Appeal a turn toward second.

[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.

[bkbjones]

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.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

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.

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