Missed Base Appeal with a Twist
 

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.

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

If there had been no R2 and R1 was tagged before touching the plate, would you have awarded R1 home and the score?

If so, then you still do that in the above, with R2 also scoring.

Exactly. At the point they do make a play on the obstructed runner you award the obstruction which includes placing all runners where you think they should go, not just the obstructed runner.

In this case the play on the obstructed runner is an appeal play. R1 would have been out on appeal but since she was obstructed you award her home.

Even an obstructed runner has to touch all bases. if she went past the plate, as she did, do i have to see if she was going back to touch the plate. it seems like there was a second or two between R1 going past the plate and the play being made on R2. What was R1 doing during that time. I'd want to give R1 some opportunity to finish her base running responsibilities, but if she missed the base and is not making an attempt to come back and touch the plate (assuming she is not injured), how do we call it if there is a live or dead ball appeal on R1.

Only if the OBS runner is put out.

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?

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

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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).

Same for NFHS, wording similar to NCAA above.

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

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

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.

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...

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...

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

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.

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

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?

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:

Why just home plate?