Retouch home after leaving field

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by DUNDALKCHOPPER

ASA- Is it legal to retouch home after leaving the field. If no, how should Ump handle. Let it happen and see if defense appeals it, or call runner out as soon as she reenters the field ?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and let you retract this part. Surely you don't think this rule has anything at all to do with the OP.[/QUOTE]

No retraction it just justifies not allowing a runner to reenter the field after leaving it. If the Runner did not touch the plate and leaves the field they cannot comeback that's all I am saying. It still has to be an apeal!

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Didn't call you a rookie or make any such assumption. You've just posted, however, exactly why your initial post was not appropriate. Consider some newbie on here who reads your post and then takes it as gospel. Then rules interference in a case where such a play confused a defender... with no other action going on.

Confusion is not the threshold for interference. And neither is your 2nd post - getting them to make a play on the scored runner. Closer, but still not interference.

The key, as I've said a couple of times now, is that they must impede, hinder or confuse a defensive player ATTEMPTING TO EXECUTE A PLAY.

Remember that we're talking about a runner who scored, going all the way to the dugout, and then coming all the way back out... 99.9% of the time, nothing is going on any more this late in the play.

I do agree with you 99..9 % of the time at travel level. In a rec level game or a lower level HS game it can and does happen.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

It's not illegal. It doesn't mean anything, but it's not illegal. (As an aside, even if retouching were somehow illegal ... why would you call a scored runner out for reentering the field - maybe she's coming to get her bat ... or coach a base)

It all goes back to this you say it's not Illegal but it is by rule once you leave the field you are not allowed to go back out to retouch and if you do you could cause Interference if a play is made on you.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MD

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and let you retract this part. Surely you don't think this rule has anything at all to do with the OP.

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

No retraction it just justifies not allowing a runner to reenter the field after leaving it. If the Runner did not touch the plate and leaves the field they cannot comeback that's all I am saying. It still has to be an apeal!

Wondering if things were renumbered... (I don't have the 2013 book handy)

If not... the rule you quote, 8-7-U, is about runner abandoning their base and going to the dugout. Has nothing to do with players that are no longer runners. A runner who has scored has no different status than any other player in the dugout. It's not ILLEGAL (as in, something you penalize) to leave the dugout. It is illegal to interfere, regardless of who you are. It is not the leaving of the dugout that is illegal.

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Wondering if things were renumbered... (I don't have the 2013 book handy)

If not... the rule you quote, 8-7-U, is about runner abandoning their base and going to the dugout. Has nothing to do with players that are no longer runners. A runner who has scored has no different status than any other player in the dugout. It's not ILLEGAL (as in, something you penalize) to leave the dugout. It is illegal to interfere, regardless of who you are. It is not the leaving of the dugout that is illegal.

No that it is it. when she left the field she abandoned the base which is home plate. When she enters the Dugout she becomes bench personnel and bench personnel is not aloud to enter the playing field during live ball play.

Now to get back to the OP.

The runner may not leave the field and then return to touch the base she missed which is home plate. If the Defense makes a proper appeal the runner would be out plain and simple.

Do you agree with this yes or no?

[MD Longhorn]

Of course I do.

But I'm done being trolled. (Abandonment at home plate... I've heard everything now. So much for being more than a rookie)

Have a good weekend.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

no but if by coming out to retouch a base confuses any defensive player I have interference per the rules (8-6-p)

I don't think so. What would confuse the player? EVERYONE knows you cannot come out of DBT and be engaged in the game, so where would there be any confusion?

Now, if the player entered the field and started running in the vicinity of the 3rd base line, that I could buy as INT. But it would still take something to convince me that player's presence interfered with the defense.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Wondering if things were renumbered... (I don't have the 2013 book handy)

If not... the rule you quote, 8-7-U, is about runner abandoning their base and going to the dugout. Has nothing to do with players that are no longer runners. A runner who has scored has no different status than any other player in the dugout. It's not ILLEGAL (as in, something you penalize) to leave the dugout. It is illegal to interfere, regardless of who you are. It is not the leaving of the dugout that is illegal.

First, I'll say that I am going to have a heard time calling any sort of interference unless I see something overt.

But, with respect to the player leaving the dugout, it is in fact, illegal. She does not have a legal reason to be outside the dugout once she has crossed home plate and entered the dugout. Her running responsibilities are over and rule permits her to be out of the dugout. Team members are only permitted out of the dugout when the rules allow. No rule allows her to be out of the dugout in this case.

