Appeals play

[Guest Plumie09]

Had an interesting play in a game tonight and wanted to get some clarification on it. The situation was 2 outs, runner on third. The batter walked. After receiving ball 4, the batter takes off and continues to round first and go for second. The pitcher makes a fake towards the runner going to second and catches the runner at 3rd in a pickle. The throw to third gets by the third baseman, allowing the runner to score. The runner who just walked runs to third and continues to score. The result was 2 runs scored. However, the team appeals to first that the batter missed firstbase - the umpire calls him out for missing the base. 

 

My question is, should the run count?  I don't think it should, but wanted to see the actual verbiage of the rule that confirms it. Was the play dead since the batter missed first and therefore the run from 3rd isn't allowed?

Thanks for the help clarifying!

[Rich Ives]

6 minutes ago, Guest Plumie09 said:

Had an interesting play in a game tonight and wanted to get some clarification on it. The situation was 2 outs, runner on third. The batter walked. After receiving ball 4, the batter takes off and continues to round first and go for second. The pitcher makes a fake towards the runner going to second and catches the runner at 3rd in a pickle. The throw to third gets by the third baseman, allowing the runner to score. The runner who just walked runs to third and continues to score. The result was 2 runs scored. However, the team appeals to first that the batter missed firstbase - the umpire calls him out for missing the base. 

 

My question is, should the run count?  I don't think it should, but wanted to see the actual verbiage of the rule that confirms it. Was the play dead since the batter missed first and therefore the run from 3rd isn't allowed?

Thanks for the help clarifying!

5.08 (4.09) How a Team Scores
(a) One run shall be scored each time a runner legally advances to
and touches first, second, third and home base before three men
are put out to end the inning.
EXCEPTION: A run is not scored if the runner
advances to home base during a play in which the third
out is made (1) by the batter-runner before he touches
first base; (2) by any runner being forced out; or (3) by
a preceding runner who is declared out because he
failed to touch one of the bases.

[maven]

Neither run would score. Not because the play is "dead," but because the BR made the 3rd out before touching 1B. Coach Ives has posted the pro rule, but it's the same in all codes.

[FleasOf1000Camels]

As usual, Maven has it nailed.

I had a very similar play a couple of weeks ago, EXCEPT we were under FED rules and the batter had been walked INTENTIONALLY, so I had called TIME before sending batter to first base.  All the while these 10 yr olds are throwing the ball all over the place and scrambling around the bases my partner and I are trying to stop the circus.  I ended up near the first base coach, and said to him "you know the ball is dead, and none of this is really happening."  He said "that's certainly true, but the boys are all having a helluva good time."

[Ump29]

3 hours ago, FleasOf1000Camels said:

As usual, Maven has it nailed.

I had a very similar play a couple of weeks ago, EXCEPT we were under FED rules and the batter had been walked INTENTIONALLY, so I had called TIME before sending batter to first base.  All the while these 10 yr olds are throwing the ball all over the place and scrambling around the bases my partner and I are trying to stop the circus.  I ended up near the first base coach, and said to him "you know the ball is dead, and none of this is really happening."  He said "that's certainly true, but the boys are all having a helluva good time."

Why would you call time on this walk before the BR was at first ?

[ALStripes17]

Why would you call time on this walk before the BR was at first ?

Willing to bet it was under FED rules... since Fleas said he was

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Ump29]

14 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

 

 

Willing to bet it was under FED rules... since Fleas said he was

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

OK  Not familiar with FED rules with time in this sit.

[ALStripes17]

OK  Not familiar with FED rules with time in this sit.

When a catcher or defensive coach wants to intentionally walk a batter, it's a dead ball award. Call Time and award 1B so the ball is dead. Still live on normal base on balls

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Ump29]

21 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

When a catcher or defensive coach wants to intentionally walk a batter, it's a dead ball award. Call Time and award 1B so the ball is dead. Still live on normal base on balls

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I only work OBR in Canada where an intentional walk takes 4 live pitches.

[JSam21]

1 minute ago, Ump29 said:

I only work OBR in Canada where an intention walk takes 4 live pitches.

Probably not for much longer....

[FleasOf1000Camels]

I always hated dead ball IBB and dead ball appeals.  Dummies down the game.

[maven]

1 hour ago, FleasOf1000Camels said:

I always hated dead ball IBB and dead ball appeals.  Dummies down the game.

