Missed base appeals

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

How do you know? Please cite the ASA rule which indicates the proper order in which the bases must be touched.

In rule five, it mentions what bases must be touched to score a run, but does not demand a particular order.

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.

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

[greymule]

is subject to a successful appeal.

"Unless he corrects his mistake" is so obvious it does not have to be written.

Batter hits a ball over the outfield and touches, in order, home, 2B, 1B, 3B, and claims he scored a run. I think even the Ninth Circuit would choke on that one.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by greymule

is subject to a successful appeal.

"Unless he corrects his mistake" is so obvious it does not have to be written.

Batter hits a ball over the outfield and touches, in order, home, 2B, 1B, 3B, and claims he scored a run. I think even the Ninth Circuit would choke on that one.

I am simply following earlier advice on this board that asked for the rule(s) as written to be cited.

It may be logical to assume that a runner missing a base and then touching it when returning, or missing it both ways, could not be subject to a successful appeal.....but where is that interpretation written?

[bkbjones]

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.

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

And I have games all the time where bases are NOT touched but runs are scored. It's not an epidemic of biblical proportions or anything, but they don't HAVE to be touched for a run to be scored.

so...

IF there is NO APPEAL then we have to go on the assumption that the bases were indeed touched.

And we are going on another assumption, as Greymule said so eloquently, that " 'unless he corrects his mistake' is so obvious it doesn't have to be written."

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

And I have games all the time where bases are NOT touched but runs are scored. It's not an epidemic of biblical proportions or anything, but they don't HAVE to be touched for a run to be scored.

so...

IF there is NO APPEAL then we have to go on the assumption that the bases were indeed touched.

And we are going on another assumption, as Greymule said so eloquently, that " 'unless he corrects his mistake' is so obvious it doesn't have to be written."

Fine,,

But that was not what the question asked for.
List all appeals could be successfully made by the defense in these situations:

a) R1 misses 2B on the advance but touches on the return
b) R1 misses 2B in both directions
c) R1 touches 2B on the advance but misses on the return
__________________

[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)?

[greymule]

Luckily, the hospital emergency room I'm in has a computer I can use, though I have so many broken bones I'm not sure I can finish this post. The pain is pretty bad. I'm typing with my one good finger.

Here's what happened earlier today in an ASA game between the Bad Boys and the Junkyard Dogs:

Abel on 1B took off when Baker hit a liner that F9 trapped in right center. Abel missed 2B and was on his way to 3B when the 3B coach, mistakenly thinking F9 had caught the ball, told Abel to go back to 1B. Abel retreated, touched 2B, and was on his way to 1B when the 1B coach told him that the ball had been trapped. Abel immediately reversed direction, touched 2B, and was on his way again to 3B when the coach (the manager) screamed for him to tag up at 1B or he would be kicked off the team. So Abel returned again, touched 2B, and was on his way back to 1B when F9 finally found the ball (he had been sitting on it unawares). F9 heaved the ball toward the infield, but it sailed over everybody and into DBT. Abel was between 1B and 2B when the throw left F9's hand, so I awarded him 3B (and Baker 2B). Abel proceeded to touch 2B and go to 3B.

The defense appealed that Abel had missed 2B, and since he clearly had, I called him out.

Ouch. Be back later if anyone has any questions. The orthopedic surgeon's here.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by greymule

Luckily, the hospital emergency room I'm in has a computer I can use, though I have so many broken bones I'm not sure I can finish this post. The pain is pretty bad. I'm typing with my one good finger.

Here's what happened earlier today in an ASA game between the Bad Boys and the Junkyard Dogs:

Abel on 1B took off when Baker hit a liner that F9 trapped in right center. Abel missed 2B and was on his way to 3B when the 3B coach, mistakenly thinking F9 had caught the ball, told Abel to go back to 1B. Abel retreated, touched 2B, and was on his way to 1B when the 1B coach told him that the ball had been trapped. Abel immediately reversed direction, touched 2B, and was on his way again to 3B when the coach (the manager) screamed for him to tag up at 1B or he would be kicked off the team. So Abel returned again, touched 2B, and was on his way back to 1B when F9 finally found the ball (he had been sitting on it unawares). F9 heaved the ball toward the infield, but it sailed over everybody and into DBT. Abel was between 1B and 2B when the throw left F9's hand, so I awarded him 3B (and Baker 2B). Abel proceeded to touch 2B and go to 3B.

The defense appealed that Abel had missed 2B, and since he clearly had, I called him out.

