Jump to content
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 4457 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

Posted

Gotta love this site! Yesterday I may have balked this.

Today your gonna order, the PBUC, MLBUM and WUM. No never mind wait until the new ones come out.

  • Like 1
Posted

 

 

You sure about that?

 

"An appeal is not to be interpreted as a play or an attempted play." 7.10

 

 

 

That wording means "for the purposes of making multiple appeals, an appeal is not a play."

 

One of the known errors in the book.

Posted

 

 

 

You sure about that?

 

"An appeal is not to be interpreted as a play or an attempted play." 7.10

 

 

 

That wording means "for the purposes of making multiple appeals, an appeal is not a play."

 

One of the known errors in the book.

 

 

Well: now it's known.

  • Like 1
Posted

It's clear the thread has run its course, but let me add that the rule is the same in an NFHS game, as well. F1 can throw to an unoccupied base for the purpose of an appeal.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Posted

 

 

This is a myth.

For non-FED baseball, the ball must be live to make an appeal. If the ball becomes dead, F1 must get the ball and take the rubber before the PU can make it live. Then he can step off and throw to the base to make the appeal.

At this point, F1 can also step and throw directly to a base while in contact with the rubber, provided it is for the purpose of the appeal. F1 is not even required to step off once the ball is live again.

 

Would an appeal be under the umbrella of "purpose of making a play" in regards to not calling a balk for F1 throwing to an unoccupied base?

Of course, in nearly all instances, F1 will disengage, but I am curious.

 

 

No it's in the rules that's it's legal if for the purposes of an appeal.

×
×
  • Create New...