By rule, you have to ask yourself, "What rule permits this team member to be out of the dugout?" If there isn't one, she is required to be in the dugout.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

The runner may not leave the field and then return to touch the base she missed which is home plate.

Wow. A runner misses the plate and heads into her dugout, and you want to characterize that as abandonment?

No way. Abandonment calls for the umpire to rule the runner out without the need for an appeal. You would never rule a runner out for failing to touch the plate and entering the dugout without an appeal.

[Insane Blue]

Abbandoment is not the issue it's going leaving the playing field and coming back onto it.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I don't think so. What would confuse the player? EVERYONE knows you cannot come out of DBT and be engaged in the game, so where would there be any confusion?

Now, if the player entered the field and started running in the vicinity of the 3rd base line, that I could buy as INT. But it would still take something to convince me that player's presence interfered with the defense.

I'm having a little trouble following the thread, so let me try and restate a couple of scenarios and see if I've captured what you all think.

R1 scores while B2 reaches first. R1 enters the dugout and believes she missed the plate.
A) R1 returns to try and touch. F1 throws to F2 to tag her before she can retouch. B2 advances to second in the confusion.
B) B2 decides to go to second. While she is moving R1 returns to attempt to retouch. F4 takes the throw and throws home instead of tagging B2.
C) R1 returns to try and touch. B2 stays at first.

InsaneBlue, you're saying both A&B are interference, B2 out in both cases? Mike you're saying they are both not?
Insane you agree that we have no Int in C, yes?

Now, what if instead of R1, we have S3 running out to the plate to purposefully confuse the defense? Same answers?

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by youngump

I'm having a little trouble following the thread, so let me try and restate a couple of scenarios and see if I've captured what you all think.

R1 scores while B2 reaches first. R1 enters the dugout and believes she missed the plate.
A) R1 returns to try and touch. F1 throws to F2 to tag her before she can retouch. B2 advances to second in the confusion.
B) B2 decides to go to second. While she is moving R1 returns to attempt to retouch. F4 takes the throw and throws home instead of tagging B2.
C) R1 returns to try and touch. B2 stays at first.

InsaneBlue, you're saying both A&B are interference, B2 out in both cases? Mike you're saying they are both not?
Insane you agree that we have no Int in C, yes?

Now, what if instead of R1, we have S3 running out to the plate to purposefully confuse the defense? Same answers?

Yes if by coming out to retouch in a and b you could rule it as interference if the defense was to make a play on her and the runners advance.

Again you must use your own judgement on this. If the defense does nothing as in c I would ignore it.

In all cases the defense would still have to appeal the missing of home plate for that out.

I have asked our state UIC for his interpretation of the OP play. I have also asked if my findings would be justified.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

Abbandoment is not the issue it's going leaving the playing field and coming back onto it.

Agree. But you brought up abandonment when you said (and sorry, I quoted the wrong thing in my previous post):

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

No that it is it. when she left the field she abandoned the base which is home plate.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by youngump

I'm having a little trouble following the thread, so let me try and restate a couple of scenarios and see if I've captured what you all think.

R1 scores while B2 reaches first. R1 enters the dugout and believes she missed the plate.
A) R1 returns to try and touch. F1 throws to F2 to tag her before she can retouch. B2 advances to second in the confusion.
B) B2 decides to go to second. While she is moving R1 returns to attempt to retouch. F4 takes the throw and throws home instead of tagging B2.
C) R1 returns to try and touch. B2 stays at first.

InsaneBlue, you're saying both A&B are interference, B2 out in both cases? Mike you're saying they are both not?
Insane you agree that we have no Int in C, yes?

Now, what if instead of R1, we have S3 running out to the plate to purposefully confuse the defense? Same answers?

FWIW, I wouldn't have an Out in A. What play on B2 was hindered when F1 threw to F2? I would send B2 back to first base.

And, OBTW, I wonder which umpire would actually see R1 enter and then leave the dugout. The only time I ever focus on a player entering the dugout is when it's the batter on an uncaught third strike.

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Agree. But you brought up abandonment when you said (and sorry, I quoted the wrong thing in my previous post):

You are correct.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by Manny A

(snip)

And, OBTW, I wonder which umpire would actually see R1 enter and then leave the dugout. The only time I ever focus on a player entering the dugout is when it's the batter on an uncaught third strike.

I would think the umpire that was aware that she missed the plate, knowing that there was a possible appeal, would know.
OK maybe not would, but should.