here we go

[Dakota]

I took the OP to be describing a passed runner scenario. You're right it would be a missed base appeal if either

a) R2 missed the base, BR touched, and then R2 touched, or
b) While jumping around, BR happened to touch the plate first but did not actually pass R2.

I can see how either of those could be read into the OPs description.

Which was it, alphaump?

[mcrowder]

And this is why it took 2 hours. Unless BR COMPLETELY passed R2, he's not out for passing. So then the question becomes - if BR didn't actually pass R2, what rule was broken when BR touched home slightly before R2. If R2 didn't actually miss the base, but just happened to touch it after BR.

Picture them side by side - if R2 didn't actually go PAST the plate, then did he "miss" it? If this is not a pass, BR is not out. So what makes R2's run not count? Honestly, I don't believe this is covered in the rules. If you don't have a pass, and you don't have an actual missed base, where does it actually state BR cannot score before R2? Intuitively, it makes sense that BR can't score before R2, but by what RULE do we call anyone out here?

Initially, I thought this to be a no-brainer too ... but after realizing we don't actually have a PASSED runner (which requires no appeal, and is simply an out right at that instant, no run would have ever scored in that case), I started digging into the rules. I see no actual rule broken if R2 didn't miss and pass the base before BR touched home.

So yeah - I can see why this took 2 hours, and I'm no longer sure they got it right, unless they used Rule 10 (which wouldn't have taken 2 hours either).

[alphaump]

Originally Posted by Dakota

b) While jumping around, BR happened to touch the plate first but did not actually pass R2.



Which was it, alphaump?

B is correct.

[Steve M]

Quoting the last 2 posts

"Originally Posted by Dakota
b) While jumping around, BR happened to touch the plate first but did not actually pass R2.

Which was it, alphaump?

B is correct."

That being the case, the incorrect call was made. The game should have been over with the offense winning.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Steve M

Quoting the last 2 posts

"Originally Posted by Dakota
b) While jumping around, BR happened to touch the plate first but did not actually pass R2.

Which was it, alphaump?

B is correct."

That being the case, the incorrect call was made. The game should have been over with the offense winning.

Why would that be?

[Bluefoot]

ASA Rule Book, Rule 8 Batter-Runner and Runner, Section 3

F. Failure of a PRECEDING runner to touch a base or to legally tag up on a caught fly ball, and who is declared out, does not affect the status of a SUCCEEDING runner who touches the bases in proper order. If the failure to touch a base in regular order or to legally tag up on a caught fly ball is the third out of the inning, no SUCCEEDING runner may score a run.

G. No runner may return to touch a missed base or one left too soon after a following runner has scored or one he leaves the field of play.

-----------------------------------------------------------

So by G R2 could not touch home plate once BR3 scored. Effectively, R2 "missed" home plate.

By F, since the appeal on R2 for failing to touch home plate was the third out of the inning, the succeeding runner (BR3) could not score a run.

Therefore, the ruling of a tied score & extra innings was made correctly.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Bluefoot

ASA Rule Book, Rule 8 Batter-Runner and Runner, Section 3

F. Failure of a PRECEDING runner to touch a base or to legally tag up on a caught fly ball, and who is declared out, does not affect the status of a SUCCEEDING runner who touches the bases in proper order. If the failure to touch a base in regular order or to legally tag up on a caught fly ball is the third out of the inning, no SUCCEEDING runner may score a run.

G. No runner may return to touch a missed base or one left too soon after a following runner has scored or one he leaves the field of play.

-----------------------------------------------------------

So by G R2 could not touch home plate once BR3 scored. Effectively, R2 "missed" home plate.

By F, since the appeal on R2 for failing to touch home plate was the third out of the inning, the succeeding runner (BR3) could not score a run.

Therefore, the ruling of a tied score & extra innings was made correctly.

No where in the OP does it say R2 missed home. He either did or did not touch the base. The fact that the BR scored first does not prevent R2 from touching home. No where in the rules thus sited does it say that if a SUCCEEDING runner touches a base prior to the PRECEDING runner, that the SUCCEEDING rounner "effectively missed" the base. I believe your adding to the rule. F above does not apply because the PRECEDING runner (R2) did not miss the base. Since R2 did not miss the base, G doesn't apply.

Show me where in the rules that R2 "effectively missed" home. Is there a case play that addresses this issue? If the rules support your interpretation, then I'll call it that way. I just need to see it in writing. Where's the rule?

Thanks!

