, the book says, ". . . and he or the base is tagged." It does not add, "or any intervening bases the runner would have to touch to effect a proper return."

I just read Bluezebra's post. That makes sense. If the runner not only left 1B but also missed 2B, then the defense can appeal at either base.

[Edited by greymule on Aug 11th, 2003 at 04:51 PM]

I saw the play live and the 5 or 6 replays that they showed.
As far as I could tell, Bordick was probably just short of 2nd base when the ball went out of play. But he was just past 2nd when he realized that he was being awarded 3rd base.

As far as the ESPN highlights, he didn't take a shortcut to third base

The piece of the replay that I saw did not show him taking a shortcut. But, again, I only saw a piece, so I could be wrong.

Greymule, I don't know the answer. It just seems plausible that under a failure to retouch scenario, all bases that the runner is required to touch in order to correct his infraction are fair game for appeal. For example, in your second scenario, why would they only have to appeal at 2nd? Why wouldn't an appeal at third or home be viable? The runner failed to touch those bases when he was required to retreat. It's not the same as a missed base. It's a requirement to retouch. Seems plausible, doesn't it? Heck, the defense only needs to tag the runner himself, standing on any base. Why couldn't they just tag any base that the runner was required to touch? I don't know the answer, but it sure makes for an interesting question to ponder.

The answer is simple, Jim. They blew the appeal call (by rule), but the achieved the correct result that is expected (by rule) since the runner never retouched.

This is BS about declaring the runner out when the appeal is made at the wrong base. It has nothing to do about appealing a base he'd be required to touch during a needed return which he never makes.

<b>A runner is not "required" to correct a baserunning error.</b>
However, if he elects not to return to correct his error, he is at liability of being declared out if the defense <u>properly</u> appeals. That did not occur here. The runner never attempted return---thus he never missed a base---and the defense never <u>properly</u> appealed.

This thread reminds me of the old fairy tale of the Emperor's New Clothes.
It seems nobody here wants to admit that the officials simply blew the call based on the happenings of the play.
Open your eyes; see that the Emperor is naked; see that the officials simply blew this call.

<hr width=50%>
Of course, the next question for Peter is whether you think they purposely blew the rule to achieve the correct result and to keep them out of allowing this Third World play to progress into becoming The Twilight Zone? I realize, of course, that your answer is just speculation....


Freix

NAPBL Umpire Manual Ruling 3.12, page 27 DEFENSE MUST APPEAL ORIGINAL BASE AFTER CATCH

When a runner misses a base and a fielder holds the ball on the missed base, or on the base originally occupied by the runner if a fly ball is caught, and appeals for the umpires decision, the runner is out when the umpire sustains the appeal.


Play: Runner on first, batter hits the ball far into the outfield and runner races for third. Catch is made, and outfielder throws ball to shortstop who steps on second base asking umpire to rule an out.

Ruling: This is improper play by the shortstop, as runner may be called out only by being tagged or first base being touched before the runner reaches first base.

This is the Minor League interpretation, but I have a hard time believing it would be different in MLB.

Then either they blew the ruling bigtime, or Bob is right and he took a shortcut to third. Shame on me for thinking this wouldn't be covered somewhere.

I'll add the citation from Evans Annotated that covers this:
-----------
Runners must retouch after all fly balls are caught. This includes both fair and foul balls.

The runner must retouch his original base. this is the base he occupied at the time the pitcher initiated his delivery. A runner who is running on the pitch and has actually touched a succeeding base at the time the ball is hit, must return and touch the previously occupied base (his original base at the time of the pitch).

The defensive team must make their appeal for failure to retouch at that original base. Even though the defense may be able to physically make an appeal at another base touched by the runner before he retouches it, this is not a valid appeal.
-------------

Rich

I posed this situation to the WUA. Their answer:

<b>"Hi Garth,

The umpire was mistaken. The appeal should have been made at first or by tagging the runner on third.

Jim Reynolds

World Umpires Association</b>

I had also e-mail the WUA and got the same reply. I had also asked if Bordick had the right to return and tag up at first base after the ball was dead. They said yes until the time he touched third base, which was the base he was being awarded.

Another variation to this question. Batter hits a triple a fails to touch both first base and second base. Can the defense appeal to first or second? I would think in this situation either base is appealable.

Jay

Yes, but the result may be different depending on whether a runner scored on the play.

If the appeal is on the BR at first base, no runs can score. If the appeal is at second base, it becomes a time play and all runs that score prior to the appeal count.

Rich

Reminds me of a play in the 1962 season, I believe. Marvelous Marv Throneberry of the Mets hit a triple, and was called out on appeal for not touching 1st base. Manager Casey Stengel came out to umpire, and the ump said, "Casey, don't bother, he didn't touch 2nd base either." Stengel responded, "Well, I sure as hell know he touched 3rd, he's standing on it!"

I would imagine we'll get a few more of these stories revisited while the Tigers make their run at history.