here we go
 

Sitch; runners on 1st and 3rd, 2 outs, bottom of last inning, batting team down 1 run - batter hits home run, runner on 3rd scores, as batter and runner on 1st are rounding bases, they high five each other and in the excitement of the imminent win, the batter touches home first - the opposing team appeals - whats the call?
I witness this and it toke over 2 hours for the officials to make a call - they called the batter out, scored the runner on 1st and went to extra innings.
This is asa men only.

I think you meant scored the runner from 3rd. In any case, correct call, tie game..next inning.

This was not an appeal play. Maybe you mean protest.

Why did it take 2 hours to make the call?

Waiting on express delivery of the rule book?

Waiting on official protest procedures?

Knew what the call was going to be, so waited on the police to arrive?

yep, my bad

Stand corrected again, protest, and I was a spectator and have no idea why it took soooo long. Maybe because they wanted to be sure of the call, cuz it was a tourney game. Seemed like a no brainer to me.

Forgive me if I am reading this wrong
Down 1 run. The runner at 3rd scored for a run to tie.

Wouldnt the runner from 1st that got passed also score and be the 2nd run?

I guess I am a bit confused on the sitch.

Third out as soon as the runner passed.

The BR passed the leading runner from 1B & touched HP before the runner from 1B. That's an out, the 3rd out.

Correct call on protest as long as this wasn't Men's Class A Slow Pitch. In which case the bases do not need to be run and no appeals can be made.

In our local slowpitch league, rule is the batter has to only touch first on a ball over the fence. But then, we also have screens in front of the pitchers:)

Now that is a stupid rule. Either touch the bases or don't touch them. It's ludicrous to touch one then sit down..

Speaking ASA

#1. This is a "missed base appeal". The only way it could be a protest is if the umpire made an inappropriate ruling. This is not mentioned in the scenario.

#2. The post also doesn't state that R3 passed R2, just that he scored prior to R2. Remember, to pass a runner, the entire body must be completely pass the preceding runner. If R3 DID pass R2, then the out call, and tied game, would be correct.

#3. Assuming R3 did not pass R2, only one run scores. R2 cannot return to touch as missed base once a succeeding runner has scored. (8.3.G; POE 1.D.2)

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?

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).

B is correct.

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?

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.

Aren't you adding to the rule?
 

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!

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!

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.

I understand the intent of the rule....
 

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!

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

Is home plate a base???
 

:confused:

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.

Or how about....
 

A more plausible scenario, R2 and B3 are walking/running side-by-side when they touch home plate. B3 touching a half step before R2. Its not that difficult to image. We don't need to come up with some type of contortionists trick to get these guys to touch home plate one after the other. I'm still waiting for a rule reference that says if a SUCCEEDING runner touches a base prior to a PRECEDING runner, then the PRECEDING runner is considered to have "missed the base". I know that in base running that a runner who has passed a base is considered to have "reached the base" unless properly appealed. But I don't know of a rule that states a runner who has "touched" a base is considered to have "missed" it.

Thanks!

For sake of discussion, does a "pass" have to be the complete body or merely a portion getting infront of the other person?

In racing, a car can win a race by a nose by executing a pass that puts them ahead by less than a car length at the finish line. Similarly a sprinter may "pass" a competitor by leaning at the line. The have passed the other person, even if by less than a full stride. In each of these instances when we talk about the event we say the the original person in the lead was passed at the end of race.

To continue with this line... it could be infered that while they are physically close to each other that R3 passed R2 by beating him to the plate physically(finish line) even if by less than a step.

Already answered this question. The player must be completely pass the runner.

No problem. I'll show you one when you show me a rule that says the runner must touch all the bases in the order of 1st, 2nd, 3rd & home.

Randall, using your logic, we should refuse to accept anything not spelled out in the rulebook or casebook, even if it is correct, clearly understood and accepted? Where in the rulebook does it say home plate shall be white? Or that the pitchers plate shall be white? I think they should be purple; I will change my opinion and ruling if you can show me where it says they shall be white.

And, where does it say we should stop playing in heavy rain? What defines rain heavy enough to stop the game, or conditions bad enough to cancel play for the day? My field will play through any condition; if you can find a written ruling from the NUS, I will change my opinion and rulings.

Do you realize how foolish that sounds? And that is exactly how you sound when you approach issues that way. On this board, we discuss rules, intent, interpretations, and (when necessary or appropriate) address NUS and other resources to get the best understanding of the rules; we don't insist that every ruleset publish a 16 volume encyclopedia of any and everything that may eventually happen. We have members with access to the movers, shakers, and decision makers, and many with experience at the highest levels of softball.