Ouch. Be back later if anyone has any questions. The orthopedic surgeon's here.

You will have to explain the emergency room and broken bones before we try to sort out the question.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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?

How can you make up for the miss the first time by? By going back to touch it which is exactly what the runner did. When going in reverse order, you are always going to need an even number of touches and the only way to get that would be to intentionally miss it in the opposited direction which just adds another possibility.

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)?

If you saw both misses, who cares if they offer the direction?

If you did not see both, confirm the appeal being requested and rule on it. If the defense then appeals the opposite direction, rule on that appeal. They are not guessing, just trying to figure out what you saw.

Okay, now I'll just sit back and wait for someone to say something stupid.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Okay, now I'll just sit back and wait for someone to say something stupid.

While I am perfectly capable of saying something stupid (as I have demonstrated here and elsewhere from time to time), I would like to point out that my listing of possible rulings above does not mean that is how I would rule; only that it is how I have read others say they would rule.

Besides, I never did baseball umpiring and don't have a clear understanding of what the "last time by" theory actually is.

[greymule]

Besides, I never did baseball umpiring and don't have a clear understanding of what the "last time by" theory actually is.

Last time by refers to the principle that whether or not a runner missed a base is determined by what he did the last time he passed the base. OBR operates on this principle; ASA does not. (I don't know what Fed does either in baseball or in softball).

No matter how many times a runner misses a base, forward or reverse, he has corrected his error if he touches the base last time by. For example:

Abel on 1B off on the pitch and Baker hits a liner to right field. Abel misses 2B on his way to 3B. F9 makes a diving catch. Abel retreats to 1B and misses 2B on his way back (this reverse miss makes his first miss moot). Abel slides back into 1B, and the throw from F9 gets away and bounces toward the stands up the RF line. Abel, having retouched 1B, scrambles to 2B (touches it) and proceeds to 3B. "Last time by" would mean that an appeal on Abel at 2B would be denied, because the last time Abel passed 2B he touched it. By touching 2B "last time by," he has corrected any and all previous misses. (Of course, he still has to advance in forward and retreat in reverse order on the basepaths.)

(Note: If Abel, when between 2B and 3B, had cut straight across the diamond in order to retouch 1B, his error would be uncorrectable, and he would be out on appeal. Even if he eventually touched 2B, "last time by" would not apply.)

If the play above occurred in ASA, Abel would still be liable to be called out on appeal for his second (retreating) miss of 2B, even though he touched 2B last time by (on his way to 3B). This is because the miss came before the required retouch of 1B. Once Abel slid back into 1B, he could correct his error only by running back to 2B, then retouching 1B (making his retreat legal), then back to 2B and on to 3B. ASA also does not differentiate between a regular miss and a gross miss (such cutting across the diamond).

I'm in the hospital because all those Junkyard Dogs were beating on me. All except Abel, even though he was the one I called out. He was exhausted from all that running back and forth.

[greymule]

I was just being ironic, pretending that by following the notion that criss-crossing the base missing but finally touching it still amounted to a miss of the base, I got beat up for calling the runner out on appeal.

In the same way, IrishMafia was being ironic claiming that there have to be an even number of touches/misses after a retreat.

I did do a game between the Bad Boys and the Junkyard Dogs, however. They are two real (and aptly named) NJ teams.

I guess I should be careful, because once in trying to be ironic I got a whole lot of people mad at me on a political forum. After some horrendous crime in which two guys just released early from prison raped and murdered a couple of young girls, I got on a forum and claimed that there was evidence that one of the guys had once had to stand in the corner in kindergarten class, the other had once not been allowed to watch his favorite TV show, they both had led hard lives and been exposed to violence in prison, etc., and therefore weren't responsible for what they had done. I said that they needed hugs and classes in nonviolent communication, that it was really society's fault, and that the two guys needed education about rape and murder not being nice. I even claimed that the two guys had been diagnosed with HFS (human frailty syndrome). In short, I repeated all the bleeding-heart nonsense commonly heard in college towns like nearby Princeton. However, the people on the forum were outraged, completely missing what I thought was obvious satire.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

While I am perfectly capable of saying something stupid (as I have demonstrated here and elsewhere from time to time), I would like to point out that my listing of possible rulings above does not mean that is how I would rule; only that it is how I have read others say they would rule.

Besides, I never did baseball umpiring and don't have a clear understanding of what the "last time by" theory actually is.

Nope, that's not it.