The other thought would be: pitching an intentional walk is a waste of time, effort, and a pointless opportunity for mishap that doesn't advance the game.

Also, the live-ball appeal procedure is pointlessly complex. Really now, does the dead-ball appeal make worse baseball? I'll take it every day of the week.

[basejester]

At some point, I predict that Fed coaches will start appealing all runners at all bases after every play as standard operating procedure.  Why not?  After that happens, it logically follows that umpires should just call out players when they miss bases.

The requirement for live ball creates risk and cost to an appeal.  E.g., if you're not sure enough that he missed second base to bother throwing the ball over, then just shut up and sit down.

 

 

[Ump29]

21 hours ago, JSam21 said:

Probably not for much longer....

You could be right.

[maven]

2 hours ago, basejester said:

At some point, I predict that Fed coaches will start appealing all runners at all bases after every play as standard operating procedure.  Why not?

Because 8-2-6f disallows it.

[basejester]

12 minutes ago, maven said:

Because 8-2-6f disallows it.

Fair enough.  What's the limit?

[maven]

1 minute ago, basejester said:

Fair enough.  What's the limit?

Says right there in the rule. When the umpire determines that coach is not making a genuine attempt to appeal a baserunning infraction — that he's playing games instead of playing the game — the umpire will disallow the appeal.

[ALStripes17]

At some point, I predict that Fed coaches will start appealing all runners at all bases after every play as standard operating procedure.  Why not?  After that happens, it logically follows that umpires should just call out players when they miss bases.

The requirement for live ball creates risk and cost to an appeal.  E.g., if you're not sure enough that he missed second base to bother throwing the ball over, then just shut up and sit down.

 

 

Just calling players out was the norm in FED for a while wasn't it? I do know SC still had this as their rules recently... yeah that would suck.

In regards to limit - until they make a travesty of the game. They know who missed and who didn't. Plus, they can verbally appeal only during dead ball. You don't necessarily have to kill it

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[FleasOf1000Camels]

I have always believed that the element of risk was an important aspect of the appeal.  Same thing with the IBB, if battery can't handle this simple task, they deserve to give up bases and/or runs.  I had it happen earlier this year where a live IBB resulted in a WP that ended the game.

[Man_In_Black]

4 hours ago, maven said:

The other thought would be: pitching an intentional walk is a waste of time, effort, and a pointless opportunity for mishap that doesn't advance the game.

Do you subscribe to this thought? I sure don't.

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen situations like this unfold:

1) R2 and R3 with less than two outs. Defense wants to issue an IBB to set up a force at any base. Pitcher airmails one of his "balls" too far outside or over the catchers head. R3 scores. And a lot of times that run is a game changer.

Or:

2) Same situation, but F1 doesn't put the intentional "ball" far enough off the plate and the batter reaches out and punches a base hit into right field. Run scores for the offense.

So my question is: If the defense wants to employ the IBB as a strategy, why not force them execute it properly. Why give 'em a freebie? You're cheating the offense out of an opportunity to capitalize on a potential mistake. Intentional walks aren't something that happen all that often, so I don't buy the whole "well, it slows down the game" argument. You can put a guy on first with four pitches in well under a minute. If you want to put the guy on 1B, the battery should have to execute.

4 hours ago, maven said:

Also, the live-ball appeal procedure is pointlessly complex. Really now, does the dead-ball appeal make worse baseball? I'll take it every day of the week.

Pointlessly complex? Not if you understand how it works. I don't do FED games anymore (thank God), but I often ask myself what the whole point is of making exceptions to certain rules of baseball for high school players. Do people really believe that 16-18 year old guys are too stupid to play baseball the way it was meant to be played? Appealing a missed base isn't rocket science. Besides, If they didn't have the dead-ball appeal in FED, then it's most likely that coaches would coach the players on how to properly make one. It ain't that hard, people. This, along with stuff like immediate dead ball on a balk, etc. doesn't benefit the kids at all. A decent ballplayer is going to, at some point in the future, have to play by the "real" rules anyhow, so why not start exposing him to it in HS? They're old enough. "Wussifying" the rules just promotes bad baseball habits which have to be un-learned when they move on to higher levels of ball. Now, I'm not talking about rules that involve player safety (like FPSR, OBS etc.). I understand why these types of rule deviations are necessary. But an automatic IBB or a dead-ball appeal is not a safety issue...it's being different just for the sake of being different. I agree with @FleasOf1000Camels...I see it as dumbing down the game.

