BR misses 1st

[stl_ump]

BR beats the throw by half a step or so but REALLY misses the bag by a lot.  I call safe.  

DC coach asks "How can he be safe when he missed the bag?"  I just say he beat the throw.  "But he missed the bag."

Not wanting to tell him to appeal, what would you suggest as a way to end this conversation?

Thanks

 

[beerguy55]

20 minutes ago, stl_ump said:

BR beats the throw by half a step or so but REALLY misses the bag by a lot.  I call safe.  

DC coach asks "How can he be safe when he missed the bag?"  I just say he beat the throw.  "But he missed the bag."

Not wanting to tell him to appeal, what would you suggest as a way to end this conversation?

Thanks

 

If F3 is still touching the base with the ball when this conversation occurs, would that not complete the appeal?

Otherwise, I would assume in the time it takes this conversation to occur BR would be back to first base, killing the appeal, at which point you could explain it to him?

[maven]

FED: "Time! What's that you say?" (Dead-ball appeal coming)

OBR: "I hear what you're saying, but that's not a valid appeal." (Live-ball appeal coming)

[stl_ump]

Rule book says " An appeal should be clearly intended as an appeal, either by a verbal request by the player or an act that unmistakably indicates an appeal to the umpire. A player, inadvertently stepping on the base with a ball in his hand, would not constitute an appeal."

I'm not sure a DC saying he missed the bag is an "unmistakable appeal."

[stl_ump]

1 minute ago, maven said:

FED: "Time! What's that you say?" (Dead-ball appeal coming)

OBR: "I hear what you're saying, but that's not a valid appeal." (Live-ball appeal coming)

That will work.

Thanks

 

[kylehutson]

If it's by a half-step, that means his trailing foot hasn't completely passed the base. IMO, if that hasn't happened, he hasn't passed the base (because he could always jab his back foot down), and he hasn't yet acquired first base, so he's out. Now if his entire body is past the base, that's where the appeal comes in.

Am I wrong interpreting it that way?

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, maven said:

FED: "Time! What's that you say?" (Dead-ball appeal coming)

OBR: "I hear what you're saying, but that's not a valid appeal." (Live-ball appeal coming)

Wouldn't the appeal have to come before BR returns and touches 1B? Can we call "Time" and allow a dead ball appeal if BR is immediately returning to 1B? In FED, I don't think we can have a dead ball appeal here. Defense needs to step on 1B and state BR missed 1B, or tag BR before he returns to touch.

20 minutes ago, kylehutson said:

If it's by a half-step, that means his trailing foot hasn't completely passed the base. IMO, if that hasn't happened, he hasn't passed the base (because he could always jab his back foot down), and he hasn't yet acquired first base, so he's out. Now if his entire body is past the base, that's where the appeal comes in.

Am I wrong interpreting it that way?

I agree. If I have a BR who hasn't crossed 1B with his whole body, both feet included, and F3 has the ball, touching the bag, I've got an out.

[maven]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

Wouldn't the appeal have to come before BR returns and touches 1B? Can we call "Time" and allow a dead ball appeal if BR is immediately returning to 1B? In FED, I don't think we can have a dead ball appeal here. Defense needs to step on 1B and state BR missed 1B, or tag BR before he returns to touch.

You're right. With all the appeal threads lately, I wasn't paying attention that this was 1B. Apologies.

Only a live-ball appeal will work. Treat FED and OBR the same.

[Mister B]

Would anybody call OBS if F3 has got a foot dead smack in the middle of the base? Happens a lot with kids. 

[ALStripes17]

Would anybody call OBS if F3 has got a foot dead smack in the middle of the base? Happens a lot with kids. 

I highly doubt any kids foot can cover the entire 15" x 15" square bag


Runner still has access. And depending on the level, I'll probably let F3 know he may want to stay off the top of the bag when receiving a throw

[noumpere]

4 hours ago, Mister B said:

Would anybody call OBS if F3 has got a foot dead smack in the middle of the base? Happens a lot with kids. 

Anybody might.

 

Somebody probably will.

 

Nobody should.

