Retouch home after leaving field
 

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 ?

Once past a base, the runner is assumed to have touched it until properly appealed. If the defense doesnt make the appeal, then there is nothing to rule on. If they do leave the field, reenter and touch the plate, the retouch is invalid and they may still be appealed for having missed the base by the defense.

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)

Yes it is illegal in the OP. Once you enter the Dugout area (leave the field of play) you may not go back and retouch a missed base including home plate. after the play is completed she may re-enter to pick up the bat or to go coach but once she entered the dugout during live ball play she can not return until the ball is dead. you could rule interference 8-7-p

Usually, if an act is "illegal" then there's some sort of penalty associated with it.

Maybe a better word for a scored runner coming back on the field to re-touch a missed base would be "moot".

Only if she actually interfered with a play, an attempt by the defense to retire another active runner. I hope that you wouldn't rule interference jjust because the player re-entered the field.

no but if by coming out to retouch a base confuses any defensive player I have interference per the rules (8-7-p)

I think that's an extreme overreach. As is your use of the word Illegal. Her leaving the dugout to touch home does her as much good as coming out to get a bat or high five the next runner - it's a waste of time. But "illegal"? I think not.

I hope you're not one of those umpires who goes out of his/her way to find rule violations for even the most minor of on-field incidents. I honestly don't see how a runner who has just entered the dugout and then comes out to touch home plate would confuse anybody. It would be a real stretch to make an interference call here.

And even if it did confuse someone - confusion is FAR FAR FAR below the threshold needed to be deemed "interference".

No I do not I am just the opposite I try to stop the problems before they happen. I work a lot of high caliber ball.

But like I said if in coming back after leaving the field the Defense makes a play on the retired - scored runner you could and should have interference because the player has no right to re enter the field during this play as she is now bench personnel.

Now if she never left the field of play she has every right to go back and properly touch the base. or to retrieve a bat as someone else said.

Well... A) No, that's not what you said. You said if she confused a fielder, you would have interference. B) Even this revised version of your ruling is not enough to rule interference. Making a play on the scored runner is enough to put the possibility of interference in the umpire's head - but not enough, yet, to actually rule interference. There would have to be some other possible play somewhere else that was prevented due to the attempt to retire the scored runner. And no, a girl 2 steps off of 2nd who then returns to 2nd is not a possible play. There has to be an actual bona fide chance to get someone out that is passed on in lieu of the chance to get this scored runner out.

Longhorn please go back to your rule book and read it.

Interference: The act of any offensive player or team member, umpire or spectator that IMPEDES, HINDERS OR CONFUSES a defensive player attempting to execute a play

I may be new on this forum but I am far from being a rookie.

Potatoe Potato in how I worded it. It can still be Interference.

I have more references for you if you need.

8-7-u Runner entering dead ball territory.

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.

Look, I'm not trying to dogpile you... but words are important. Potato potahtoe? How you worded it is nowhere near interference. You completely omitted the important part.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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? :D

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

You are correct.

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.:D

True. :o But with other runners on base, the umpire's focus may be elsewhere. I suppose if it was obvious (e.g., she comes out after action has settled) it would be easy. I was thinking of the scenario where she's just entering the dugout and suddenly goes to the plate when a teammate makes her aware of the miss.

sometimes ****olah happens and you have to deal with it.
If no one saw her in the dugout, she wasn't in the dug out.

What rule backs you up sending her back to her previous base without having an out?

By sending her back you are recognizing that the play was illegal and therefore you have interference and on interference you have an out on the runner closest to home and then you return any other runners.

Speaking FED, I would use rule 8-6-15 and 8-6-18. While -15 speaks of the on-deck batter, it mentions that if no play is obvious when the on-deck batter (and, as a viable extension, any offensive player not involved in base running) interferes, nobody is out and runners return. And -18 requires a runner who has scored or has been retired to interfere with the defense's opportunity to make a play. Whereas example "B" in youngump's scenarios clearly shows that R1 prevented the defense from playing on B2, example "A" does not.

If B1 did not enter the dugout, was pushed back by a teammate ('you missed the plate!') should she be immediately called out? If defense saw none of this, and did not appeal the missed base, would the run still count?
While the answer to the first question is obviously yes, wouldn't calling her out give a clue to the defense that an appeal might be needed?
Sorry for the semi-hijack... this is before my first coffee;)

If you want to take it to Fed you have a retired runner at this point and still interference.

