Base running dilemma

Warren Willson · #1 (**permalink**) Wed Aug 13, 2003, 08:32pm

The following situation, or at least one very like it, has been debated at another forum for some days now, with no real sign of any agreement. Personally, I didn't think it was all that hard. I've decided to post the situation here to see what some of you guys might think. I have changed a few words to turn the situation into a question, and to clarify the dilemma.

By rule, the bases must be touched in order whether going forward or backwards.

A runner was on 1st when a fly ball was hit to the outfield. There was only 1 out, but the runner thought there were 2 out so he ran at the crack of the bat. He touched 2nd, but before he touched 3rd he realized that the ball was caught by a diving F9 and so headed back toward 1st, barely missing 2nd on his way back. Trying to throw the ball to F3 for an appeal on the leaving early at 1st, the defensive outfielder threw the ball wild and into the dugout.

If R1 was not all the way back to 1st when the ball went dead, would he need to stop, go back, and touch 2nd BEFORE he touched 1st or would he still be vulnerable to an appeal after touching 1st without correcting his miss of 2nd even if he later touched 2nd base while accepting his 2-base award on the overthrown ball?

I won't betray the specific point of disagreement just yet, and I'll reserve my $AUD0.02c worth until some of you guys have had your say. Any takers?

A word of caution: the situation would be ruled differently from JEA than from J/R, and the PBUC has evidently changed its "mind" on the pivotal question in the last few years.

Cheers

Rich · #2 (**permalink**) Wed Aug 13, 2003, 09:11pm

ML Umpire Jim Reynolds speaking for the WUA and Jim Evans himself, both via email, said that the appeal on the play in question was not handled correctly -- that the only appeal possible was at the original base and the umpires erred.

Rich

greymule · #3 (**permalink**) Wed Aug 13, 2003, 09:23pm

I'll take the bait. Obviously, the runner has to touch 2B and then 1B to tag up properly. To me, merely touching 2B afterward on his way to 3B wouldn't qualify. You can't accomplish two touches in one.

I assume the question is whether or not, with the ball now in DBT, returning to 1B after missing 2B qualifies as a type of reverse "advance to the next base" that would prevent the runner from returning (counter-clockwise) to touch 2B and then returning (clockwise) to touch 1B. (All this before he takes his 2-base award counter-clockwise!)

You could certainly argue it either way. If this ever happened, I guess I'd not consider his touch of 1B as disqualifying him from legally returning to touch 2B and then 1B and then 2B and then 3B. Reason? I would consider the "next" base always to be in the counter-clockwise direction. And if I used that terminology in citing the supposed rule, the players would probably believe me.

But I wouldn't say that his touching 2B on the award also fulfilled his obligation to correct his first miss properly.

Just as you can't miss 1B, 2B, 3B and home, and then run around the bases (counter-clockwise) again to touch all the bases. You would have to return clockwise. But what if then (as the ball is rolling down a slope 700 feet away) you missed home, 3B, and 2B on the return and then advanced to touch the bases in the correct order?

I give up.

Rich, did you intend to post your response or the Bordick thread?

[Edited by greymule on Aug 13th, 2003 at 09:36 PM]

Rich · #4 (**permalink**) Wed Aug 13, 2003, 09:48pm

Who knows -- I thought this was the Bordick play at first, but I read more carefully this time.

I'd probably deny the appeal and use the "last time by" principle in doing so.

I should have such weird plays in my games. Tonight I worked 9 innings in 2 hours and didn't have a single word of disagreement -- not on a single pitch or play. Of course, this was the last game of the regular season and all the playoff spots and seeds had been decided, so this was a "play-out-the-string" kinda game.

Rich

mick · #5 (**permalink**) Wed Aug 13, 2003, 09:57pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Warren Willson

If R1 was not all the way back to 1st when the ball went dead, would he need to stop, go back, and touch 2nd BEFORE he touched 1st or would he still be vulnerable to an appeal after touching 1st without correcting his miss of 2nd even if he later touched 2nd base while accepting his 2-base award on the overthrown ball?

If R1 does not specifically touch 2b on his way back to first he has violated and may be out by appeal as long as it is the first appeal on R1 at 2b.

mick

LDUB · #6 (**permalink**) Wed Aug 13, 2003, 11:11pm

Reading this made me come up with another sistuation.

Play starts the same way, R1 on first, ball is hit, R1 past second when ball is caught. He misses second on his way back to first. Now lets say the ball dosen't go out of play. R1 returns to first and realizes he missed second on the way back. So he runs back and to second and stands there. I would have to think this is a legal play.

It is the same as R1 on first missing second on his way to third. So R1 realizes he missed second and runs back to second. Thats legal.

