She made the attempt, she is now a runner between 1st and 2nd, not someone that has overrun a base. It is no different than if she had rounded 1st and was halfway between 1st and 2nd. If a runner gets into a staring match there do you let the defense appeal that she's being no fun? It's a classic rundown sitch where the defense has to force the issue.

In the original scenario we need a tag for the out.

I have an issue with the attitude that "I am not going to let 3 players just stand there and stare each other down waiting for something to happen."

Hey Tex, it isn't your game. The players play and you just call it. Ya gotta have a tag in that situation.

Yes, it is labeled an "appeal". I believe this is to be an incorrect application of the term.

In layman's terms which I'm pretty sure applies in all rule sets:

An appeal is when an umpire may not make a decision on a rule violation until requested to do so by a predetermined authority.

Since there is no rule forbidding a player from making an attempt to advance to 2B (remember, not talking LBR here), there is no violation on which the umpire may be asked to rule.

The rule simply permits a BR to run through (over run) 1B without jeopardy of being retired for being off the base. When a player does, in the umpire's judgment, make an attempt to advance, that player has elected to forego this protection and if the ball is still live, play simply continues.

Unfortunately, you don't have any other option at this point. As has been clearly pointed out, this is a play in progress and the defense needs to do something to retire the runner between first and second.

If this happens, I hope it is in a timed game with the clock running! :)

I agree that this isn't an appeal that meets the definition by ASA, but the rules (every version I know of) call it an appeal nonetheless. Here's definitions used:
NCAA: A play OR a rule violation on which the umpire does not make a ruling ...
NFHS: A play on which an umpire does not make a ruling ....
ASA (Current): A play on a rule violation on which an umpire may not make a decision unless requested.
ASA (2005 and before): An appeal play is a play on which an umpire may not make a decision ....

We all know that the ASA rulebook came first, and was the basis for the others. ASA many years ago decided to include this situation as an appeal (and I believe baseball does as well), and the others maintained that, as it did meet the definition. It is tangential only in that it is the only situation that isn't a rule violation called an appeal; in my mind, the only reason to consider it an appeal is that the players don't know in advance if the runner will be ruled in jeopardy, and we aren't to tell them until asked. So, they are asking for a ruling (by making the live ball appeal as a tag), and only then do we rule if in jeopardy or still protected as simply overrunning.

In the 2006 ASA rulebook, this is an undocumented change; apparently an editorial decision. "They" removed language stating when the appeal could no longer be made from the definition section, as it was correctly located in the rule section 8-7.F-I Effect, and removed the redundancy of repeating the defined term in the definition. At the same time, they added the words "on a rule violation" without that being a rule change; somone thought that made it clearer. And it would have, if this case wasn't an exception, an appeal that isn't on a violation.

So, the discrepancy is one of ASA's editorial committee's making, not an intentional rule. Just unfortunate wordsmithing, it would appear. Personally, I also don't like "may not" versus "does not" that the others use. I don't want to have to rule on a protest claiming that an umpire that did inadvertantly (and obviously incorrectly) let on about a violation put the offense in jeopardy, and have to disallow a valid appeal. "Does not" if done is a mistake; "may not" if done is a violation of the rule.

Great input everyone. Thanks!

I'm positive I read this interpretation several years back, especially the part I have quoted above. (And, no, it was no it was not talking about BR running from F3, but specifically noted F3 not moving.)

The part I'm not positive about is how many years, which manual/magazine and whether it was SP, FP or even baseball. I'm pretty sure it was some place that I at least thought at the time was an authoritative source. Thanks for straighten me out.

Good discussion here.

What the group is saying is that:
1) A live ball appeal can not be made on the batter-runner while off base in this situation.
2) Also that the defense must force the issue and tag the batter-runner to get an out.

Now explain what is the umpire to do, if anything, when F3 stands on 1st base holding the ball, the batter-runner stands where she is (about 30 feet from 1st base), and the 3rd base runner stands off her base. They all stare at each other and no movement.

Stand there and wait for someone to actually make a play.

Anything we do must have the support of the rules. And, there is no rule support to do anything with this play. Until the players play this to a completion, live ball, play is in progress.

1) Runner is not out, because nothing makes the runner out.
2) You cannot properly call "time"; ASA 10.4-E "An umpire will not call time while any play is in progress ..." and ASA 10.4-H An umpire will not suspend play at the request of players, coaches or managers until all action in progress has been completed."

The most you can do is state something like "The ball is live until returned to the pitcher and runners return to their bases", or "I cannot call that runner out unless you tag her off the base", or "I cannot grant time will the ball is in play and runners are in jeopardy". Until they resolve it, you cannot actively "do" anything, or apply any rule.

Good breakdown, Steve. But let's take it a step further. Define play. In ASA, F3 standing on a base with a ball while the runner in question is between 1st & 2nd base is not a play until the defense actually tries to retire the runner. IMO, erroneously touching a base in this case is not a play. So, at this point we don't have a play of any type upon which the umpire may or may not make a decision.

Which is easily resolved in SP (and could be in FP) when the umpire kills the ball when there is no obvious further play. :D

I don't think I've ever had this situation, however in similar situations (in FP), I have said something like, "Let's play ball" in my most officious umpire voice. Next thing I know they are doing something.

However, gotta be real slow pulling that trigger. Told this before, AA State game, high infield fly, infield fly rule invoked and declared, ball lost in the sun, ball drops in front of second baseman. Runner on first and second base both under the misconception that IF means dead ball and are in conversation 20 feet from the bag. Plate looks at me and I him with the "can't realy call time just yet look but they are too dumb to know it" finally from the outfield "TAG HIM". "OUT!" Then came the arguments. AA indeed, in both usages of the term.

However, gotta be real slow pulling that trigger. Told this before, AA State game, high infield fly, infield fly rule invoked and declared, ball lost in the sun, ball drops in front of second baseman. Runner on first and second base both under the misconception that IF means dead ball and are in conversation 20 feet from the bag. Plate looks at me and I him with the "can't realy call time just yet look but they are too dumb to know it" finally from the outfield "TAG HIM". "OUT!" Then came the arguments. AA indeed, in both usages of the term.

Damn I want to jump in the middle of this.

Damitol!!!! My blood pressure is goin up! Help!!!

OK. Here goes.
Strictly speaking ASA, right?
This play became a situation that damn near completely stopped a Western National within the last, ummm, decade. Apparently the folks in charge had never even heard of this play, much less seen it.

We have been blessed with it for years around here. It is an offshoot of what used to be called the "U Dub play," as in Teresa Wilson. That particular play is now forbidden by rule, but this is it's first cousin. And it's legal. And there's not a whole lot you can do.

Again, strictly speaking ASA -- so you over there reading this, settle down lol...and not Seattle ASA either.

At this particular tournament we were instructed that when the runner stopped and no one was going to do anything to stop play and order the runner back to first. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but this is what was done in the rest of this particular tournament.

I'll admit it's a VERY good thing this play didn't come up in any games I did the rest of that tournament. I wouldn't have followed along, I can guarantee. Heck, they wanted to send me home anyway :)

I keep hearing little rumblings that it's going to be outlawed, but what's to be outlawed? Runners can't stop? An offensive team can't do something to try to force the defense into an error? What's to follow? Bans on sacrifice bunts down the 3B line? Slappers?

No, you can't call time.

Unless the UIC says you HAVE to.

Just wondering, since I'm not in the "U dub" loop, what play would that be?