I never said there wasn't interference. But not all interference calls result in out calls on other runners. It's not automatic.

It does when a play is made do to the interference. Section 8 the runner is out. 8-6-15 is blocked ball do to equipment. weak argument as their is no equipment. Penalty a play is being made on a retired runner you have an out on the runner being played on. since this player is legally a retired runner you have 2 violations.

8-6-16-c (Ding Ding Ding) We have a winner!!! to long to type out but second sentence A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. Penalty the ball is dead and the runner closest to home is out and all other runners return to last base touched at time of interference.

Of course it's not. Which is why you were taken to task for quoting the abandonment rule.

A is most likely nothing (perhaps something if F2 is chasing the scored runner around). B could very well be interference if they had a legitimate play on the runner (which sounds probable). C is definitely nothing.

Not completely true. Scored and retired runners are not required to vaporize - they just can't interfere. Further, many scored runners will stay around the plate to coach a potential slide / no slide - this is not illegal (unless, of course, said scored runner interferes with something).

FWIW, you are right here. No rule or interp, or rationalization at all can support sending the runner back. Either the scored runner interfered - or she didn't. Sending the runner back is wrong in either case.

Perhaps I'm wrong to assume that what is said for the on-deck batter applies to other players and coaches. But the Penalty when an ODB interferes under 7-5-4 does allow for runners to return to their previous bases if the interference happens when no play is obvious. I thought the same was the case for other offensive teammates.

THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A RETIRED RUNNER GOING INTO THE DUGOUT AND COMING BACK OUT.

You've changed the scenario. What in my statement is inaccurate?

Why yell? You can make your point without engaging the Caps Lock button.

Are you suggesting that a retired runner becomes someone else when she enters the dugout? Is there a rule cite for that?

The rules are clear that a retired (or scored) runner cannot enter the dugout, and then come back out to correct base running mistakes. But I've never seen anything that says once she enters the dugout, she can no longer come back out to do other things like direct a teammate to slide at home.

Seriously (and without shouting), is there something that says her status as a retired (or scored) runner changes the moment she steps into DBT?

I'm trying to find a rule or any citation whatsoever that converts a runner who has scored into something else the instant a toe touches dugout. I can't find such a thing. You seem to think she does, so I'll ask you to find the cite.

For Federation look up definition of a retired runner.

Yes Rule 3-6-6 covers who may be outside of the dugout and for what reasons. When the Retired Runner enters the dugout she becomes bench personal and is governed by this rule.

Are you telling us that a bench player other than the on deck player can leave the dugout to tell a player to slide during a live ball.

That definition does not state that her status changes once she enters DBT. If she is put out or scores, enters the dugout, and then returns onto the field, she still meets the Fed definition.

I did before replying to esq. I just read it again. Can you let us know exactly what part of that says or even implies that the retired runner's status changes when toe touches dugout? Even if I put myself in the mindset that I WANT it to say that, I cannot get it to say that.

I don't read it that way.

Don't be that guy that argues with things the other person didn't say. No one said this, or implied it.

That said - even if some bench player DID leave the dugout to do this, an out for interference would not be the automatic remedy (assuming, of course, they didn't actually interfere).

Can you tell me where a player who is in the dugout can be anything other than a player in the dugout???

A retired runner is just that a retired runner Bench personnel is just that bench personnel. once the player left the playing field she is bench personnel.

Ah. Sorry. Forgot you were the same one I gave up on earlier for this sort of logic. Don't bother actually answering the question given to you ... just rephrase your previous response.

Answer the question you were actually asked ... or don't. I've stopped caring now. Some people argue to get to a correct answer, so we can be better umpires. Others argue simply to win the argument ... or change the argument until you can win. This serves no purpose, and I have no further interest in entertaining you.

Did I miss read him??? He is allowing someone to enter the field to coach the runner going to home.

Agreed

I did answer your question Once the player left the playing field she is bench personnel. And as such is restricted to what bench personnel is allowed to do.

It seems more like you do not want to hear an answer that is contrary to your beliefs.

No. That was not the question. That was a repeat of your (and esq's) statement. The question was - why do you think this? Based on what rule does the retired or scored runner change into bench personnel the instant a toe touches dugout? You keep trying to apply bench personnel rules to a player that was involved in this play and is not bench personnel. Saying again that she is bench personnel doesn't make it so. Why do you think it.