 

[kylehutson]

4 hours ago, Mister B said:

Would anybody call OBS if F3 has got a foot dead smack in the middle of the base? Happens a lot with kids. 

I have (mostly at 10U and under rec ball). More often I'll call it when they setup with their foot across the front of the base so the runner has to step over their foot to get to the base. If the runner has to hesitate or dance around to find where they can step on the base, that's hindering a runner and therefore OBS.

 

[noumpere]

13 hours ago, maven said:

You're right. With all the appeal threads lately, I wasn't paying attention that this was 1B. Apologies.

Only a live-ball appeal will work. Treat FED and OBR the same.

Not only that, but by the time the DC can make his claim (from the dugout) and the umpire can respond, the rest of the action  (BR returns, or F3 is on the base holding the ball) is likely complete.

If the DC yells that from the dugout AND F3 is on the base looking at the umpire, I'd consider that a valid appeal.  Most of the time F3 comes right off the base after the play, so the fact that he's still there shows intent, to me (besides, I'm not going to reward the offense for missing the base)

[KenBAZ]

I love what Sarge suggested for these situations at Evan's camp. "You do your job and I'll do mine". As far as F3 standing on top of the bag I've never called obstruction on this. I have taken a moment during the next between innings warm-up to tell F3 that by rule he can tag the base anywhere but that if he continued to stand on top of the base eventually he'll get stepped on.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

[Mister B]

3 hours ago, kylehutson said:

I have (mostly at 10U and under rec ball). More often I'll call it when they setup with their foot across the front of the base so the runner has to step over their foot to get to the base. If the runner has to hesitate or dance around to find where they can step on the base, that's hindering a runner and therefore OBS.

 

That's the level. I don't see it a lot, but we have a bunch of really fast runners and the last thing I want to see is a major injury. Most of the time, it's not a problem, but if I see it, I'll usually talk to the coach and player between innings. 98% of the time, the coach is grateful.

[kylehutson]

If I do see an F3 setup so they're completely blocking the base, I'll usually tell the coach (not the player) when I first see it. Every once in a while the coach will say "I teach them that way", and I say "well then, don't be surprised if your player gets called for obstruction." Most of the time, the coach will ask if they can go show their player what to do, and it's really a learning-league, so I let them.

I've never seen obstruction on an F3 at any competitive level.

[JamesC]

Can someone give me the rules reference that says a runner is to have legally acquired a base once they reach/pass it? As demonstrated in the OP? I do not have my rules book or case book with me. A reference to each would be nice if you have it, rules book and case book.

[maven]

2 minutes ago, JamesC said:

Can someone give me the rules reference that says a runner is to have legally acquired a base once they reach/pass it? As demonstrated in the OP? I do not have my rules book or case book with me. A reference to each would be nice if you have it, rules book and case book.

You won't find such a rule, as it is implied: a runner is not out for missing a base, but must be appealed.

But I would not say a runner who has passed a base without touching it has "legally acquired" it: he has acquired it (because he is not out), pending a proper appeal.

[Stk004]

22 minutes ago, JamesC said:

Can someone give me the rules reference that says a runner is to have legally acquired a base once they reach/pass it? As demonstrated in the OP? I do not have my rules book or case book with me. A reference to each would be nice if you have it, rules book and case book.

I know it's in the MLBUM. I'll look when I get back home and have my books with me. 

[Cav]

On ‎3‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 3:48 PM, stl_ump said:

Not wanting to tell him to appeal, what would you suggest as a way to end this conversation?

Me:  "That's for me to know and for you to find out."

2 hours ago, Stk004 said:

I know it's in the MLBUM. I'll look when I get back home and have my books with me. 

2015 NFHS Interps SITUATION 20: The batter hits the ball to the shortstop who bobbles the ball and throws late to first base. The batter-runner beats the throw but does not touch first base. RULING: The runner beats the ball on the play and is considered to be safe. The defense must appeal the missed base or tag the batter-runner before he returns to first in order to have the out declared for the missed base. (8-2-1 Penalty)

[beerguy55]

12 minutes ago, Cav said:

Me:  "That's for me to know and for you to find out."