Because a runner has missed a base, and then touched the next base, does not mean he can no longer return to touch a previous base. Both of my examples were the same thing. The only difference is that one runner is running foreward on the bases and the other is running backwards.

GarthB · #7 (**permalink**) Thu Aug 14, 2003, 12:28am

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

I'd probably deny the appeal and use the "last time by" principle in doing so.

Me too, me too...what he said.

Snive · #8 (**permalink**) Thu Aug 14, 2003, 01:30am

Okay, let me see. Having missed 2nd base on the return to first, he is at liability to be put out on appeal. Since you cannot retouch any base for the purposes of missing a base while the ball is dead, I would grant the appeal, even if the runner touched 2nd on his way to third for the two-base award.

Essentially, he's out on appeal because he missed 2nd trying to tag up at first. He cannot retouch after the ball is dead.

AS for the second play (as posted by LDUB) I would also call this runner out on appeal. If he already touched first base, he's considered to be tagging up, if he then returns to second (although, I can't see this happening in the real world...too much time passing by) he is now advancing to the next base. Since he missed 2nd on his attempt to tag up at 1st, and then touched first, I think this removes his ability to retouch 2nd base. Think about it, if he passes 2nd without touching, then touches first, realizes he missed 2nd and returns to second, he basically just tagged up at first and ran to second. A play very similar to this was executed in last years Ontario Senior Elimination Tournament in Canada. The Supervisor of Umpires for Baseball Canada was the base umpire and ruled the runner out. I tend to believe that he's right on this one.

Warren Willson · #9 (**permalink**) Thu Aug 14, 2003, 03:33am

Remember, the ball is DEAD and our runner is stuck between 2nd and 1st. There are two options on the subject play:

The runner stops retreating to 1st, and goes back to 2nd to correct his miss before attempting to tag up at 1st and take his 2 base award
The runner continues retreating to 1st, tags up and touches 2nd on his way to 3rd on the award.

The counting currently stands as follows:

Option 1	Option 2
greymule	Rich Fronheiser
mick	GarthB
Snive	Â*

LDUB hasn't committed either way on the dead ball situation, but believes option 2 would be legal during a live ball.

I'm pretty sure that's the current state of play. I will post the relevant arguments and citations shortly.

Cheers

bob jenkins · #10 (**permalink**) Thu Aug 14, 2003, 07:23am

Quote:

Originally posted by Warren Willson
If R1 was not all the way back to 1st when the ball went dead, would he need to stop, go back, and touch 2nd BEFORE he touched 1st or would he still be vulnerable to an appeal after touching 1st without correcting his miss of 2nd even if he later touched 2nd base while accepting his 2-base award on the overthrown ball?

I think the answer to this question is "No."

That is, neither of the options presented are correct -- the runner needn't "stop, go back and touch 2nd BEFORE he touched first", nor "would he still be vulnerable to an appeal after touching 1st without correcting his miss of 2nd even if he later touched 2nd base while accepting his 2-base award."

If the runner touches ("tags up") first, then touches second, then proceeds to third, he's completed his baserunning responsibilities and any appeal will be denied.

No, I'm sure Warren know this. So, I'm wondering what the strange twist and where / why / how "PBUC has evidently changed its "mind" on the pivotal question in the last few years."

Roger Greene · #11 (**permalink**) Thu Aug 14, 2003, 08:09am

I'm with Ritch and Garth on the last time by; and wondering what your up to, Warren.
Roger Greene

Warren Willson · #12 (**permalink**) Thu Aug 14, 2003, 08:20am

Quote:

Originally posted by bob jenkins

I think the answer to this question is "No."

That is, neither of the options presented are correct -- the runner needn't "stop, go back and touch 2nd BEFORE he touched first", nor "would he still be vulnerable to an appeal after touching 1st without correcting his miss of 2nd even if he later touched 2nd base while accepting his 2-base award."

If the runner touches ("tags up") first, then touches second, then proceeds to third, he's completed his baserunning responsibilities and any appeal will be denied.

No, I'm sure Warren know this. So, I'm wondering what the strange twist and where / why / how "PBUC has evidently changed its "mind" on the pivotal question in the last few years."

Congratulations, Bob. You are correct on all 3 counts - (1)the runner needn't stop and go back to touch 2nd, (2)he will not be vulnerable to appeal if he touches 1st and then properly proceeds to 3rd and (3)yes, I DID already know that.

Credit also goes to Rich Fronheiser, GarthB and Roger Greene for correctly choosing the 2nd option and using Last Time By to decide any subsequent appeal at 2nd.

The inciting play explores the meaning of OBR 7.10(b) AR2 which says:

When the ball is dead, no runner may return to touch a missed base or one left after having advanced to and touched a base beyond the missed base.The argument revolved around what it was to "advance to and touch a base beyond the missed base."

