I always thought they were called 1st, 2nd, 3rd for a reason; but thanks for pointing out an NFHS rules superiority.

True, technically and literally. But the rule I referenced does say the runner is in jeopardy of being ruled on on proper appeal if the runner "fails to touch the <u>intervening</u> base or bases in <u>regular or reverse order</u>". You are correct that it does not define "intervening", "regular order" or "reverse order", but, as you say, we all know what that means.

8.3.d
 

Actually there is a rule that says a runner is out if they run the bases in reverse order. Its rule 8.3.D and it says....

A runner shall not run bases in reverse order either to confuse the fielders or to make a travesty of the game.

Effect: The ball is dead and the runner is out.

No appeal required. Of course this does not apply to the OP, since the rule clearly states that the purpose behind the running the bases in reverse order must be to confuse or to make a travesty of the game. The runner in this case was doing neither.

You are obviously missing or not reading the posts. NO WHERE in the ASA book specify the order in which a runner must touch the bases. Therefore, how can you state that a runner is running the bases in reverse order if there is no defined order to begin?

With all due respect, Mike, none of this even remotely deals with the status of a 10U runner who has crossed the plate, and then is asked to return to 3rd by her coach instead of the umpire. Not sure why this tangent was even followed at all, and I assumed you were going somewhere with it, since you're not traditionally a thread hijacker.

So...

Why do you feel a runner can "unscore" once they've crossed the plate (assuming they have no further true need to be back on the basepaths, such as a missed base or one left too early), and also - why do you feel a 10U runner who was told by her coach to return to third after crossing the plate would be in jeopardy of being tagged, when the same runner when told by an umpire to return would not be? Seems that the person (coach vs umpir) directing her to properly return (as she must) is a rather flimsy reason to differentiate her liability status by.

I'm sorry you cannot see the relation between the interp on a runner placing themself in jeopardy by returning past first and a runner returning to 3B. I see it as quite clear.

As I said, I do not agree with it, but it's not up to me to accept or ignore rulings.

Let me ask you this. If the runner did turn and head back to 3B after scoring during a live ball and drew a throw while there are other active runners, would you rule interference in accordance with 8.7.P and call the runner closest to home, out?

I would not just as I would not if B/R runs to 1B on a dropped 3rd strike with less than 2 outs and 1B occupied and draws a throw. Our local association takes the position she is no longer in jeopardy once she has crossed home plate in 10U. Perhaps I should start a new thread, BR runs to 1B in sit. above and is inside the baseline halfway up the line and C is tring to pick girl off at 1B and hits her in the back - who is out?

The rule I cited explicitly exempts the retired runner on a U3K, but also states that a runner who has scored cannot continue to run and draw a throw.

You cannot have it both ways.

Why start a new thread? There are only three issues in this one. ;)

Yes, of course I would. I believe this (and other related situations) is exactly what 8.7.p is for. Am I wrong there too?

Different sitch - runner in question is a runner who has scored - which is who this particular rule is talking about. Retired runner and Scored runner are two different things.

So, 10U baserunning rules say that the runner is not eligible to score, but she runs home anyway on a wild pitch that is ball four. Coach screams at her to return to 3B. She does, but in her attempt to return, she draws a throw, but makes it safely back to 3B. Meanwhile, as this is going on, BR advances to 2B.

You're going to call R1 out for interference?

Yes. (stupid 10 character limit....)

In this case, I wouldn't. There is nothing gained by the offense. She cannot advance to 2B on a walk. I would just put the runners back after play has stopped. The defense can still attempt to get the runner out if she tries to return to 1B.

Theoretically, the return to 3rd drew a throw that could have been used to retire the runner off base between 1st and 2nd.

OTOH, if R1 is in jeopardy, the whole interference issue is avoided.