Sometimes, you just need to accept the obvious and the inevitable. We won't all always agree; but this is one where you are hanging on your own. That doesn't make you unique; in other threads, others insist on their homegrown ways. But, sometimes, stop, read, and consider the prevailing thought process. This one, you are in left field; if R3 touches home before R2, R2 cannot legally touch it afterward. This requires an appeal for a missed base, and that's what happened. Correct call made.

"...it toke over 2 hours.."

Taking a 'toke' would naturally slow things down.

Bob

Ok
 

Please note, no offense was intended by any of my comments below.


The color of the bases has no bearing on the game. This example is not on point.

Oh, I'm foolish when I say show me the rule to support your position. Ok, so I'm foolish. I actually believe we should have rule support for our positions. And I seem to recall others who have asked for people to back up their positions with a rule reference.

Fine. I agree the rules can't cover every situation. I also agree that if the decision makers decide this is how it should be ruled, then so be it. However, I haven't heard any official ruling on this at any clinic.


I'm the one asking for a rule reference to back up your position and I"m the one with a "homegrown" way? I don't think so. That's not how I operate. I study the rulebook constantly. I come here to get a better understanding. I read where Mike and others say "That's not supported by the rules" when arguing a point and then I make the same argument, and I'm accused of "homegrown ways". So when am I suppose to have rule support for my interpretation? That's not a flippant question, by the way. It seems that some of the posters on this forum are not consistent. In one thread they say "Show me the rule to support your position", then the next thread they dont need a rule to base their interpretation on.

If we are not going by the rulebook, if there is no written or verbal instructions from the national office, then anything the umpires decided to do here was based on their interpretation.

Good point!
 

Good point. I'll show you one when you show me a rule that says a R2 can't touch home before R1.

This can go on all year.

How can you enforce 6FP.1.D when there is no rule requiring any player to wear a glove? Does that mean if the pitcher isn't wearing a glove, s/he cannot simulate taking the signals unless the ball is in the pitching hand? What if the pitcher is ambeidestrous? How would you know with which hand the pitcher is going to throw the ball? :eek:

How about 6FP.2? "The pitch starts when one hand is taken off the ball afther the hands have been placed together". Does this mean that a pitcher who does wear a glove cannot possible legally deliver the ball? After all, if they meant hands or glove, it would have been specifically mentioned in the rule book, right?


There are multitudes of assumptions made in this game by everyone, including you, that are not covered in the book, casebook or clinic. Does that mean as an umpire we ignore the obvious or do we apply a little common sense to the rules? I'm sure you have heard clinicians mention "common sense" during clinics, schools, etc.

Agreed
 

I see your point. I understand that the rulebook can't cover ever possible scenario. However, we do have guidelines to go by. In those scenarios where we don't have specific rule coverage we follow them. For example, if I call time and then a runner is tagged off of the base, the runner is not out. The rule book doesn't say this, but its obvious nothing can happen when time has been called by the umpire. That's common sense. However, in this scenario it doesn't make sense to call R2 out on appeal for missing a base he touched.

What makes sense to one umpire may not make sense to another. One reason for rules is so that everyone is on the same page and to ensure that everyone plays on a level playing field.

One more question... When do we decide to use "common sense" and enforce something not clearly defined by the rules and when do we say there's no rule to prevent this so its legal?

Why not? There is an entire rule for "Touching bases in legal order" even though that order isn't offered. The rules clearly note that when a succeeding runner scores, preceding runners may not return to the basepath.

A runner cannot return to a missed base or one left too early once they pass the first awarded base. However, as umpiires we do not stop them from returning and touching the bases, but we still honor the appeal even though the runner touched the necessary bases.

Don't get me wrong, this is a strange scenario and I doubt any of us would be able to make it instantaneously without thinking about it, but I doubt it would take two hours :D

This may be a good question for the NUS.

If it comes to that, I hope
- a clearly defined, broad based, rule is added and not just an ambiguous case ruling or POE :cool:
- it doesn't end up on the test :eek:

ASA 8-7-B says it pretty clearly.

As has been stated numerous times in this thread...

In making a ruling, the umpire may apply principles from other rules (not qute the same as "common sense").

Since this exact situation is not covered in the rules, 10-1 comes into play.

A runner is not allowed to retouch a base missed or left to soon after a succeeding runner has scored. That can be extended to a principle that a runner cannot touch home to score after a succeeding runner has scored. That princple can be used in the ruling on this play with the authority of 10-1.

Any time a game umpire applies 10-1 to a situation, it is clearly not expected that every game umpire would come to the same conclusion given the same situation. That is kind of the nature of 10-1.

Wow, what a simple sitch turned into. Thats why I luv this furum. May not post much, but you gotta luv it.