Home Run base running adventures
 

R1 on 3B, R2 on 2B, no out. B3 hits over-the-fence home run. R1 touches home as team comes out to celebrate at home plate. R2 rounds 3B, approaches home but joins the crowd in the 3B side batters box never crossing home. B3 comes around and touches home. R1 realizes that R2 never touched home and pushes R2 to home plate.

Now what?:eek:

Wait for the appeal; absent that, you have no call.

Since B3 touched the plate, R2 cannot retouch. If R2 cannot retouch, there can be no call made for assisting the runner.

What about B3 passing a runner?

I have actually seen that called. Runner on 1 batter hit a bomb and runner held up to make sure it cleared fence. Batter rounded 1st and passed the runner.

That is a different situation. In that case, the call for passing a runner should be made.

Once a succeeding runner crosses the plate, you can not retouch, so there can be no violation for passing. This situation only can lead to an out if it appealed that the runner missed home plate.

How is the situation different? If the runner never touched home plate and was standing short of the plate in the right handed batters box would not b3 have to pass them before touching the plate? The instant b3 passed the runner they would be out so how could a succeeding runner have scored?

But isn't B3 out immediately when she passes R2 who stopped short of home plate? So no succeeding runner has taken away R2s right to continue home.

Then B2 is assisted by R1 who is no longer a runner because she has scored.

Well, if the PU had made the call on B3 for passing R2 (which, I agree, should have been the case if R2 was still short of home), then likely R2 would realize she's still a runner and would have touched home on her own. You cannot wait until play ends and then make the out rulings in the sequence you propose.

B3 is out the moment she passes R2 - who, having not PASSED home plate, is still simply a runner between 3rd and home. At the time B3 is called out, R2 is still a live runner and may still touch home (and may be appealled if she never does so).

And then is out if she is pushed (assisted) home?

Funny thing about the "physically assists" rule in softball. In ASA, the rule, 8-7-E, requires the assistance to happen while the ball is live. In the OP, the batter hit a home run. I cannot find anything in the rule or any RS dealing with a home run. So, in theory, you cannot have a violation here.

FED 8-6-5, meanwhile, makes no mention of the ball being live when the assistance takes place. However, it could be implied that it only applies during a live ball, because the Penalty for the violation is to leave the ball live and rule the assisted runner out.

NCAA 4.3.5 and 12.8.3 also limits physical assistance to runners "actively running the bases and the ball is in play."

So, would she or would she not be out if someone pushed her to home? Hmmm...

Of course not. I did not say that. On purpose.

Just out of curiosity, what would the logic be for wanting the rulebook to call a runner out for being pushed (assisted) while the ball is not live? It makes sense if the ball is live - assisting a runner helps them get somewhere quicker than they would have without the assistance, possibly altering a live play. But the speed at which the runner gets to where she's going is completely immaterial during a dead ball. The rule book does not call for this out - but I'm truly curious why one would want it to, or expect it to.

I think you answered your own question before you asked it.

I was just trying to fully understand, not questioning you. I somewhat remember a softball game where a player hit a home run but was injured before rounding the bases. Defenders carried her around. I wasn't sure if this, like that one, was within the rules or not. Thanks for clarifying.

I realize that. But the lack of specificity in the FED rule (why leave out "while the ball is live" or "and the ball is in play" from the rule when ASA and NCAA include that language?) makes one wonder.

The rationale behind the rule is not just to penalize the offense when it does something physical that allows a runner to get somewhere quicker than if she had not been assisted. It also penalizes the offense when it physically helps a runner correct a mistake, such as on a missed base or on a failed tag-up. Those can happen during both live and dead ball situations.

I believe in baseball, the rule on physical assistance is not limited to live ball play. Since the FED rule doesn't specifically state it, it could be considered the same.

Yes, that happened (twice, actually)... but we all noted here that while it was great sportsmanship, it was actually not even necessary for the defense to do it. Offense could have done it.

Not by me. Or my bosses. Or the state clinician when this got argued about 3 seasons ago.

But feel free to incorporate baseball rules whenever you want. :) :)

:eek: :eek: yeah, good idea! :eek: :eek:

Oh hell no, I would never do that. ;)

Still, I wonder why FED decided to leave out the reference in the rule to the ball being live for teammate assistance to apply. ASA and NCAA specifically mention it, but not FED. Oversight? Intentional? I don't have a clue.

I hope you don't stay awake at night looking for or hoping for consistency between rule books; let alone wondering why a rule writer would not consult another book to make a change worded the same.

That was a cool sportsmanship story ... but the umpires kicked the call. :cool:

No, I don't let it bother me. I've been doing this long enough to know that inconsistencies in the rules exist, and no matter how much we complain about them, nothing gets done. :p

There are people here who have long histories with rule changes and interpretations, some having personal relationships with national-level staff that have something to do with these rulings. And I was just curious if there was anything more to it with the FED rule than just mere oversight.

No, they didn't. If there was a call to make, it would be obstruction, which would be nullified when the runner reached (surpassed) the awarded base).

Either you missed Larry's point, or forgot the whole story.

The umpires in the first case told the OC that the injured runner was required to touch all the bases, or the runner would be out. That is where they kicked the call; NCAA 8.5.3.2 allows the substitute for an injured player to touch awarded bases.

I guess it depends on how you read the situation. When I first read it, joining the crowd to me meant that she had passed the plate, which by rule, means she has "scored" absent the appeal for missing the base.

The way I think you are thinking of it, the runner has not yet passed the plate when she joins the crowd. As such, she is still a runner and could be passed, resulting in an out.

Ok, here is a question based on this thread.

Same situation. a) R2 joins the celebration before passing home plate or b) after R2 passes home plate. B3 then touches home plate. The offense goes back into the dugout and then the defensive coach appeals that R2 did not touch home plate. How many outs do we have and how many runs score?

In a) we should have 2 outs. B3 is out for passing R2, and R2 would then be out on appeal for the missed base. 1 run, R1 scores on the play. In b) we have 1 out (R2 for the missed base) and 2 runs score (R1 and B3). Am I correct in this ruling?

They kicked it when the offense asked if they were allowed to help or replace the batter who tore up her knee. They said "no way."

Fair enough - my mistake. I was unaware of that part of the story.