2015 NFHS Interps SITUATION 20: The batter hits the ball to the shortstop who bobbles the ball and throws late to first base. The batter-runner beats the throw but does not touch first base. RULING: The runner beats the ball on the play and is considered to be safe. The defense must appeal the missed base or tag the batter-runner before he returns to first in order to have the out declared for the missed base. (8-2-1 Penalty)

I find this distinction odd/interesting - or it's just very poor language/grammar.  F3 has to appeal the base OR tag the BR.  So, if F3 walks over and tags BR who simply overran the base (but failed to touch it) does that make this a tag/time play, or is it still an appeal/force play?   Is it a badly worded attempt to state that touching the base requires an explicit declaration of appeal, but tagging the runner is an implied appeal?

[noumpere]

It's all the same in real life..  An appeal must be obvious.  Sometimes, the fielder tags the base and it's not an appeal.  rarely does F3 tag BR and it not be an appeal (or F3 is asking iof BR made an attempt toward second).

[ALStripes17]

I find this distinction odd/interesting - or it's just very poor language/grammar.  F3 has to appeal the base OR tag the BR.  So, if F3 walks over and tags BR who simply overran the base (but failed to touch it) does that make this a tag/time play, or is it still an appeal/force play?   Is it a badly worded attempt to state that touching the base requires an explicit declaration of appeal, but tagging the runner is an implied appeal?

But remember that a BR that is appealed to have missed 1B for the third out negates any score anyway.

Where this could become interesting is if the BR makes a move or feint towards 2B and the defense tags him out for that as he's returning to 1B. That would be a time play. But the defense retains its ability to appeal the miss of 1B for the 3rd out (advantageous 4th out, but actually reclassifying the out on the same person) and negate any potential score that happened.

[beerguy55]

13 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

But remember that a BR that is appealed to have missed 1B for the third out negates any score anyway.

 

Yes, which would apply with F3 touching the base and telling the ump "he missed the base".

The wording of the ruling, specifically regarding the scenario of BR missing the base, makes it seem like an appeal to the base OR the tag of the runner are two separate acts with two different conditions, both of which get the BR out, but could leave an argument to someone reading the words literally (and in a bubble), that tagging the runner is neither an appeal nor a force.  

I'm assuming that the intent of the rule is that either touching the base or touching the runner would both constitute an appeal (provided it is evident that is the intent of F3 - and perhaps the ruling is trying to say that tagging the runner is to be implied as an appeal), and because the missed base was the force, the appeal would also be a force.  

I'm just saying the ruling, as written, does not convey that clearly - it takes a deeper contextual understanding of the game and rules to get to the end result.   I would write it something like "The defense must appeal, by tagging the base or the batter-runner, before he returns to first" or even the more simple "The defense must appeal before the batter-runner returns to first"

[ALStripes17]

Yes, which would apply with F3 touching the base and telling the ump "he missed the base".
The wording of the ruling, specifically regarding the scenario of BR missing the base, makes it seem like an appeal to the base OR the tag of the runner are two separate acts with two different conditions, both of which get the BR out, but could leave an argument to someone reading the words literally, that tagging the runner is neither an appeal nor a force.  
I'm assuming that the intent of the rule is that either touching the base or touching the runner would both constitute an appeal (provided it is evident that is the intent of F3 - and perhaps the ruling is trying to say that tagging the runner is to be implied as an appeal), and because the missed base was the force, the appeal would also be a force.  I'm just saying the ruling, as written, does not convey that clearly - it takes a deeper contextual understanding of the game and rules to get to the end result.   I would write it something like "The defense must appeal, by tagging the base or the batter-runner, before he returns to first" or even the more simple "The defense must appeal before the batter-runner returns to first"

An appeal just has to be an unmistakeable act. This keeps defenses from getting appeal outs accidentally. It's up to judgment of the umpire. I may have missed what you were actually trying to ask or point out.


And to nit-pick, the out on the BR at 1B is, by definition, not a force. The BR at 1B situation has its own rule in the scoring rules. You have contributed quite a bit to the forum and figured you could be privy to that detail