beerguy55

I happened to be at this game, with seats along the first base line. In real time I saw Holliday's tag attempt as half-hearted at best and wondered if the ump would rule Clement safe. The "out of base path" ruling in 9th inning is moot as replays showed that Varland made the tag.

As shown by others, this is wrong - the forced runner does indeed lose the prior base as a safe haven unless and until a following runner is put out. If F5 had touched third base first (retiring R2), then R3 would be safe because he would be entitled to that base. This is true in all rule sets of baseball and softball. This is also true in reverse for appeal plays...for a runner who has failed to tag up, their only safe base is the one they need to re-touch. You can tag him out while standing on any other base (you may just need to make it clear that it's an appeal play)

wtf is a "free foot violation"?? I've never heard that term. Sounds like MSU. The vast vast majority of leagues/tourneys allow F3 to take the orange on this play, and requires B/R to take the white. F3 should not be moving into the runner, even to receive the throw. I think this should be OBS. The bags are assigned for a reason...if we just allow last minute movement into the other path what is the F*#King point? F3 establishes which bag to the take, and B/R takes the other. No takebacksies. The weird part is, I could see this called either way 20 years ago, when F3 had to take white and B/R had to take orange. F3 is OBS for standing on orange, forcing B/R into a choice between collision or taking the white. B/R is INT because they're not allowed to take white, so they'd be expected to avoid collision to foul territory...where F3 would then be called for OBS (or B/R just touches orange when F3 moves over to try to catch the throw).

Yes - the bad guys also use Google Drive.

According to the OP the OBS occurred DURING the rundown - ie it didn't cause the rundown. The wrinkle is, there are two out in this scenario, so there's no real benefit to trailing runners advancing as far as they can unless the runner scores, and you're preventing/hindering the runner in the rundown half of his options to achieve safety by advancing to third base...for no benefit. But I doubt many amateur players (or even pros) are thinking of this in real time. Now, it sounds like R1 advanced to third regardless of this consideration - likely just on autopilot. That is, R1 was on third base regardless of the act of OBS. R1 either advanced to third on the original hit/throw (just as R2 was advancing to home) OR R1 advanced to third, or finalized his advancement to third, due to the rundown...independent of the OBS that hindered R2. What we don't know is, which direction was R2 going when he was obstructed during the rundown. That matters to determining "what would have happened to R1" if no OBS had occurred. If he was going towards home, then R2 would have just scored, and R1 would be standing on third base. However, if he was going towards third, then R2 would have reached third base...and then R1 would have been in jeopardy for also being on third base. Speculation Ahead In my mind's eye, R1 is at (or very close to) third base during the rundown, and in R2's attempt to get back to third he is hindered, but gets back successfully anyway, resulting in R1/R2 standing on third base. For me, this puts the third out on R1 for being tagged after he tries to go back to second (doesn't really matter if he even left the base, as long as he was tagged), and scores R2 for his OBS award between third and home (even though he doesn't eventually actually touch home until after R1 made the third out).

There are still coaches who believe they "call" time, rather than "request" time. And then by extension, players and parents. This needs to be better trained at all levels/opportunities: Any national/state/provincial certified coach training curriculum The season-beginning coach/league meeting Listed in the league bi-laws somewhere before ejection penalties Listed in the tournament rules somewhere before mercy limits and tiebreaker scenarios Part of the "code of conduct" document given to parents and players Hung on the backstop of every ball diamond ever constructed in perpetuity If you can't stand up without taking your hand/foot off a base or can't throw the ball 15 feet without missing by ten feet, your coach sucks.

This is a little different - all those scenarios the illegal act by the runner occurs as a result of the OBS...it's basically an illegal response to OBS so they, in effect, occur and are ruled simultaneously, one negating the other. The OP is something that occurs after OBS has been ruled, and the play has moved on. Let me ask this - if a runner scores, and then he subsequently runs over to third base and punches F5 in the face, does his run get negated? I'm not sure it's really splitting the difference - I think it's just enforcing the rules. As I understand it, once OBS occurs the next base is "automatic", and in this case it would be home, so the score is "automatic" - ie. if another runner made the third out before the OBS award was completed, the run still scores. Since the runner is now scored, it's now INT by a scored/retired runner, meaning R1 would be out. If you don't think it's enough, eject the runner doing jumping jacks. nfw - R3 just got a freeroll in this scenario - he prevented an (attempt at an) out on another runner with the only consequence being pushing the runner back 90 feet. This would certainly be the result if he was awarded third instead of home. The quirk is the OBS scores the runner, and you can't unscore a runner, with the exceptions you noted.

Of course it doesn't - why would they want to take culpability and think it through to its proper conclusion? Their goal is to "do something"...they don't really care if that "something" is stupid. These are the people who end up in Congress.

