Double first base, appealing

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

What does a foul ball have to do with the appeal.

It doesn't. I meant 8-2-M-3. Thanks.

You may be trying to find something special that is not there.

Actually, I believe I'm pointing out something that isn't there. Unless I'm missing something (and I could be), I see an inconsistency.

Again, if a batter-runner that only touches the white on a play at first is called safe, the window for appeal remains open until he returns to first. (That's a different window than the usual before-the-next-pitch.) If he never goes back to first, though, why should the window for appeal be different, just because he's gone to a different base?

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by bainsey

It doesn't. I meant 8-2-M-3. Thanks.

Actually, I believe I'm pointing out something that isn't there. Unless I'm missing something (and I could be), I see an inconsistency.

Again, if a batter-runner that only touches the white on a play at first is called safe, the window for appeal remains open until he returns to first. (That's a different window than the usual before-the-next-pitch.) If he never goes back to first, though, why should the window for appeal be different, just because he's gone to a different base?

The window for appeal ends when she returns to touch first because, well............. once she returns to touch first, she no longer has missed first!!!


If she never goes back to first (continues on to 2nd) then she still has missed 1st.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

The window for appeal ends when she returns to touch first because, well............. once she returns to touch first, she no longer has missed first!!!


If she never goes back to first (continues on to 2nd) then she still has missed 1st.

Yep, like I said, looking for something that isn't there, nor is there a need to be.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

The window for appeal ends when she returns to touch first because, well............. once she returns to touch first, she no longer has missed first!!!

There lies the simplicity I was seeking.

Thanks. By the way, does the same who-can-appeal rule apply (any defensive player for a live ball, infielder for a dead ball)?

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by bainsey

There lies the simplicity I was seeking.

Thanks. By the way, does the same who-can-appeal rule apply (any defensive player for a live ball, infielder for a dead ball)?

No, as this is an instance of a live ball appeal only. This is a special case of missing a base because the BR can over run first without jeopardy to be put out. Using the wrong portion of the bag is in extension of missing first base.

Therefore, if the BR touches the wrong color while arriving before the ball, the umpire should signal safe (unlike what happened in the Yankees/Blue Jays game last week, thread on the baseball board has a video clip). Then wait for a live ball appeal or the runner to arrive back at first.

However, if the BR continues to second before retouching first (for what ever reason) and is standing on second, then this just becomes a missed base appeal and the deal ball appeal procedure can be used.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by bainsey

There lies the simplicity I was seeking.

Thanks. By the way, does the same who-can-appeal rule apply (any defensive player for a live ball, infielder for a dead ball)?

I have to admit I was wondering where you were missing the connection to the first point 1), being until corrected (which the runner does by returning to touch the base, either base at that point). The rule you were citing simply reflected that, without using those words.

If not corrected, all other appeal windows which might apply still apply; it isn't a different rule, actually, than any other missed base which can be appealed.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I have to admit I was wondering where you were missing the connection to the first point 1), being until corrected (which the runner does by returning to touch the base, either base at that point). The rule you were citing simply reflected that, without using those words.

If not corrected, all other appeal windows which might apply still apply; it isn't a different rule, actually, than any other missed base which can be appealed.

While I agree this is how it's meant to be called (though I don't particularly like the rule), I don't think the rule book actually says this. Allow me to play rulebook lawyer here.

A runner using only the white portion of first base has not missed first base. He has touched first base. If called out on appeal, he's being called out for using only the white portion of first base while a play was being made not for missing the base. (For example see the rules supplement under appeals that differentiates these or try and find a rule that it breaks). And the rule book states that he may be called out for this until he has returned to first base. It does not say as it should that touching only the white portion of first base should be treated as missing first base correctable by touching either part of the base has been retouched.

Suppose that an umpire you were working with, insisted that an appeal be honored after a pitch for this violation and you wanted to show him in the rule book where that was wrong. You could go to the rules supplement where it's clear. But can you find a rule?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by youngump

A runner using only the white portion of first base has not missed first base. He has touched first base. If called out on appeal, he's being called out for using only the white portion of first base while a play was being made not for missing the base.

That's exactly where my mindset was.

Suppose that an umpire you were working with, insisted that an appeal be honored after a pitch for this violation and you wanted to show him in the rule book where that was wrong. You could go to the rules supplement where it's clear. But can you find a rule?

Actually, I believe I cited that very rule in the fourth post of this thread.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

A runner using only the white portion of first base has not missed first base. He has touched first base.

I assume you are referring to a batter-runner since there is no double-base for a runner.

If called out on appeal, he's being called out for using only the white portion of first base while a play was being made not for missing the base.

No, the BR/R is ruled out on appeal for missing the one of two bases which they are required to touch when there is a play at 1B.

(For example see the rules supplement under appeals that differentiates these or try and find a rule that it breaks).

Very clearly RS 1.A.1, but that is not a rule.

And the rule book states that he may be called out for this until he has returned to first base. It does not say as it should that touching only the white portion of first base should be treated as missing first base correctable by touching either part of the base has been retouched.

That is because the moment the BR touches or passes 1B, that player is now a runner. ASA 1.Batter Runner and 1.Runner

Suppose that an umpire you were working with, insisted that an appeal be honored after a pitch for this violation and you wanted to show him in the rule book where that was wrong. You could go to the rules supplement where it's clear. But can you find a rule?

ASA 8.7.F-I.Effect

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I assume you are referring to a batter-runner since there is no double-base for a runner.

Yes, I meant the batter runner.

No, the BR/R is ruled out on appeal for missing the one of two bases which they are required to touch when there is a play at 1B.

Given the hassle you gave me over definitions in the previous quote, I'll give it back and point out that there aren't two first bases. And there no rule that says that you can treat it that way.

That is because the moment the BR touches or passes 1B, that player is now a runner. ASA 1.Batter Runner and 1.Runner



ASA 8.7.F-I.Effect

You can try and get there on I (and I don't dispute that's exactly how it's meant to be done). But you have to ignore (and should ignore) the text of the rule to do it. In relevant part it states, ***and the runner fails to touch it***. But the runner did touch it, she just got the wrong portion.

[argodad]

Originally Posted by youngump

Allow me to play rulebook lawyer here.

I've always preferred to be a rulebook student rather than a rulebook lawyer.

[SRW]

Allow me to apologize. He's one of mine.