[Dakota]

I inferred the logic he was following was this:

BR scored, effectively stranding R2 in a "missed base" situation, since R2 has not touched the base. R2 must now touch the base after BR, but 8-3-G says she cannot (if properly appealed).

His logic is that since R2 did not touched the plate before BR, that is a "missed base."

Maybe I'm getting some glimmer here of why this took a couple of hours to resolve at the field!

[Bluefoot]

Originally Posted by rwest

No where in the OP does it say R2 missed home. He either did or did not touch the base. The fact that the BR scored first does not prevent R2 from touching home. No where in the rules thus sited does it say that if a SUCCEEDING runner touches a base prior to the PRECEDING runner, that the SUCCEEDING rounner "effectively missed" the base. I believe your adding to the rule. F above does not apply because the PRECEDING runner (R2) did not miss the base. Since R2 did not miss the base, G doesn't apply.

Show me where in the rules that R2 "effectively missed" home. Is there a case play that addresses this issue? If the rules support your interpretation, then I'll call it that way. I just need to see it in writing. Where's the rule?

Thanks!

Try reading the post more closely, and try understanding what the stated rules mean:

G. No runner may return to touch a missed base ... after a following runner has scored

R2 had not yet touched home plate. BR3 was a 'following' or 'succeeding' runner to B2. When BR3 touched home plate, by rule 8-3-G, B2 could no longer legally touch home plate. The rules don't state 'missed', but rather, the rule makes it perfectly clear that B2's opportunity to legally touch home plate had passed. Yes, R2 did physically 'touch' home plate, but only after a following runner had already touched home plate, which negated B2's subsequent touching of this base. Therefore, B2 never legally touched home plate, so in effect, and as far as the umpire is concerned, B2 never touched home plate. It's pretty simple, and makes perfect sense.

Rule 8 Section 3 are the set of rules governing runners and batter-runners touching bases in the proper order. Runners are not allowed to touch bases out of order. If they were, there'd be chaos on the field.

You are correct, rule G does not use the word 'missed'. But it's up to you to understand and apply the correct meaning of the rule: Again, the runner is no longer afforded the opportunity to legally touch the base, so the runner's touch of the base is not legal and should be discounted. In effect, it's the same as result if R2 had never touched, or had 'missed' home plate. Then rule 8-3-F is applied to this situation, pertaining to the defense's appeal.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Bluefoot

Try reading the post more closely, and try understanding what the stated rules mean:

G. No runner may return to touch a missed base ... after a following runner has scored

R2 had not yet touched home plate. BR3 was a 'following' or 'succeeding' runner to B2. When BR3 touched home plate, by rule 8-3-G, B2 could no longer legally touch home plate. The rules don't state 'missed', but rather, the rule makes it perfectly clear that B2's opportunity to legally touch home plate had passed. Yes, R2 did physically 'touch' home plate, but only after a following runner had already touched home plate, which negated B2's subsequent touching of this base. Therefore, B2 never legally touched home plate, so in effect, and as far as the umpire is concerned, B2 never touched home plate. It's pretty simple, and makes perfect sense.

Rule 8 Section 3 are the set of rules governing runners and batter-runners touching bases in the proper order. Runners are not allowed to touch bases out of order. If they were, there'd be chaos on the field.

You are correct, rule G does not use the word 'missed'. But it's up to you to understand and apply the correct meaning of the rule: Again, the runner is no longer afforded the opportunity to legally touch the base, so the runner's touch of the base is not legal and should be discounted. In effect, it's the same as result if R2 had never touched, or had 'missed' home plate. Then rule 8-3-F is applied to this situation, pertaining to the defense's appeal.

The intent of Rule 8-3-G is to define when a runners opportunity to return to touch a missed base or a base left too soon has ended. What I don't see is where in the rules it defines that a "missed base" can be applied to this situation. Now if R2 had actually missed a base, then when BR scored R2 would not be allowed to return and touch the missed base.

As to understanding the correct meaning of any rule, all any of us have to go on, absent a verbal or written ruling from the national staff, is the written word found in the rule and case books. You've yet to convince me that the ruleset defines this as a "missing base". If this is an appeal situation what is the defence appealing? The defensive coach is not going to say that R2 missed home. He's going to appeal that R2 touched home after BR. There's no appeal for this. There's no rule that addresses this situation specifically. You have to interpret that R2 "missed home". Show me where I'm wrong and I'll gladly change my opinion and rule accordingly.

Thanks!