NFHS--Overrunning first--different question
 

Rule 2-1-2 d After overrunning first and making an attempt to go to 2B, how is this an appeal play? I do understand that if R is tagged before either reaching 2B or returning safely to 1B she is out. I fail to see an appeal situation here. Unless it would be possible for the defense to touch 1B before R returned, and that would constitute an appeal?

It's an appeal that the runner didn't legally overrun first and is therefore out which can only be executed by tagging the runner. The effect is the same as tagging the runner.

(*) The chief reason for this difference is that per the book either umpire can rule on an appeal. This was made an appeal play to make it possible for the plate umpire to offer his opinion on whether it was an attempt to get to second. :D





(*) stop taking me seriously at this point

Sometimes (I've seen it more in rec ball than anywhere else), a first baseman will place a tag on the BR as she returns to first base just because it's what they've been told to do. It's similar to a catcher tagging the batter after a third strike, even if the catcher caught the pitch and/or the batter cannot go to first base on an uncaught third. It's just how they've been taught, so they'll do it all the time.

That act of simply tagging the BR is nothing when the BR does make an attempt to go to second, if the defense doesn't somehow indicate to the umpire that they are appealing that the BR did make that attempt. An appeal, by definition, is a violation that the umpire doesn't make a decision until requested by the defense. Just like you wouldn't recognize a tag of a runner standing on third base after she misses second on her way from first, unless the defense makes it clear why they are tagging her, you shouldn't recognize a tag of the BR returning to first after making an attempt to go to second unless the defense accompanies that tag with some reason why they are tagging her.

How it almost always plays out is somebody is going to yell, "Tag her! She turned toward second base!" That's enough to indicate to the umpire that the defense is appealing her violation. If they say nothing and the fielder just nonchalantly tags her, you shouldn't rule her out.

Why? She was tagged during a live ball while off the base. She wasn't entitled to overrun protection because she went toward second. You wouldn't ignore the tag if she ran halfway to second would you?

I'd have to disagree, Manny.

If the umpire judges that the runner did indeed make a move toward second base, then any tag is sufficient- be it nonchalant or not! No further action or verbal statements required.

I always did think it was odd that this play got lumped in with "appeals", but it did. Another oddity about this appeal: Unlike other appeals it MUST be a live ball appeal.

It is not an appeal play, never has been. I proposed a change a few years back that was summarily dismissed without discussion. I think the problem is no one knew what to say.

An appeal is a request for an umpire to rule on a violation or failure of the other team to perform.

A play on an unprotected runner is nothing more than a simple play on a runner in jeopardy during a live ball.

Hey, I'm just guessing here because softball (and it's that way in every rule set I've seen) calls this an appeal. And it specifically deals with a runner attempting to advance to second after making a turn at first base, so I'm thinking of the batter-runner who takes a step to second and then thinks better about it. Your halfway-to-second situation is much different.

I've had trouble with this whole notion that the powers-that-be in NCAA, USA Softball, NFHS, USSSA, and maybe others that I don't work call this an appealable situation. My response was merely an assumption as to why. If it truly is NOT an appeal, then take it out of the damn books! :mad:

The best explanation I have been given to this question came from the Deputy National Director of Umpire HP. He said (at that time, probably 20 or more years ago) it was listed as an appeal because the player is asking for a ruling if the runner is protected as simply overrunning first base, or if in jeopardy because the umpire judges a move toward second that removes that protection.

And, like the other items listed as an appeal, if they don't ask, we don't tell them or indicate in any way that the runner is in jeopardy. We wouldn't rule on the runner being routinely tagged on a return to first base after missing the base, unless appealed, right? In the same way, we don't rule on this, either, unless appealed.

Okay, so I go back to my previous example where the BR overruns first base, turns back, takes a step toward second then thinks better of it, and nobody on defense sees this and says, "Tag her! She stepped toward second!" As she returns, F3 simply tags her and then throws the ball back to the pitcher. Are we supposed to rule her out or not? You make it sound like we don't do so.

I would agree with no call, as long as it is listed as an appeal.
Even "tag her" is ambiguous as it is yelled on many overruns. :rolleyes:

The requirement of any live ball appeal is that the umpire understand that an appeal is being made. The old tome was that while there could be an accidental force out, there cannot be an accidental appeal. The runner that misses 2nd on the way to 3rd isn't out if the shortstop kicks 2nd on her way by with the ball, unless she communicates in some way she is making an appeal.

Unless it is apparent that this an appeal, not a routine to tag every returning runner, then no call should be made. When it is clear to EVERYONE that this is a runner in jeopardy between bases being played on (and when that exists, doesn't the runner make some evasive move??), rule on the tag; if there is a question, it is an appeal that must be made. And, without communication, do you know WHAT they are appealing? You call her out for "attempting second" while they are appealing she missed the base; how does that look in your mind?

If they ARE actually making an appeal, you can be sure someone will say something when you don't rule either way. (Or you can spend the rest of time calling every runner returning "safe" when they tag every returning runner hoping to get lucky.)

So, I don't think the rules support this. Yes the weird appeal language muddies this up. But the rules are fairly clear. The BR is out if touched with the ball after overrunning and making an attempt for second.

If you're going to draw this line, where does it turn from an appeal into a live ball tag? Two steps toward second, halfway to second, casually returning versus agressively?

Feel free to establish your own rationale and understanding of the meaning of "when properly appealed", as required in the rules. For me, I will trust HP, and the generations that he has taught; and he was clear and distinct that an appeal must be actually "appealed", not just any similar or related play when an appeal is available.

Well, with all due respect to HP, his interpretation isn't supported by the definition.

Just to muddy the waters even more, here's what's in the NCAA rule book:

And then this:

So the book recognizes under 12.24.2 that a BR who feints or makes an attempt to advance to second may be tagged out. Reading that alone makes you believe an appeal is not necessary. But then the Effect refers us back to 7.1.1.1 that says it must be a live-ball appeal.

This concept just needs to go away in softball. There's nothing like it in baseball anywhere. Over "there", it is accepted that a BR who attempts or feints an attempt toward second after overrunning first may be simply tagged without any question.