There are those who believe that the "base beyond" is determined by the runner's direction of travel at the time the ball became dead. They are aided in their perception by an explanatory play in JEA that says:

Clearly the JEA play lends credible support to the idea that 1st base is "a base beyond" 2nd base when the runner was retreating. That has been the key point of disagreement. OTOH, and in fairness to Evans, JEA may have been implying that the runner needed to touch 2nd TWICE before advancing to and touching 3rd the final time. Either reading of the JEA ruling is possible.

On the other side of the argument we have a 12/15/2000 PBUC ruling, reported in BRD #4 Off-Interp 3-4, which I consider fairly conclusive:

A runner who left a base too soon and missed a subsequent base when returning would still be permitted to retouch both bases in order when accepting his award.That interpretation appears contrary to JEA, and their own Umpire Manual Section 3.10, but is directly supported by the latest 2003 version of J/R.

Both recent interpretations - PBUC and J/R - rely heavily on the Last Time By guideline to correct the missed base error on the base award while the ball is dead. BRD #4 Off-Interp 2-4 says:

A runner who has missed a base either advancing or retreating may correct his error by touching the base his "last time by."The "dilemma", for those who said the runner should return to 2nd to correct his miss BEFORE retreating to 1st to correct the leaving early error, is that by advancing to, and touching, 2nd base AFTER the ball became dead the runner would actually be PROHIBITED from then correcting the leaving early error under OBR 7.10(b) AR2.

If you subscribe to the JEA interpretation of 7.10(b)AR2, and I certainly don't, a defensive error can prevent the offense from legally correcting one or other of the live ball base running errors. As one correspondent pointed out, that would allow the defense to guarantee an appeal out at either base by throwing the ball out of play.

I don't know for a fact but I am inclined to believe that Evans was not aware of the "last time by" professional guideline when he last published JEA in 1991 (I think). In my view, the 2000 PBUC interpretations, and the subsequent supporting 2003 J/R ruling, are conclusive.

The runner may correct BOTH errors provided that he corrects them in the order they occurred ie. he touches 1st to correct the leaving early and THEN touches 2nd and 3rd in taking his award. The missed base at 2nd would be corrected by his legal advance the "last time by" when taking his award.

I am pleased to have found such solid support for my view here at Officials Forum. I was beginning to feel a little isolated in that view at the other forum.

Cheers, and thanks for playing.

Gee · #13 (**permalink**) Thu Aug 14, 2003, 08:48am

"If R1 was not all the way back to 1st when the ball went dead, would he need to stop, go back, and touch 2nd BEFORE he touched 1st or would he still be vulnerable to an appeal after touching 1st without correcting his miss of 2nd even if he later touched 2nd base while accepting his 2-base award on the overthrown ball?"

1. If the runner went back and touched second base after the ball was dead he would negate the missed base appeal at second but would be precluded from negating the leaving early violation at first per OBR 7.10(b)AR2 and would still be vulnerable to an appeal at first.

2. However, if the runner, without retouching second, returned and touched first base he would negate the left early violation and then could "re"touch second and third on the award and negate the missed base violation at second under the Last Time By citation. G.

DownTownTonyBrown · #14 (**permalink**) Thu Aug 14, 2003, 10:58am

Warren and others...

Your original question was stated as "barely missing 2nd on his way back."

Okay. Barely is likely close enough for me. I'm probably "not going to notice" that he slightly missed second and give the runner the benefit of the doubt.

However, based upon the ruling that you have given, the runner could return from two steps short of 3rd... across the pitcher's mound... and retouch 1st. Then accept his award of 3rd by advancing to 2nd and then to 3rd. If I understood correctly, this would be okay.

There is a large difference between trying to do things correctly (but failing slightly/barely) and intentionally doing things wrong. Would you still feel the runner is not in jeopardy for missing 2nd on his return if he cuts across the diamond?

I also note that the ruling you quote does not make any mention of the runner not being in jeopardy of an appeal... It says that he can RETOUCH both bases (Well, of course) but does the use of the word "retouch" mean that he is not in jeopardy of an appeal for missing a base on his return trip to tag-up?

Warren quoted:
On the other side of the argument we have a 12/15/2000 PBUC ruling, reported in BRD #4 Off-Interp 3-4, which I consider fairly conclusive:
A runner who left a base too soon and missed a subsequent base when returning would still be permitted to retouch both bases in order when accepting his award.

Rich · #15 (**permalink**) Thu Aug 14, 2003, 11:00am

"Last time by" does not apply when a runner misses a base by a gross amount. In the example you cited, an appeal would be upheld at second even if the runner ended up there.

Rich