here we go

[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!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by rwest

You've yet to convince me that the ruleset defines this as a "missing base".

Not in the classic sense, it isn't, since the runner never reached the base in the first place.

Originally Posted by rwest

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!

10-1 comes into play here. This situation is not covered in the rules. Therefore, it may be a reasonable use of 10-1 to apply the two rules cited above, following the logic posted above. I don't know if that was the end result of the 2 hour discussion, but I could support it if it was.

[Bluefoot]

Originally Posted by rwest

Now if R2 had actually missed a base...

Thanks!

Let's see, did R2 miss home plate?

It's been established that BR3 did not pass R2, but that BR3 touched home plate before R2 did.

Since BR3 did not pass R2, and BR3 touched home plate before R2, then one of the following must have occurred:

a.) R2 went directly past home plate without touching it, which would be considered 'missing' the base. BR3 (who was following R2, since he did not pass R2) then touched home plate. Then R2 returned to touch the 'missed' home plate. This sure sounds like the most likely scenario.

b.) BR3 did not pass R2. When BR3 is touching home plate, R2 is not yet past home plate, (and R2 can't be behind BR3) but R2 is directly even with home plate. That is, R2 is either off to one side of the plate, positioned exactly on a line perpendicular to the 3B to HP baseline (think a continuation of the first base line toward the 3B dugout), or R2 has both feet stradling either side of home plate, at the moment that BR3 touches home plate between R2's legs. Since R2 is either off to one side of home plate, or has his feet stradling each side home plate without touching it, R2 has to learn to run to a base and not off to the side, away from a base, or R2 has to learn to touch a base with some body part, rather than stradling home plate with both feet. Either way, it's a 'missed' base by R2.

c.) R2 jumped up in the air and is directly over home plate at the moment that BR3 touches home plate. R2 then returns to earth and touches home plate after BR3 already has. So R2 doesn't 'miss' the base in the traditional sense, but he and his teammate get screwed out the opportunity to score runs on the play for failing to be in synch on the basepaths.

d.) BR3 does not pass R2, but R2 digs a large hole along the 3B line that somehow does not cave home plate underground. R2 is directly under home plate when BR3 adeptly avoids the hole and manages to touch home plate. R2 then reaches his hand out of the hole and touches home plate. R2 failed to follow the directions of his 3B coach and did not proceed directly to home plate, but rather chose to create this groundskeeper's nightmare of a detour. While this situation is the most unlikely of the four, the detour would have to be considered a 'missed' base by R2.

Given the physical laws of our universe, these are the only possibilities that could have happened. I have not considered the possibility of siamese or conjoined twins, but then that would probably incorporate some violation of BOO, or a uniform rule. Therefore, I conclude that it's most likely that R2 did indeed 'miss' the base, and returned to touch it after BR3 had already done so.