Or could it be that the NFHS powers-that-be don't think it's the kids that are too dumb to play real baseball, but maybe that their umpires are too dumb to call real baseball?

[Ump29]

6 hours ago, Man_In_Black said:

Do you subscribe to this thought? I sure don't.

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen situations like this unfold:

1) R2 and R3 with less than two outs. Defense wants to issue an IBB to set up a force at any base. Pitcher airmails one of his "balls" too far outside or over the catchers head. R3 scores. And a lot of times that run is a game changer.

Or:

2) Same situation, but F1 doesn't put the intentional "ball" far enough off the plate and the batter reaches out and punches a base hit into right field. Run scores for the offense.

So my question is: If the defense wants to employ the IBB as a strategy, why not force them execute it properly. Why give 'em a freebie? You're cheating the offense out of an opportunity to capitalize on a potential mistake. Intentional walks aren't something that happen all that often, so I don't buy the whole "well, it slows down the game" argument. You can put a guy on first with four pitches in well under a minute. If you want to put the guy on 1B, the battery should have to execute.

Pointlessly complex? Not if you understand how it works. I don't do FED games anymore (thank God), but I often ask myself what the whole point is of making exceptions to certain rules of baseball for high school players. Do people really believe that 16-18 year old guys are too stupid to play baseball the way it was meant to be played? Appealing a missed base isn't rocket science. Besides, If they didn't have the dead-ball appeal in FED, then it's most likely that coaches would coach the players on how to properly make one. It ain't that hard, people. This, along with stuff like immediate dead ball on a balk, etc. doesn't benefit the kids at all. A decent ballplayer is going to, at some point in the future, have to play by the "real" rules anyhow, so why not start exposing him to it in HS? They're old enough. "Wussifying" the rules just promotes bad baseball habits which have to be un-learned when they move on to higher levels of ball. Now, I'm not talking about rules that involve player safety (like FPSR, OBS etc.). I understand why these types of rule deviations are necessary. But an automatic IBB or a dead-ball appeal is not a safety issue...it's being different just for the sake of being different. I agree with @FleasOf1000Camels...I see it as dumbing down the game.

Or could it be that the NFHS powers-that-be don't think it's the kids that are too dumb to play real baseball, but maybe that their umpires are too dumb to call real baseball?

Totally agree.

[FleasOf1000Camels]

This is a societal problem as well as a baseball problem.  Like giving everybody a "thank you for participating" certificate instead of a trophy to the winner.  The only excuse for MLB going to IBB on request is that too many ignorant/impatient TV watchers are channel surfing while the traditional IBB is being issued.

[umpire_scott]

On 7/16/2016 at 7:17 AM, FleasOf1000Camels said:

This is a societal problem as well as a baseball problem.  Like giving everybody a "thank you for participating" certificate instead of a trophy to the winner.  The only excuse for MLB going to IBB on request is that too many ignorant/impatient TV watchers are channel surfing while the traditional IBB is being issued.

I don't see giving trophies to everyone as even remotely similar to this.  When was the last time you saw an IBB mucked up at the college or MLB level?  When something like that happens with 99% accuracy then maybe it is just a waste of time.  And baseball has had a long standing issue with length of games for viewers.  I guess as a coach instead of risking a pitcher throwing the ball away or some OOO getting the catcher for a balk for moving out of the catcher's box to quickly the coach could just have the pitcher hit the batter.  That pretty much eliminates the threat of runners advancing.  We know what they want to do and they execute at probably far greater than 99% accuracy.  So let's do away with the formalities and just give them first base.

[FleasOf1000Camels]

On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 5:03 PM, umpire_scott said:

I don't see giving trophies to everyone as even remotely similar to this.  When was the last time you saw an IBB mucked up at the college or MLB level?  When something like that happens with 99% accuracy then maybe it is just a waste of time.  And baseball has had a long standing issue with length of games for viewers.  I guess as a coach instead of risking a pitcher throwing the ball away or some OOO getting the catcher for a balk for moving out of the catcher's box to quickly the coach could just have the pitcher hit the batter.  That pretty much eliminates the threat of runners advancing.  We know what they want to do and they execute at probably far greater than 99% accuracy.  So let's do away with the formalities and just give them first base.

It's all pussification.