Missed Base Appeal with a Twist

[RKBUmp]

No play was made on the obstructed runner after the ball got away. The play attempt was made on the trailing runner that scored.

The point of the OP is, can the obstructed runner still legally touch home plate since they missed it because of the obstruction AFTER a trailing runner has scored.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Or is someone suggesting the trailing runner be forced to stop and wait until the OBS runner return to touch the plate?

Sure, why not? Couldn't you argue that because the obstruction prevented the lead runner from touching home, the trail runner was also affected by the obstruction because she had to stop in order to let the lead runner legally touch the plate? That would seem cleaner than ignoring that the obstructed runner can no longer legally touch the plate when the trail runner scored, and using 10.1 as justification.

[jmkupka]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Sure, why not? Couldn't you argue that because the obstruction prevented the lead runner from touching home, the trail runner was also affected by the obstruction because she had to stop in order to let the lead runner legally touch the plate?

While it's not unreasonable to require R1 to complete her responsibilities (and rely on us to properly rule on the OBS), I think it'd be too much to ask of R2 to do the same (hold up short of the plate while R1 touches).

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

(emphasis is added)

USA Softball:
8 - 5 - B Effect: delayed dead ball
. . 2 "if the obstructed runner is put out prior to reaching the base which would have been reached had there been on obstruction"
Effect: dead ball.

NCAA:
9.4 Effect
. . . "If the obstructed runner is put out before reaching the base she should
have reached had there been no obstruction, a dead ball is called at the
time of the apparent putout."

Same for NFHS, wording similar to NCAA above.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by robbie

In NSA it is dead when a play is made on obstructed runner:

"p) When a play is being made on an obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner
is obstructed before he/she reaches 1st base. "

Is that NOT the case in other codes?

Sorry, I knew Manny was asking an USA question and I've never seen a NSA rule book.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Missing a base is an exclusion to the "between two bases" protection, so an OBS must be given the opportunity to touch the base.

Does that always apply to an obstructed base, given passed = touched?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I would assume the same way you ignore a passing of an OBS runner where that runner is ruled out an then brought back to life.

Missing a base is an exclusion to the "between two bases" protection, so an OBS must be given the opportunity to touch the base. Or is someone suggesting the trailing runner be forced to stop and wait until the OBS runner return to touch the plate?

IMJ, you let the OBS runner return and touch the plate and if challenged, cite 10.1

Obviously, I agree with you. I threw that out to make the more literal wordsmiths (yep, TeeBob and Manny, among others) think it over again; that argument hadn't been made, yet.

So, here's what I've got; and it varies just a bit based on what R1 does. Yes, runners do need to touch missed bases, even awarded bases, so what can/should R1 do?

If R1 makes any effort to come back to touch the plate, before or after R2, and even before or after an appeal, live ball or dead ball, I'm awarding home on the obstruction, AND accepting the touch made as meeting the rule requirement. EXCEPT; if R1 leaves, and enters dead ball territory without making any effort to touch the missed base, and THEN tries to return because there is an appeal, in that case I would consider it a missed base despite the obstruction.

But, that's just me.

[UmpireErnie]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

If R1 makes any effort to come back to touch the plate, before or after R2, and even before or after an appeal, live ball or dead ball, I'm awarding home on the obstruction, AND accepting the touch made as meeting the rule requirement. EXCEPT; if R1 leaves, and enters dead ball territory without making any effort to touch the missed base, and THEN tries to return because there is an appeal, in that case I would consider it a missed base despite the obstruction.

But, that's just me.

I'm not so sure now. USA 8-5-B-4 (page 101) says "Obstructed runners are required to touch all awarded bases is proper order and may be called out if properly appealed."

Yet legally she can't go back and retouch home because a trailing runner has scored. So she's obstucted, scores but misses home (assumed to have touched till appealed) then tailing runner scores, then obstructed runner is tagged on a live ball appeal. So now we have a dead ball as obstructed runner was played on and would be out sans OBS.

Awards for OBS include awarding all runners the bases they would have gotten otherwise, and in this case both runners should be awarded home. Since R1 missed home and R2 scored after her should we require both of them to touch home plate in proper order during dead ball to satisfy running requirements? And if they don't and just head into dugout can defense now appeal R1 basically missing home again after being awarded it?

Hmmmmm...

[UmpireErnie]

More to add to above..

