Appeal a turn toward second.

[BretMan]

There really are a small, limited number of things that can constitute a legitimate appeal play. The obvious ones are missing a base, leaving a base too soon on a caught fly ball and batting out of order.

Those all make sense are are obvious. ASA and NFHS list one more appealable situation- Attempting to advance to second base after making a turn at first base. Generally, appeals apply to a violation of the playing rules. I don't really get how a runner rounding first base and making an attempt toward second is considered a "violation" of any rule. The runner is legally attempting to advance and isn't doing anything prohibited by rule. That just seems an odd thing to include under the catagory of "appeals", when it seems to fall under the normal rules requiring a tag on an advancing runner.

But the rule is there, for whatever reason, lumped in with other appeals that are violations of specific playing rules. And the rules are clear that this particular play DOES require an actual tag of the runner, not the base!

The NFHS rule adds a little note that this particular appeal can ONLY be executed as a live-ball appeal (that makes it different than all the others, which can be made during a dead ball). The ASA rule doesn't spell that out, but a reading of their rule infers that this is also the case in their game.

(For whatever credit the NFHS gets for clarifying this must be a live-ball appeal, you have to ding them for the sentence that describes this as an appeal play. It is an oddly-worded sentence fragment that in itself makes no sense. There seems to be a word or two missing, or something printed out-of-sequence, or pooly edited. Maybe that is adding to the confusion.)

Let's call this an appeal play (the rules do, after all) and let's agree that it can only be a live-ball appeal (the rules agree with that). Now take a minute to read about live-ball appeals.

"(A live-ball appeal) may be made during a live ball by any fielder in possession of the ball touching the base missed or left too soon on a caught fly ball, or by tagging the runner committing the violation if (the runner) is still on the playing field."

The rule says that tagging the base is an acceptable form of live-ball appeal in two circumstances: A missed base or one left too soon on catch. The play offered here is neither one of those!

That leaves us with tagging the runner as the only means of executing a successful live-ball appeal.

It still bugs me that the rules treat this as some sort of "appealable violation" by the runner, when the runner has the right to try to round the bag and a tag would be required on any other runner rounding any other base and being off of it during a live ball. But I don't see any way in the world that you can get from the rules that simply tagging the base is an acceptable means of making this appeal.

[ChampaignBlue]

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.

[Rachel]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

[AtlUmpSteve]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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 ....

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.

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.

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

[ChampaignBlue]

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

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.

[ChampaignBlue]

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

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.

[UMP 64]

We have a lot of solutions for many different solutions. As I see it with NFHS rules, there are 2 possible solutions.
1. The runner must be tagged to record an out. This may create a rundown, that will establish her base path "ONLY" when an attempt is made to tag her. If there are multiple throws to tag the batter/runner B2, she creates a new base line with each throw, so the 6' base path can change with each throw. It is not always a direct line between 1B & 2B.
2. throw the ball to the pitcher and force the runners to go directly to a base LBR in force. I would rather give up 2nd base than a run.