"Last Time By" in Softball
 

I'm curious which softball organizations recognize the "last time by" concept that I learned over in that other sport when I umpired there. Here's an example:

R1 on first base. She takes off for second on a hit and run. The batter hits a deep fly ball into the left-center field gap, and R1 touches second and takes a few steps to third, thinking the ball will fall. But then as she looks, she sees F8 make a crazy catch against the fence. R1 heads back to first, but misses second on the way. F8 throws the ball in to F4, who turns and whips a throw to F3, but the ball hits R1 in the helmet as she dives into the base. The ball ricochets toward the fence down the first base line, and R1 takes off again. She touches second base and beats the throw to third.

The defense then appeals that R1 missed second base on her way back to first base. Is the appeal upheld? Or is it denied since R1 did touch second base on her "last time by" the bag on her way to third?

I don't have access to my rule books right now, so if you can cite a rule that applies here, I would appreciate it.

This case play would seem to indicate USA does not recognize last time by. Does not appear to be a complete description of the play because there would be base awards but it does say the runner would be called out on appeal for not retouching 2nd on the way back to 1st.

PLAY 8.7-14
With two outs, R1 on 1B, B4 hits the ball to F6 who throws over the head of F3 and the ball goes out of play. When the ball left F6’s hand, R1 was between 3B and 2B. R1 returns to 1B but did not touch 2B, instead R1 ran across the infield to touch 1B.
RULING: If R1 returns to 1B without touching 2B and the defense appeals R1 for not retouching 2B on the return, R1 would be called out on the appeal. (8-7G)

Yeah, that case play does leave a lot to be desired, but it does appear that USA Softball doesn't believe in the concept.

I did find a case play in the "Ask Dee" document for NCAA play that seems to also not recognize the thought of a runner correcting her mistake.

If her standing on second at the end of the play doesn't fix her initial mistake, I doubt she would be okay if she had touched second and continued to third.

Look at it this way. When the BR misses 1B, any appeal of that must be a live ball appeal prior to the runner returning to 1B. Why, one asks? As stated by more than one clinicians (NUS), because how can you appeal a runner missing a base upon which s/he is standing?

The case implies the batted ball was caught in flight, otherwise what ? ? :confused:

So, you are saying the appeal answer is no/safe; touching 2nd on the way to 3rd removes the miss; even though the runner touched 1st on the return.

Except it says there are 2 outs and everything else would be moot once the ball was caught. Don't know who wrote that play but they appear to have been half asleep or brain dead when they wrote it. But, it does seem to indicate there is no such thing as last time by in USA softball.

IMO, the "last time by" concept contradicts the requirement to touch bases in the proper order. 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.

At least, that's how I learned it; and the case plays in all these posts above seem to lean in that direction.

I was about to post a similar statement. Last time by gives the runner an advantage since it allows the runner to take a shortcut to retouch first (in the OP example).

In NFHS and NCAA baseball a gross/intentional miss would not be covered by last time by and would be appealable. I think MLB/OBR currently does not apply "gross miss" and any "last time by" touch would be allowed.

Perhaps, but that assumes the runner would take that shortcut, retouch first, and then still have the wherewithal to turn back again and make it to second safely.

I'm having a hard time tracking what you're asking here. But if you're talking that the batter-runner:

- legally touched first and continued
- legally touched second and continued, but then turned around
- missed second and continued
- legally touched first and turned around
- legally touched second and continued
- finally arrived to third base

I don't think any of that fixes her initial miss of second base while returning to first. What would have fixed her miss is the following:

- legally touched first and continued
- legally touched second and continued, but then turned around
- missed second and continued
- legally touched first and turned around
- legally touched second and returned
- legally touched first and turned around again
- legally touched second and continued
- finally arrived to third base

Bottom line: Don't miss any bases! :D

Just trying to clarify what Irish said.

Don't disagree. Explaining it to a player or coach may not be so simple :)

"how can you appeal a runner missing a base upon which s/he is standing?"

As easily as explaining why a score wouldn't count when a runner clearly crossed the plate.

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.

Actually, it did to me about 15 years ago in a recreational league. Don't understand why you would be hung up on the process. The definition makes it clear that the umpire may not rule on such a play unless requested by the offended team. Should the defense not know on what they are requesting the umpire to rule? I'm not saying they only get one shot with a perfectly worded appeal, but should be accurate as to what is being requested.

The OP mentioned the other sports interp, thus including baseball. I don't know what obstruction has to do with this thread? But things change. FED and NCAA BB punish gross misses but allow LTB on other than that. MLB/OBR used to punish gross misses but, I believe, currently allow any LTB to absove a previous miss. I think Wendelstedt gave Carl Childress a valid arguement as to why. One of the previous posters humorously said the runner, in SB, should be appealed at 1B. He might be right.

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.

As you say, you brought up baseball; and others brought up the fact that baseball itself only allows that correction some of the time, when they have arbitrarily generated that there are two types of missed bases. It seems to me that once it becomes part of the discussion on this softball board that I'm not out of bounds for having an opinion about it; or even to extend that to other areas where baseball feels the need to have two types of rules that make simple concepts more complicated. Sorry that the baseball types feel that way on the softball board.

I cannot tell you why baseball has last time by, but only sometimes; but I can (and believe I did) very logically tell you why softball does not. A runner cannot remedy the requirement to touch bases, when retreating, in THIS order (3-2-1) by touching them in THAT order (3-1-2). No matter how nearly or grossly the runner doesn't touch them in the correct order. The runner in THAT order has missed 2nd when required to, even if standing on 2nd when it is appealed.

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:

I think you are right there's some disagreement that's not really being hashed out here and I'm not sure where I stand on that. But there's one thing that I think you are wrong about here.

They can appeal the miss of first base (if you categorize it as that) by touching first OR by touching the runner. It just has to be clear what they are appealing. So she doesn't get to try to beat the throw to first.

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.

Which may be why BB espoused the "theory" of LTB. But they didn't think things through. Luckily, we have, in both codes, a rare occurrence.