How would you rule?

[justmom]

[QUOTE=tcblue13]1. If Charles is tagged out between 1st and 2nd. Do you still have the option of the appeal for missing the base?
2. If yes, Is that in all rulsets? (please cite FED rule # or #'s)

My FED book is 2004...There is an appendix at the back of the book titled "Appeal Procedures and Guidelines". Methods (Paragraph 2a). An appeal may be made during a live ball by the fielder in possession of the ball touching the base missed or left too soon on a caught fly ball, or by tagging the runner committing the violation if she is still on the playing field (even if she is standing on another base). (I added the emphasis).

In tagging Charles, defense successfully made the appeal for the 2nd out, removing any force at 2B. So, tagging Baker off second would be a timing play for the third out. Run had already scored per OP, so run would count.

I would be interested to know if the FED book updates still have this wording in the back of the book?

[greymule]

If Charles is tagged out between 1st and 2nd. Do you still have the option of the appeal for missing the base?

Every code I know of allows the option of a fourth or even a fifth out on appeal if such an out is advantageous to the defense, even if that runner had been put out on another play. That is, except (since 2003) ASA, since Charles did not score.

Play: Abel on 3B, Baker on 2B, Charles on 1B, 2 out. Daniels gets a hit off the fence. Abel scores, Baker scores but missed home, Charles scores. Daniels missed 1B and is out at home for out #3. The defense appeals Baker's miss of home. Fourth out. Baker's run is nullified. Then the defense appeals Daniels' miss of 1B. Fifth out, no runs score. If course, the appeal on Baker is not necessary, since a fourth-out appeal on Daniels at 1B would nullify all runs anyway.

That's every code I know, except ASA since 2003.

On that play ASA would nullify Baker's run for missing home but not Charles's run, since the appeal on Daniels was on a runner who did not score. Now whether ASA still permits the appeal at 1B for the purposes of turning Daniels' triple into an out at 1B is another story.

Of course, there are many codes. I don't know them all.

[celebur]

One thing that I'm confused with is the appeal for the BR missing 1B. Is this considered a force out? Or just an appeal for a missed base and hence a timing play?

Speaking Softball Canada, additional outs may be made so long as they are to remove runs--it doesn't matter whether the runner being appealed actually scored or not. No runners may score if a preceding runner is the 3rd or later out, and no runners may score if the 3rd or later out is a force. So in the OP, the appeal for the BR missing first base would only nullify the run if the appeal is considered a force out. If not, it's a timing play, and since no succeeding runner scored, there is no point to the appeal. Game over.

Originally Posted by greymule

Play: Abel on 3B, Baker on 2B, Charles on 1B, 2 out. Daniels gets a hit off the fence. Abel scores, Baker scores but missed home, Charles scores. Daniels missed 1B and is out at home for out #3. The defense appeals Baker's miss of home. Fourth out.

Again speaking Softball Canada, this fourth out would negate both Baker's run AND Charles' run.

[blu_bawls]

Originally Posted by celebur

Or just an appeal for a missed base and hence a timing play?

It is an appeal play and not a force. When the runner passed the base the force was dropped and he/she can only be called out on appeal.

A runner is assumed to have touched a base once they have passed it. They would be called out for missing the base but runs scored prior to the appeal would not be nullified.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by blu_bawls

It is an appeal play and not a force. When the runner passed the base the force was dropped and he/she can only be called out on appeal.

A runner is assumed to have touched a base once they have passed it. They would be called out for missing the base but runs scored prior to the appeal would not be nullified.

What?? Where do you get that from? Speaking ASA;

Yes, a runner is assumed to have touched a base when passing it; that only means that an appeal must now be made, not that a force is dropped. The first baseman holding the ball cannot "accidently" get the runner out by belatedly stepping on the base or tagging the runner without an associated appeal. And, by definition, the batter-runner needing to touch first is not a force to begin with; read the definition of a force.

But, no run can score on a play where the third out is made by the batter-runner failing to reach first base safely; and that is what the appeal accomplishes. BR is out, and no run can score on the play, same as if it were a force out.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by blu_bawls

It is an appeal play and not a force. When the runner passed the base the force was dropped and he/she can only be called out on appeal.

A runner is assumed to have touched a base once they have passed it. They would be called out for missing the base but runs scored prior to the appeal would not be nullified.

blu_bawls, you are 99% wrong. The only reason for the 1% allowance here is the continuing "is the out on the BR at first an force?" Makes no difference. The appeal of a BR missing 1B IS NOT a timing play. If it is the 3rd out of the inning NO RUNS will score.

[blu_bawls]

OK. Thank you for your response.

[celebur]

Thanks for the patient feedback to my confusion!

I have searched our ruleset (Softball Canada) more carefully and found the following confirmation under the rule for scoring of runs:

Rule 5-8b. A run shall not be scored if the last out of the inning is a result of:

1) The batter-runner being put out before legally touching first base.
2) A runer is forced out (including on an appeal play) due to the batter becoming a batter-runner.

I had always missed the phrase "including on an appeal play" in sub-article 2, and checking the total of 10 types of appeals (11 in slo-pitch), none of them could have anything to do with a force EXCEPT appealing a runner for missing a base. So such an appeal CAN be a force. . .though an appeal on the BR for missing 1B is technically not a force and is covered in sub-article 1.

Thanks again for helping me learn something that I had completely overlooked before.