Yes, you did. This hinges on the unanswered question. A regular bench player is one thing. The scored runner is something different. He (and I) are saying that the scored runner is NOT "bench personnel" --- so no, he (and I) are not saying bench personnel can come out and coach... we're saying the scored runner (who is not bench personnel) can.

I think this because she has left the field of play when she entered the dugout. and no not just cause her toe is is in.

This position to me makes even less sense. Generally, a runner who steps in DBT can no longer return to retouch (not if she is still partially in live ball territory but once she enters DBT). Saying that you now determine that to become bench personnel she must fully exit the field seems even further afield, but Mike's question remains: what makes you say that a runner who has scored and enters the dugout becomes bench personnel?

I have answered this numerous times but again by leaving the field of play and entering the dugout is why I say she is bench personnel. What else would she be???

What you're failing to do is to realize what the question being asked is.
You posit:
A player who leaves the field to enter the dugout becomes bench personnel.
We say why?
You say (including the implied premise):
Because she entered the dugout and I've said many times that a player who leaves the field to enter the dugout becomes bench personnel.
This is circular and you should avoid doing it.

Now here you do at least make a slight argument when you say what else could she be. To which I answer well, if she went and entered the wrong dugout would she become bench personnel for the other team? Or even better, if a runner having been retired ran over to her mom in the fan area to pick up a pair of sunglasses, then returned and interfered do we have spectator interference, or interference by a retired runner? And can you back any of that up by any reference to definitions or something in the rule book that could convince someone who does not believe that any player entering the bench area automatically instantly becomes bench personnel.

Seriously. Repeating your "feeling" is not a rule. "YOU SAY" is not a rule.

Got a rule to support this position, please state it. You won't find it. This player is what she is, and doesn't change just because you think she should.

Try again. Show me a rule that permits her to go into the dugout and then come back out. There is a rule saying that she isn't permitted on the field. I already wrote that. You just don't like it. So again, show me a rule that says she can go into the dugout and come out again.

esq - I just went through all of your posts on this thread, and I see no rule quoted by you at all, much less one that tells us to treat a runner who has scored as something else entirely once she touches the dugout.

You asking us to quote a rule that says she's allowed to enter and leave the dugout is equivalent to asking us to quote a rule that says a pitcher can throw a drop pitch. Generally, with a few exceptions, the rulebook doesn't list every single thing that is allowed. Rather, it tells us what's not allowed. If you don't see it, it's allowed.

There are rules about what scored (and retired) runners can and cannot do. There is nothing in there that says this changes when or if they enter the dugout.

I've been following this thread, and what keeps returning to me is that she remains a retired runner for the duration of the play. I have no rules support for that, but it just makes sense.

Given that no rule says that she becomes something else, then that's exactly what she is.

See ASA Rule 5-12 and let me know where it says that she can enter the dugout and return.

When you're done with that, could you find me the rule where it says that after a runner who has scored and then picks up the bat is entitled to put it down instead of carrying it around for the rest of the game?
Esq, it is a well established canon of rulebook construction, that things not forbidden are generally permitted and that assuming something not actually in the book requires a higher burden. If you believe that a retired runner who enters the dugout is somehow different from a retired who scales the backstop, you have to show us the rule.

Since this started as an ASA question I E-mailed Kevin Ryan for some feed back. I asked from my point of view from our on going arguments.

Hi Kevin, Having some discussions on a message Board and would like some input.

Basically we are having a discussion on a runner missing home plate (Assumed to have touched when passed) enters the dugout and is told by teammates that they missed home plate. The runner runs out of the dugout and draws a throw allowing another runner to advance.

I ruled that this action causes interference as the runner entered the dugout and becomes bench personnel and has no right to reenter the field.

Everyone has a problem with my ruling as they say the runner is not bench personnel just because they entered the dugout.

What is your take and can you give me some rule references.

Here is Kevin's reply


I believe you are right in this situation for the following reasons: Rule 8, Section 3G, Rule 8 Section 7P and Rule 8, Section 7N

Rule 8, Section 3G
No runner may return to touch a base missed or one left too soon after a trailing runner has scored or once they leave live ball territory.

Rule 8 Section 7P
When, after being declared out or after scoring, an offensive player interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play on another runner. EFFECT: The ball is dead. The runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference is out. All runners not out must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

The fact that they drew a throw allowed a runner who would not have advanced to advance to 3B. The Effect would be to declare the runner closest to home out.