Should there be judgment as to whether or not the OBS is why R1 missed HP in first place and should there be judgement as to whether that OBS prevented her from returning before R2 scores? If R2 is 50 feet behind R1 and R2 is judged to have had time to touch home prior to trailing runner scoring does that play into the decision?

Again hmmmmmm...

[UmpireErnie]

I mean it's 106 out, can't we find and out here somewhere! 😝

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Sure, why not? Couldn't you argue that because the obstruction prevented the lead runner from touching home, the trail runner was also affected by the obstruction because she had to stop in order to let the lead runner legally touch the plate? That would seem cleaner than ignoring that the obstructed runner can no longer legally touch the plate when the trail runner scored, and using 10.1 as justification.

So you are suggesting an active runner just stop and stand there placing themselves in jeopardy due to a defender violating the rules ASSUMING the umpire will get it right?

Good luck selling that to a player or coach. BTW, that used to be the suggested action when an OBS runner went down, that the trailing runner not pass and allow the umpire to make the appropriate ruling. That changed at the 2011(or 2013) UIC Clinic when an updated interpretation was offered. Personally, I would love if it were that simple, but it is not.

I stand by my previous post. And 10.1 isn't a justification, it is authorization.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by UmpireErnie

More to add to above..

Should there be judgment as to whether or not the OBS is why R1 missed HP in first place and should there be judgement as to whether that OBS prevented her from returning before R2 scores? If R2 is 50 feet behind R1 and R2 is judged to have had time to touch home prior to trailing runner scoring does that play into the decision?

Again hmmmmmm...

The OP clearly states that the subsequent play at the plate occurred prior to R1 having the opportunity to recover to touch the plate.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by UmpireErnie

More to add to above..

Should there be judgment as to whether or not the OBS is why R1 missed HP in first place and should there be judgement as to whether that OBS prevented her from returning before R2 scores? If R2 is 50 feet behind R1 and R2 is judged to have had time to touch home prior to trailing runner scoring does that play into the decision?

Again hmmmmmm...

The judgments you mention, of course.
In this OP, that is already done and presented.

Even in your last question, time and distance are not the only factors, also physical position of the runner, more OBS, etc.

Still, the rule is OBS gets all runners the base they are judged to would have achieved without it; given the listed exceptions.
The only problem here is R1 never touching home after the fact and leaving live ball territory. It does not matter if the touch is during live ball or dead ball, or before or after R2.

The question then becomes about "opportunity to complete baserunning responsibilities" regarding the appeal. Does the opportunity remain until R1 leaves live ball territory?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

The question then becomes about "opportunity to complete baserunning responsibilities" regarding the appeal. Does the opportunity remain until R1 leaves live ball territory?

By the rules that we have at our disposal (ignoring, for the moment, USA 10.1, NFHS 10-2-3g, and any other "god" rule available in the other books), the opportunity for R1 to correct the initial miss of the plate goes away the moment R2 reaches home during live ball play. What happens afterwards is irrelevant. If R1 touches home after R2 did, that is not recognized as a legal touch of home to remove the opportunity for the defense to appeal.

What we really need is an exception to the rules requiring obstructed runners to still touch all bases legally. For example, under NFHS 8-4-3b, you would have something like this:

b. a fielder not in possession of the ball or not making an initial play on a batted ball, impedes the progress of a runner or batter-runner who is legally running bases. Obstructed runners are still required to touch all bases in proper order, or they could be called out on a proper appeal by the defensive team. EXCEPTION: A runner obstructed from touching home who normally cannot return to touch it under 8-3-9 because a subsequent runner has scored shall be allowed to touch it afterward, and will not be subject to an appeal. Should an act of interference occur following any obstruction, enforcement of the interference penalty would have precedence.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Manny A

What we really need is an exception to the rules requiring obstructed runners to still touch all bases legally. For example, under NFHS 8-4-3b, you would have something like this:
b. a fielder not in possession of the ball or not making an initial play on a batted ball, impedes the progress of a runner or batter-runner who is legally running bases. Obstructed runners are still required to touch all bases in proper order, or they could be called out on a proper appeal by the defensive team. EXCEPTION: A runner obstructed from touching home who normally cannot return to touch it under 8-3-9 because a subsequent runner has scored shall be allowed to touch it afterward, and will not be subject to an appeal. Should an act of interference occur following any obstruction, enforcement of the interference penalty would have precedence.

Why just home plate?