Missed base appeals

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

I repeat, rule 8-7,G..... the runner is out .....when the runner fails to touch the intervening base or bases [b]in regular or reverse order[b] and......is properly appealed.

In each of the options in the question, the runner missed a base, either in regular or reverse order, and, according to the rule, as written, is subject to a successful appeal.

Not true. "a" is impossible to correct under your theory. When the runner touches the base during the return to 1B, s/he has satisfied the rules.

Rule 5 gives the order the bases must be touched for a runner to score a run, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, home.

Again, not true. Rule 5 simply states that the runner must touch those bases to score a run. It is obvious, but it has been eternally presumed. However, since you want to be specific as to the written word of the rule, NO WHERE does it specify the exact order.

Yes, it is an inane argument, but my statement is accurate.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

I repeat, rule 8-7,G..... the runner is out .....when the runner fails to touch the intervening base or bases in regular or reverse order and......is properly appealed.

In each of the options in the question, the runner missed a base, either in regular or reverse order, and, according to the rule, as written, is subject to a successful appeal.

Rule 5 gives the order the bases must be touched for a runner to score a run, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, home.

He was jerking your chain, or did you miss the smiley. Find the definition in the rule book of "regular" order. Find the specificed order the bases must be touched.

[Dakota]

Situation c) is easy, and was included just for completeness. The other two at least cause a small pause to think through the possiblities.

In a) is the second touch on the return a second time by the base and only "counts" as that time by, leaving the first miss as appealable? Why or why not?

In b) are there two appeals available to the defense or only one? Does it matter? Or none (does missing in both directions mean she never passed the base in the first place - this, BTW, seems to be one argument made on the NFHS board - but, as I said, the argument being made is confusing, so I'm not sure - I haven't checked the NFHS board yet today as I write this) Would you demand the defense tell you which time by was the miss? Suppose you saw the first time by miss but not the second? Do you allow any appeal (since you can't say for sure that she did NOT touch the second time by)?