What is your call?

[acpar72]

No runners on...

 

Ground ball to second baseman...

 

Close play but first baseman can't catch throw in dirt, runner does not touch first base while attempting to avoid contact with the 1st baseman...

 

Base coach tells the BR to "go to second"...

 

Catcher is backing up the play and fields ball...

 

BR rounds first and immediately stops and makes effort to return to 1st base (base coach also yells "get back")...

 

Catcher throws to 1st baseman who is standing on bag...

 

Throw and catch beat runner back to first...

 

1st Baseman also attempts to apply tag and misses the returning BR who is sliding into the base.

 

What do you have? 

[Thunderheads]

is the defense appealing?

[Replacematt]

R1, time for next play. No valid appeal, and runner fixed his error under last-time-by.

[grayhawk]

R1, time for next play. No valid appeal, and runner fixed his error under last-time-by.

 

+1

[MadMax]

Safe... For Now.

When he passed by 1B, he Achieved / Obtained the bag. Short of an Appeal by the DT, he is safe. The throw of F2 of the wayward ball to F3 does not constitute an appeal. The attempted tag upon the BR is in regards to the BR having made an attempt of his own towards 2B, and the BR beat the tag, thus Safe.

I'm curious to hear, though, how an Appeal would proceed, though.

EDIT: I started this earlier, and didn't see the more succinct responses posted in the interim. With that said, those responses are dead on.

[acpar72]

No appeal.  What if runner had realized his error in missing the bag and that is why he turned around?  His effort to return came before the base coache's instruction to "get back"  and no more than 2-3 steps after making an attempt to second base.  He had not "over ran" first base due to his slowdown into the base.

[Replacematt]

Safe... For Now.

When he passed by 1B, he Achieved / Obtained the bag. Short of an Appeal by the DT, he is safe. The throw of F2 of the wayward ball to F3 does not constitute an appeal. The attempted tag upon the BR is in regards to the BR having made an attempt of his own towards 2B, and the BR beat the tag, thus Safe.

I'm curious to hear, though, how an Appeal would proceed, though.

 

Simple:

"We're appealing he missed first base."

<tag of base>

"Safe."

[Replacematt]

No appeal.  What if runner had realized his error in missing the bag and that is why he turned around?  His effort to return came before the base coache's instruction to "get back"  and no more than 2-3 steps after making an attempt to second base.  He had not "over ran" first base due to his slowdown into the base.

 

Runner's intent does not matter, either in retouching or the infraction, so it doesn't matter why he missed it or why he came back. He legally touched the base after an infraction at that base, which nullifies the infraction. The only exception is on a gross miss, which didn't happen here.

[OveBerven]

So the appeal must occur after BR passes 1B first time and before BR returns to touch 1B, is that correct?

[JaxRolo]

So the appeal must occur after BR passes 1B first time and before BR returns to touch 1B, is that correct?

Correct

[noumpere]

So the appeal must occur after BR passes 1B first time and before BR returns to touch 1B, is that correct?

Just like every appeal -- it has to happen after the time of the violation and before the violation is corrected. 

[afaber12]

Is there a difference between the timing of the physical requirements of the appeal being met - in this case the tag of the base - and achieving the required clarity to communicate said appeal to the umpire? In this case, the base was tagged before the batter-runner touched it. That by itself wouldn't be enough to rule on, but is there a requirement for the actual "appeal", letting the umpire know that they think the runner erred and requesting him to rule on the possible infraction, to occur before the runner fixes it? In this case (or at least cases like it) the fielders may have been uncertain about whether the batter-runner touched or not, or certain he missed but uncertain whether the umpire saw it. There'd be variations of this where other runners might put themselves in jeopardy, so a truly intentional act to appeal on one runner is interrupted by attempting to make a play on another (in continuous action), where the base in question is tagged but then the ball is immediately thrown somewhere else.

 

I'd be calling "No tag" and signalling "safe", but would recognise the appeal once they communicated it.

[noumpere]

Is there a difference between the timing of the physical requirements of the appeal being met - in this case the tag of the base - and achieving the required clarity to communicate said appeal to the umpire? In this case, the base was tagged before the batter-runner touched it. That by itself wouldn't be enough to rule on, but is there a requirement for the actual "appeal", letting the umpire know that they think the runner erred and requesting him to rule on the possible infraction, to occur before the runner fixes it? In this case (or at least cases like it) the fielders may have been uncertain about whether the batter-runner touched or not, or certain he missed but uncertain whether the umpire saw it. There'd be variations of this where other runners might put themselves in jeopardy, so a truly intentional act to appeal on one runner is interrupted by attempting to make a play on another (in continuous action), where the base in question is tagged but then the ball is immediately thrown somewhere else.

 

I'd be calling "No tag" and signalling "safe", but would recognise the appeal once they communicated it.

You need to decide whether the player was making a "regular" play, an "appeal" play or just accidentally touching the base.  Then, you rule accordingly.