Yeah - it becomes an interesting argument when the coach says, "there is no rule for a batter being called out for throwing his bat...you're supposed to eje...uhmm...never mind." I do agree with you in my experience, with all the talk about local bi-laws, for all the leagues, communities, tournaments I've coached and played in over the past 40 years, I've yet to see this in print - everyone talks about it, and is sure it was discussed at some pre-season/pre-tournament meeting, but in the end you're left with an umpire who either doesn't know the rules, is on a power trip, or, most likely, feels he must do "something" and thinks kicking an 8-year old out of the game is a bit harsh.

This is why we protest - no need to persistently prolong anything. Not really relevant, IMO. We allow all kinds of "normal" baserunning regardless of what the runner should have been able to hear or know. We allow R1 to return to first though he "should know" he was out at second. We allow B/R to continue all the way around the base though he "should know" the fly ball was caught. My understanding is, since this is NFHS, the obstructed runner in this scenario is "guaranteed" home, so the timing of the third out doesn't matter. Imagine a scenario where F2, without the ball, just completely plays halfback and blocks the runner who is trying to score, to give his team a chance to make a third out on another runner... I'm scoring R2 and calling R1 out. Nobody interfered with R1 - R1 ran the bases during a live ball and assumed the risks therein.

Rules aside, t can even get a little more nuanced A fake tag CAN be bush league - Especially if it's done to induce a slide, or worse, as an excuse to smack the runner with an empty glove. ESPECIALLY at any amateur level. The pros gotta do what the pros gotta do and this is their job. A Tuesday night men's league...we all gotta go to work the next morning...I don't need that in my life. High school kids have part time jobs, or class to attend...and I don't need a bunch of hormonal pubescent teens getting into a brawl over a fake tag either. Holding an empty glove to a runner that has already slid or is already stationary is a fake tag, but I wouldn't call it bush league. I'd call it smart. I'd rather it legal, but I understand the headache it creates in differentiating the scenarios. And then, of course, there is the tag that is made where the fielder actually believes he had the ball. So be careful calling that fake tag. Any player on my team that slapped a fag tag on a runner otherwise coming into a base standing up is getting splinters in their ass. However, I have indeed coached fake catches...especially on a throw from the outfield to the plate, I'd have my cutoff man slap the glove to pause the runner rounding first.

You need to be more specific to which element you wonder is legal or cheating. An appeal to challenge whether or not a player missed a base is a perfectly legal play. How else would we address missed bases? This must be done before the next pitch is thrown (among other things), so that aspect was also proper. Waiting until the runner left the field was also proper, because there is a point where the runner can/must have an opportunity to correct his mistake before the missed base appeal can be made. Once he's sat on the bench he can no longer fix his mistake. What do you mean "pressed the umpire"? Having the fielder touch the plate and saying "the runner missed the plate" is proper/legal and not "pressing" nor even arguing. Did the coach argue further? Yell? Get into the umpire's face? Did the umpire rule safe on the appeal, and then get bullied into changing to out? As to the original play - did the umpire signal "safe" or nothing at all? If he signals nothing at all that will generally mean, if he's doing things properly, that he did not see a tag of the runner AND he did not see a touch of the plate. A good coach will see that non-signal and know he has a case to appeal. The ump is not supposed to signal "safe" if the runner didn't touch the plate. I cannot comment to what was in the mind of the coach, to whether or not he believed/knew the runner missed/touched the base. The video evidence and testimony of people in the stands are both irrelevant. The umpire can't use them. I'm also willing to bet the video isn't nearly as conclusive as you describe, and that there are also multiple witnesses that say he missed the plate. That's how human behavior works.

Problem is I didn't say when "the last fielder touched it".

First - "ground rule double" is a misnomer. It's a two-base award for a fair batted ball that goes out of play in a certain set of situations...basically, anything but going over the fence in flight. Second, nobody cares if you think it was a single or a triple...that's a scorekeeping consideration and has no bearing on the play. Third, it does not matter if the ball went over, under or through the fence. The same rule applies for batted balls in how the runners are awarded their bases. It doesn't matter if the fielder made an error - it's still a batted ball...and a batted ball that goes out of play has the runners awarded based on time of pitch (ie. when the pitcher starts his motion). The fielder error would only matter if A) he picked it up and threw it out of play or B) he kicked/deflected the ball out of play where the impetus of the ball's motion was not the bat (ie. the batted ball was (almost) stopped when knocked out of play) - so, even if this scenario, if the ball had touched the fielder's glove before rolling all the way under the fence it's still a "batted ball". On a throw/deflection, the runners are awarded two bases at the time the ball last touched the fielder...NOT when it goes out of play. So, yes, if your batter has not yet reached first, and the outfield throws the ball wildly, and your batter manages to not only pass first, but also second base, by the time the ball goes out of play, he still only gets second base. Too bad so sad. Measuring runner awards from when the ball goes out of play is very rare - basically, it would be in a situation where the fielder carried the ball out of play. Otherwise, it's measured from when the ball was hit, pitched, thrown, kicked.

Not sure why you'd get such a huge reaction from the offensive team (maybe from the idiots in the stands)...you saved them from running into a double play. Did their coach actually want you to rule this "foul"???