Missed Base Appeal with a Twist

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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 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?

[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.