 

So, if F6 threw to F3 who was on the bag (after BR passed and missed the base), call safe.  You need a *separate* play to be the appeal -- the defense can't just now claim that the initial throw was an appeal.

[Replacematt]

Is there a difference between the timing of the physical requirements of the appeal being met - in this case the tag of the base - and achieving the required clarity to communicate said appeal to the umpire? In this case, the base was tagged before the batter-runner touched it. That by itself wouldn't be enough to rule on, but is there a requirement for the actual "appeal", letting the umpire know that they think the runner erred and requesting him to rule on the possible infraction, to occur before the runner fixes it? In this case (or at least cases like it) the fielders may have been uncertain about whether the batter-runner touched or not, or certain he missed but uncertain whether the umpire saw it. There'd be variations of this where other runners might put themselves in jeopardy, so a truly intentional act to appeal on one runner is interrupted by attempting to make a play on another (in continuous action), where the base in question is tagged but then the ball is immediately thrown somewhere else.

 

I'd be calling "No tag" and signalling "safe", but would recognise the appeal once they communicated it.

 

You have to know it's an appeal when it happens. The act has to be unmistakably an appeal, and if they retroactively claim that it was an appeal, they haven't completed the unmistakable act until after the runner has corrected his violation and is now safe.

[DVA7130]

R1 misses first base avoiding F1 who didn't have the ball. Seriously noone has mentioned obstruction yet?

[Replacematt]

R1 misses first base avoiding F1 who didn't have the ball. Seriously noone has mentioned obstruction yet?

 

There's nothing to suggest that the fielder was doing anything illegal.

[MadMax]

 

R1 misses first base avoiding F1 who didn't have the ball. Seriously noone has mentioned obstruction yet?

 

There's nothing to suggest that the fielder was doing anything illegal.

 

 

Agreed. There's nothing in the OP description to suggest anything other than F3's body being taken into the BR's path or vicinity by attempting to field / catch the throw in the dirt. Without the age level being stated, I'll go on a hunch that it's 13U, where kids are being conditioned to avoid all manner of contact in this bubble-wrap environment we live in. BR might have skirted the bag so as to avoid any part of F3 being anywhere near him.

[DVA7130]

R1 misses first base avoiding F1 who didn't have the ball. Seriously noone has mentioned obstruction yet?

 

There's nothing to suggest that the fielder was doing anything illegal. As described this is HTBT.

As described I envision F1 causing BR to miss it.

That's my call.

I'd then decide on attempt for second.

But no appeal on missing the base.

[Replacematt]

 

 

R1 misses first base avoiding F1 who didn't have the ball. Seriously noone has mentioned obstruction yet?

 

There's nothing to suggest that the fielder was doing anything illegal. As described this is HTBT.

As described I envision F1 causing BR to miss it.

That's my call.

I'd then decide on attempt for second.

But no appeal on missing the base.

 

 

Even if F3 caused him to miss, that doesn't necessarily mean obstruction.

[Rich Ives]

 

 

R1 misses first base avoiding F1 who didn't have the ball. Seriously noone has mentioned obstruction yet?

 

There's nothing to suggest that the fielder was doing anything illegal. As described this is HTBT.

As described I envision F1 causing BR to miss it.

That's my call.

I'd then decide on attempt for second.

But no appeal on missing the base.

 

 

In OBR if you call obstruction then the ball is dead, BR gets first, and there's nothing to consider on any attempt for 2B.

[DVA7130]

R1 misses first base avoiding F1 who didn't have the ball. Seriously noone has mentioned obstruction yet?

 

There's nothing to suggest that the fielder was doing anything illegal.

As described this is HTBT.

As described I envision F1 causing BR to miss it.

That's my call.

I'd then decide on attempt for second.

But no appeal on missing the base.

 

In OBR if you call obstruction then the ball is dead, BR gets first, and there's nothing to consider on any attempt for 2B.

He wasn't making a play, same as a f6 booting one then getting in the way.

Are you going for obstruction before he reaches first?

If it's at the bag are we not going to allow it to be delayed?

[ALStripes17]

R1 misses first base avoiding F1 who didn't have the ball. Seriously noone has mentioned obstruction yet?

There's nothing to suggest that the fielder was doing anything illegal.

As described this is HTBT.

As described I envision F1 causing BR to miss it.

That's my call.

I'd then decide on attempt for second.

But no appeal on missing the base.

In OBR if you call obstruction then the ball is dead, BR gets first, and there's nothing to consider on any attempt for 2B.

He wasn't making a play, same as a f6 booting one then getting in the way.

Are you going for obstruction before he reaches first?

If it's at the bag are we not going to allow it to be delayed?

It would be Type A OBS (OBR) If OBS was something the official decided. The play was being made on the BR going to 1B so it would not be delayed. Your F6 in the baseline scenario is not a viable comparison.