Missed Base Appeal with a Twist

[robbie]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Sitch: Runners at first and second, two outs, full count on the batter. On the pitch, both runners take off. Batter hits a base hit into right-center field. R1 from second should score easily, and R2 from first is a speedster who thinks she should be able to score as well. However, R1 rounding third stumbles a little over the bag. Suddenly, R1 and R2 are both heading for home not very far apart from each other.

The throw from F8 to home is a frozen rope that may get R1, but the ball bounces in front of F2 and scoots by her as she puts her leg in R1's path. R1 tries to slide into the back side of the plate, but goes past home without touching it due to F2's leg. PU signals Obstruction as F1, backing up the throw home, fields the ball. She tosses it back to F2 to make a play on R2, but R2 slides into home under the tag just before R1 has a chance to recover and touch home herself.

You're the PU. If the defense appeals, are you really going to rule R1 out for failing to touch home before R2 scores, even though R1 was clearly obstructed from initially touching it?

The above highlighted never happened because you will call dead ball on a play being made on obstructed runner.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by robbie

The above highlighted never happened because you will call dead ball on a play being made on obstructed runner.

Play was not made on obstructed runner, play was being made on trailing runner.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by robbie

The above highlighted never happened because you will call dead ball on a play being made on obstructed runner.

Only if there is an "out".

EDIT: Just for clarity, an "out" of the obstructed runner. This post was to differentiate between a play and an actual out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Only if there is an "out".

Only if the OBS runner is put out.

[teebob21]

Oooh I like conceptual situations like this. I'm posting this on the fly, without a book, so feel free to correct any errors in rule application.

I'd like to eliminate the TWP elements but they're pivotal to the situation. If we had just one runner, we could even imagine R1 obstructed at any other base without touching...but that complicates things since she is unlikely to fail to retouch after the OBS.

A runner passing the plate is assumed to have touched it. We don't have the automatic out for passing a leading runner. I've never come across a case play in any code where a following runner "passes" a leading runner at the plate...probably because there is simply no remaining basepath on which R2 can pass R1 after the plate. This situation simply removes the ability of R1 to return to legally touch on her own. No matter if the ball is live or dead during the appeal, I think we kill the play as necessary and make the OBS award of HP for R1. Speaking USA/ASA, appeals are defined as a play, so dead or alive, this is a play on an OBS runner that would normally result in an out: We kill it and award R1 home.

The runner is then obligated to touch all awarded bases. If she doesn't, we have a different can of worms....one with an easy rules application of an out. Give R1 the opportunity to complete the base running, and then entertain an appeal if she does not.

Here's where I can see this getting hairy: can we award bases to players that have been prevented from retouching by rule (having a following runner score)??? I think this is the key point, and I have no idea why we can, but know of no rule saying we can't. This is the one situation where coaches's annoying tendency to tell players to "stay on the base" while the coach argues the call might be valid....could we still award bases to a player who left live-ball territory?

Second question (slightly off topic): If an OBS runner touches a base BEFORE the OBS award is given, does that count as touching awarded bases? Or are they required to touch after the award is granted/announced?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Oooh I like conceptual situations like this. I'm posting this on the fly, without a book, so feel free to correct any errors in rule application.

I'd like to eliminate the TWP elements but they're pivotal to the situation. If we had just one runner, we could even imagine R1 obstructed at any other base without touching...but that complicates things since she is unlikely to fail to retouch after the OBS.

A runner passing the plate is assumed to have touched it. We don't have the automatic out for passing a leading runner. I've never come across a case play in any code where a following runner "passes" a leading runner at the plate...probably because there is simply no remaining basepath on which R2 can pass R1 after the plate. This situation simply removes the ability of R1 to return to legally touch on her own. No matter if the ball is live or dead during the appeal, I think we kill the play as necessary and make the OBS award of HP for R1. Speaking USA/ASA, appeals are defined as a play, so dead or alive, this is a play on an OBS runner that would normally result in an out: We kill it and award R1 home.

The runner is then obligated to touch all awarded bases. If she doesn't, we have a different can of worms....one with an easy rules application of an out. Give R1 the opportunity to complete the base running, and then entertain an appeal if she does not.

Here's where I can see this getting hairy: can we award bases to players that have been prevented from retouching by rule (having a following runner score)??? I think this is the key point, and I have no idea why we can, but know of no rule saying we can't. This is the one situation where coaches's annoying tendency to tell players to "stay on the base" while the coach argues the call might be valid....could we still award bases to a player who left live-ball territory?

Second question (slightly off topic): If an OBS runner touches a base BEFORE the OBS award is given, does that count as touching awarded bases? Or are they required to touch after the award is granted/announced?

Just to screw with you at a different level ....

Assuming you want R1 to return and touch the missed base, can you allow and accept that AFTER the following runner R2 has touched and scored?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Just to screw with you at a different level ....

Assuming you want R1 to return and touch the missed base, can you allow and accept that AFTER the following runner R2 has touched and scored?

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

[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.

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Here's where I can see this getting hairy: can we award bases to players that have been prevented from retouching by rule (having a following runner score)??? I think this is the key point, and I have no idea why we can, but know of no rule saying we can't. This is the one situation where coaches's annoying tendency to tell players to "stay on the base" while the coach argues the call might be valid....could we still award bases to a player who left live-ball territory?

If affected by the OBS of a runner or as a result of a delayed or incorrect call/ruling, yes.

Second question (slightly off topic): If an OBS runner touches a base BEFORE the OBS award is given, does that count as touching awarded bases? Or are they required to touch after the award is granted/announced?

No, with the exception of returning to touch a based missed or left too soon, once the runner has touched the base, it is considered touched.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Only if the OBS runner is put out.

Good reinforcement. That was the context of the previous post:
"Quote:
Originally Posted by robbie View Post
The above highlighted never happened because you will call dead ball on a play being made on obstructed runner. "

See my edit.

[robbie]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Only if the OBS runner is put out.

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?

[Big Slick]

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?

(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."

[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.