what do you have NFHS rule set

[Insane Blue]

Bases loaded and no outs. B4 is at the plate with a 2-2 count. The next pitch is called a ball. Thinking it's ball four, B4 starts toward first base. The base runners follow suit, touching their next respective base, including R1, who touches home. The entire time, the plate umpire is holding up the correct 3-2 count. The first base coach finally realizes the mistake and the batter returns to the plate. All runners follow suit, returning to their original bases. The Defense makes a play on R1 who had already scored.

What do you have??? and what rules or casebook play supports it.

[Manny A]

Once a run legally scores, it cannot be "unscored" by action of that runner who scored it (see Case Play 9.1.1 Situation B). So in your play, R1 scored legally, and cannot be subsequently put out. The defense should've played on one of the other two runners.

What should've happened: The PU should have LOUDLY called, "THAT'S BALL 3!" instead of just standing there with his fingers showing the count.

[CecilOne]

Did the other runners violate by leaving bases they had legally stolen?


Sorry about the oxymoron.

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Once a run legally scores, it cannot be "unscored" by action of that runner who scored it (see Case Play 9.1.1 Situation B). So in your play,R1 scored legally, and cannot be subsequently put out. The defense should've played on one of the other two runners.

What should've happened: The PU should have LOUDLY called, "THAT'S BALL 3!" instead of just standing there with his fingers showing the count.

Agreed she scored but then started back to third and the defense made a play on her. would you call interference on a retired runner?

[RKBUmp]

Did playing on that runner prevent them from making any other play?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

Agreed she scored but then started back to third and the defense made a play on her. would you call interference on a retired runner?

Only if you felt her actions prevented the defense from playing on someone else.

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Only if you felt her actions prevented the defense from playing on someone else.

could have possibly made a play on R2 or R3 as they all are walking back to original base unaware that they could have legally stayed on the base.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

could have possibly made a play on R2 or R3 as they all are walking back to original base unaware that they could have legally stayed on the base.

I don't believe "could have possibly made" is enough. You have to judge that the retired runner did prevent the defense from making that play. For example, if it appeared that F2 was going to throw the ball toward second, and then she stopped and threw to third instead, then you could make that ruling.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

could have possibly made a play on R2 or R3 as they all are walking back to original base unaware that they could have legally stayed on the base.

Yes, they could have CHOSEN to make a play on another runner. They did not. The scored runner did not prevent them from doing so.

[Insane Blue]

Thanks for the responses was taught differently but will now take this aproach in the future. .

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Did the other runners violate by leaving bases they had legally stolen?


Sorry about the oxymoron.

The base runners follow suit, touching their next respective base, including R1, who touches home.