Two (maybe three) of you are confusing me, and definitely NOT Steve. :confused:

By any chance is one of them the man in the mirror:confused:

Usually is :eek:, so I'll ask him. ;) :)

For what it's worth, I don't even think that "last time by" is a valid rule interpretation in that other game with the small white ball and the deep fences, under OBR. (I can't speak to other rulesets as the closest I get to that game is the third deck at Chase Field).

If MLB Video hadn't become so hard to search after their website re-design, I'm sure there are examples available from this season, and if not, I know there was at least two missed base appeals on video from the 2016 season.

The other BB rulesets, FED and NCAA, have last time by in their rules and modify it with interps that don't allow gross, cheating misses. OBR, I believe, keeps "last time by" as an interp and currently allows any last touch to count whether the miss was gross or not.
What two missed base appeals that involved "last time by" occurred in 2016? I would expect it to be a rare occurrence as normally you would have to have a ball go out of play, although there are other scenarios.

Okay, let's stop and handle this play except the runner stops on 2B. The defense appeals the runner missed 2B.

Your call is?

There seems to be enough to say about this if we just stick to softball. :rolleyes:

Again, what is so hard about this from Steve above and as the rules read?

" If one must touch first, second, third, then return order must third, second, first. If one must retreat to first and misses second, the only way to remedy would be to go back to touch second, AND THEN go back to first again; only after retouching ALL in the proper order could one again advance to second and be safe there."

She didn't miss second. She missed first. :D I would assume that she got distracted by a butterfly while attempting to complete Manny's steps for properly fixing the miss.
Distraction to the meaningful discussion aside, the defense has to know what it is appealing. So this:
U: What are you appealing?
F5: That the runner didn't touch 2nd.
U: She's standing on second
F5: Yes, but she didn't touch it on her way to retouch first so that doesn't count.
U: Out.

would definitely work.

It's also never ever ever going to happen. I'm completely onboard conceptually with the runner being subject to appeal but hung up a little bit on the actual requirements of making that appeal.

Don't let me derail the thread with the other game, but here's the example I was thinking of...and good god, it's from 2013. Seems like just the other day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2epAyRrdU8

I admit I'm not familiar with the last-time-by concept, so this might not even be applicable. Does this video reflect what the thread discussion is about?

That is a runner who did not retouch 2nd while returning to 1st and was called out on appeal. The last time by concept would be if in the same situation the runner had returned to 1st without retouching 2nd, then advanced back to 2nd on the overthrow, touching 2nd on the advance after overthrow would correct the error of not touching it while initially returning to 1st.

Thank you. Ignore all my previous commentary, then. :)

You're not kidding and they now insist on showing an ad before every video. Pfft.

Coach, you're gone. ;)

So, the appeal process (overall) change to dead ball appeals was an overt attempt to make appeals easier, not harder to perform. After all, the offense has violated, the defense is pointing it out, and the appeal details aren't meant to cheat the defense out of the earned penalty.

That said, and while I would also happily work with youngump's exchange, I would submit that if we are allowed (and we are!!) to ask things like "Which runner?", and "Which base?", then my response to "I'm appealing the runner missed 2nd" would be "When are you saying the runner standing on 2nd missed 2nd?".

If anyone on defense can tell me it was missed on the return, then I'm ruling the out for the successful appeal. They know they are appealing a missed base, we have one; I'm not putting more hurdles in their way. (Although, I agree, Mike, they may have technically remedied the miss of 2nd, but they haven't fully remedied the baserunning issue of having to return to 1st in a proper sequence, after having retouched 2nd.)

And, since enough people have felt the need to include baseball, allow me to opine that the whole "gross miss" versus a missed base is a stinking steaming load of horsecrap. Either the runner touched the bases, in the proper order, or the runner violated. Period. Stop screwing up simple concepts by having unnecessary separate categories of missed bases, or obstruction, even.

I agree the umpire may ask for quantification when information is missing. Even answer a valid question by the defense. I do not agree that those answers or any other comments should be anything other than a direct succinct response.