Rule 8, Section 7N
If someone comes out of the dugout and interferes....

When member(s) of the offensive team stand or collect around a base to which a runner is advancing, confusing the fielders and adding to the difficulty of making the play.
EFFECT: The ball is dead. The runner closest to home is out. Runners not out must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

Hope this helps.

Kevin Ryan
ASA Supervisor of Umpires

Way to change your original premise. Here's what you first wrote:

Nothing about drawing a throw or letting another runner advance. I don't think that anyone said this could never be interference, rather that the player would have to actually interfere with something before it was.

I don't care if your initials are KR, I think that using 8-7-N to classify this player as "bench personnel" is pretty sketchy. There's nothing in that rule that addresses the status of the player as being "bench personnel".

What if...bases are loaded. Ball is hit, three runners score. Before leaving the field, the three runners all circle third base to make the play on the batter-runner harder for the defense.

By the logic offered, these three scored runners would all be considered as bench personnel. But your point was that they had to enter the dugout first, then come back out. It just isn't consistent. And, like the retouch of home in the first post, it's probably moot.

Why not just call this player a "retired/scored runner". The penalty is the same if she interfers- runner closest to home is out.

I did earlier

This was in answer to

And my rule reference is the same as K.R.

This is an excellent example of one's lack of reading comprehension.

The rule states who can be out of the dugout. That means if the rule doesn't allow it, it isn't permitted.

"Shall not be outside...except." That means, "Are required to be inside in all other circumstances." What is so hard to understand?


Again, I am going to employ common sense and wouldn't even consider interference unless there was some overt act causing the defense to react. With that said, the retired runner is prohibited by rule to come out of the dugout. There is not exception that you can point to that allows her to be outside. She isn't a coach in the coach's box, an on-deck batter in the on-deck circle, a batter in the batter's box, a defender in a defensive position, etc.

Actually, being a retired runner is irrelevant.

And I can guarantee you do not want to work games where someone actually thinks this rule is important enough to sit on or you will be stopping the game for ridiculous **** more often than a first grade nun prays for patience.

The entire key to all of this is the word "interference". And I'm not talking about the "what ifs" or presumptions of what could have or should have happened. I'm talking about an act by a non-active participant doing something that actually interferes with a play and that does not include what could be considered a DMF.

Then why spend four more pages arguing that she is "bench personnel"?

And why pull out a rule that makes no mention or definition of "bench personnel" as your "proof" that this player is bench personnel?

Why not just use the rule about interference by a retired/scored runner?

Sane: Is the sky blue?
Insane: No, it's orange.
Sane: How can you say that, look right there, it's blue.
Insane: That car between me and the sky is orange. I see orange.
Sane: The car is not the sky. The sky is blue.
Insane: Oranges are orange. Only blueberries are blue.
Sane: We're not talking about oranges or cars, I asked about the sky.
Insane: But blueberries are not the sky. And oranges are juicy.
Sane: What in the world are you talking about?
Insane: The same thing we've been talking about all along - that blueberries are not juicy. Like I've said from the start.

At what point does the sane become insane for trying to engage with the insane?

I don't know you tell us since you seem to be the one who has not backed up you position with any rule references. I have looked over a lot of post on this board and normally you seem to be very astute. But in my judgment you have not been on this thread.

With that I am done on this thread.

Don't take that as a personal attack - "Insane" wasn't meant to be specifically you, despite the commonality of the moniker.

Just saying that the sane trying to reason with the insane is, in itself, insane.

Some posters are bordering on personal attacks versus polite and objective which we expect on this forum. :(
Please keep it under control! :o

Cool I wont then.

This was the official interpretation from this lively discussion from May:

Runner Missing Home Plate:

Play: With R1 on 2B, B2 gets a base hit to RF. R1 scores but misses home plate. After entering the dugout, R1 returns to touch home plate and draws a throw. On the throw to the plate, B2 advances to 2B.
Ruling: Once a player enters dead ball territory, they are not permitted to come out of the dugout to touch home plate. When R1 did so and drew a throw, R1 was guilty of Interference by a retired runner. The ball is dead and B2 is ruled out. If the defense properly appeals that R1 missed home plate, R1 would also be ruled out.

from who?

Didn't we have an official ruling on March 21?

ASA Rule Clarifications/Interpretations.

I wouldn't consider an incompletely ask/reply/copy/paste job an official interpretation.

And if it was a live ball appeal?

Yeah?