Missed base appeals
 

Partially stolen from the NFHS board, but turned into a more general (and interenting, I think) question.

R1 on first base. B2 hits long high fly ball to center. R1 leaves first base before ball is touched. Ball is caught. R1 advances to between 2B and 3B. 3B coach tells R1 to get back on first base. R1 reaches 1B before the ball, which was thrown to F3 on an attempted live ball appeal. With R1 standing on first base, defense requests and is granted TIME. 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

Assuming the "all" must come from the list offered and deals exclusively with 2B.

a) no
b) yes
c) yes

Yeah - I don't understand the question either. But if this was supposed to be multiple choice, I choose B and C as well.

I would agree with those 3 answers for every code I know.

A wrinkle regarding missed bases is that ASA neither recognizes "last time by" (runner misses 2B on the return, retouches 1B, and then makes it safely to 2B) nor differentiates between a "regular" miss and a "gross miss" (more than a body length).

I don't know whether Fed parallels ASA in those areas or not.

Wouldn't it be true that since the runner did return to 1b, and ahead of the throw,that the only appeal would be missing 2nd on the return? I don't think B would be a yes since she returned to 1b safely.

Sorry about the confusing question, but I was looking for something like

a) one appeal could be recognzed - missing the base on the advance
b) two appeals could be recognized - missing on advance and retreat
c) one appeal could be recognized - missing on the retreat

(not saying those would be my answers)

There is a confusing discussion on the NFHS board about situation b), BTW, if anyone wants to check it out.

Rule 8, Section 7 says the runner is out:

G. When the runner fails to touch the intervening base or bases in regular or reverse order and .......is properly appealed.

A literal interpretation means one appeal in A could be granted,
two appeals in B and one appeal in C.

All that matters is whether the runner missed on the retreat.

The appeal is the runner missing 2B.

In (a) the runner corrected his error by touching on the retreat. In (b) and (c) he missed on the retreat and he's out.

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.

That's because people are trying to "out think" the rules. It isn't that difficult when you walk through the scenarios offered.

My understanding is that if a runner passes a base and fails to touch it, they are considered to have touched it unless it is appealed. If the appeal is made, the runner is out.

I understand your logic but I think the rules don't agee.

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.

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?

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
__________________

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.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.

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.

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)?

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.

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.

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.:(

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

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.

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.

Nope, that's not it.

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.


Thanks for clearing that up. Can you give us the rule book citation?

I'm trying to follow this but still need some help from you guys. I understand having to touch the bases again in reverse order to get back to first. Now, when the throw went into DBA the runner was between 1B and 2B when the throw was released. You awarded him 2 bases from the release of the throw, putting him on 3B. I agree, but By doing so, aren't you ruling that he only had 1B prior to the release? And if so, how can he be out on a 2B appeal if you have already ruled that he never reached to 2B?

And if so, how can he be out on a 2B appeal if you have already ruled that he never reached to 2B?

He did reach 2B—even though he missed it—and by retreating he placed himself between 1B and 2B, still with liability to be put out for missing 2B.

Missing 2B and never reaching 2B—and retreating toward 1B after missing (or touching) 2B—are different things.

For the purposes of awarding bases, the runner is considered to have touched the bases he passed. For example: Abel on 1B runs on Baker's hit. Abel misses 2B and is on his way to 3B when F9 throws the ball into DBT. Abel was between 2B and 3B when F9 released the throw, so you award him home. You don't say, "Well, Abel never touched 2B, so I'll consider him as being between 1B and 2B and make the award from 1B."

The rule book is clear that passing a base is the same as touching it, except that the runner is liable to be put out on appeal. After all, the rule book says that a run scores when a runner touches 1B, 2B, 3B, and home. If a batter circles the bases on a hit but misses 2B, we score the run anyway unless the defense appeals the miss. We don't say, "Even though there was no appeal, the runner missed 2B and therefore did not fulfill the requirements for scoring a run."

When the runner returned he gave up on second base and reinstated a force out because the batter/runner is occupying first. The runner now can be put out by simply touching second base. Since, instead, the ball was overthrown into a dead ball area the runner has only legally attained first base and the award of two bases sends him to third. That is, until he was successfully put out on appeal for missing second base.

Speaking ASA, this is incorrect. The 2 base award is based on the position of the runners at the time of the throw, not the "legally attained" base.

You are correct and I apologize for making this thread even more complicated.

I was trying, albeit feebly, to help Bigsig understand missing second base(or touching second base) had no bearing on the award, since the runner was between first and second at the time of the throw.

I was trying to help

Okay.

The thread has had several left and right turns.

My last answer was a feeble attempt to answer BIGSIG on why the touch or no touch of second base was immaterial. Your answer is much clearer.

And thanks to the input of all I would answer your original questions this way, based on the rule book.

a) R1 misses 2B on the advance but touches on the return-No potential successful appeal
b) R1 misses 2B in both directions-one potential successful appeal
c) R1 touches 2B on the advance but misses on the return-one potential sucessful appea

Thanks for the challenge

Holy ****, JP has admitted he's wrong.

*pumps his fist in celebration*

:eek:

I was having trouble understanding the appeal.
Thanks to all for your help!

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.

Good. It seemed facetious, except you mentioned it twice.

;) No one in Princeton has a heart, they all bled to death