Originally Posted by youngump (Post 1011282)

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.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve (Post 1011317)

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.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve (Post 1011317)

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.

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 1011330)

Well, I brought up baseball, but not to discuss the gross versus near miss discussion. Rather, I just find it strange that a relatively straightforward concept—may a runner correct a missed base by touching it the next time he/she goes to or past it in the course of play—is completely and diametrically opposed in how to rule between the two sports. It’s not as if only one sanction within baseball or softball is the outlier. All major baseball orgs allow it, and all major Softball do not.

Originally Posted by umpjim (Post 1011322)

...One of the previous posters humorously said the runner, in SB, should be appealed at 1B. He might be right.

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 1011409)

She did in fact return to touch the base she missed. She just did not properly retouch 1B, but she still can if she can beat the defense to the base, correct?

To get the out, does the defense have to appeal she did not "legally" retouch 1B?

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 1011409)

For the benefit of anyone reading this thread, I think these needs to be addressed.

So, the runner while returning to retouch 1B missed 2B, touches 1B, and returns to 2B. She is now standing on 2B when the defense appeals she missed 2B on the way back to retouch 1B.

Is the runner ruled "safe" on this appeal?

If not, what is the rationale for ruling her out?

She did in fact return to touch the base she missed. She just did not properly retouch 1B, but she still can if she can beat the defense to the base, correct?

To get the out, does the defense have to appeal she did not "legally" retouch 1B?

Or, is she ruled out because she did not touch the bases in the proper (reverse) order (1, 2 rather than 2, 1)?

BTW, who among us thinks in this scenario (misses 2B, re-touches 1B, returns to stand on 2B) that any youth team will make any appeal at all? :eek:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 1011430)

Yes, the runner is retouching 2B. No matter what anyone believes, the argument is valid. So is Steve's that this runner is still required to return and touch 1B to avoid an appeal for leaving early.

The point of me taking this route was to see how many would be so focused on the issue of missing 2B, they may overlook the point that to regain the proper order of touching the bases, the runner failed to complete the return to tough the initial base involved in the violation.