Force at first

[Guest Darrian]

I was watching a friends team of 13 yr olds play today when the following occurred: a player hit a grounder to third, the third baseman threw the ball to first, the runner beats the throw by a split second, but doesn't step on first base, he steps just to the right of it. The ump calls the runner safe and explains it by saying that since the runner beat the throw, even though he didn't touch the bag, it was no longer a force out and the first baseman should have tagged the runner. Is this correct?

[Richvee]

Technically a play at 1st is not a force out, but that's another conversation. The umpire is somewhat correct. If the runner beats the throw but misses the base, he is to be called safe. This is true. However  defense then needs to tag the batter runner or touch the base before the BR returns and the defense AND must state they are appealing the missed base. Just touching the base or tagging the runner is not enough the the batter runner to called out. Defense must state they are appealing the missed base.   

[johnnyg08]

I was watching a friends team of 13 yr olds play today when the following occurred: a player hit a grounder to third, the third baseman threw the ball to first, the runner beats the throw by a split second, but doesn't step on first base, he steps just to the right of it. The ump calls the runner safe and explains it by saying that since the runner beat the throw, even though he didn't touch the bag, it was no longer a force out and the first baseman should have tagged the runner. Is this correct?

 

Honestly, it's pretty good umpiring...especially for 13U

[Sut'n Blue]

From 2014 BRD:

"Play 1-1: B1 beats out an infield hit but misses the base. F3 takes the throw and "casually steps on first." Ruling: In FED, since the defense was making "a force play as a result of continuing action," B1 is out. The "casual" step was an appeal."

Carl then refers to this is an "accidental" appeal.

When I first read this I was pretty surprised at the interpretation and admit to being confused still. Like Richvee, I would be looking for an obvious appeal but Carl says it's not necessary in FED. (The OP didn't say what rule set applied but I was always under the impression that an appeal had to be obvious under all of them.)

Can someone shed some light on this for me?

Thanks.

[johnnyg08]

Umpire it this way..."an appeal must be obvious and intentional"

You will stay out of trouble that way.

[maven]

From 2014 BRD:

"Play 1-1: B1 beats out an infield hit but misses the base. F3 takes the throw and "casually steps on first." Ruling: In FED, since the defense was making "a force play as a result of continuing action," B1 is out. The "casual" step was an appeal."

Carl then refers to this is an "accidental" appeal.

When I first read this I was pretty surprised at the interpretation and admit to being confused still. Like Richvee, I would be looking for an obvious appeal but Carl says it's not necessary in FED. (The OP didn't say what rule set applied but I was always under the impression that an appeal had to be obvious under all of them.)

Can someone shed some light on this for me?

Thanks.

The accidental appeal is gone. A new-ish case play states that the defense must appeal in one of the usual ways to get this out.

If nobody posts it, I'll find the play later.

[jpperez14]

I've had a play where I banged the batter out, even tho he beat the throw by two feet. He never touched first completely went over the base.

[Rich Ives]

I've had a play where I banged the batter out, even tho he beat the throw by two feet. He never touched first completely went over the base.

 

You were wrong. It's a missed base and a missed base requires an appeal.

[Richvee]

2015 FED rules interpretations. 

 

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'll have to respectfully disagree with Carl on this one. I need obvious and intentional. 

[Richvee]

From 2014 BRD:

"Play 1-1: B1 beats out an infield hit but misses the base. F3 takes the throw and "casually steps on first." Ruling: In FED, since the defense was making "a force play as a result of continuing action," B1 is out. The "casual" step was an appeal."

Carl then refers to this is an "accidental" appeal.

When I first read this I was pretty surprised at the interpretation and admit to being confused still. Like Richvee, I would be looking for an obvious appeal but Carl says it's not necessary in FED. (The OP didn't say what rule set applied but I was always under the impression that an appeal had to be obvious under all of them.)

Can someone shed some light on this for me?

Thanks.

Just looked it up in the 2015 BRD. Carl changed the ruling. 

 

ruling (revised) At all levels the umpire will take no action. The "casual" step was not an appeal. 

 

Carl also adds that this is now the same across all codes and will be removed from the 2016 edition. 

[maven]

2015 FED rules interpretations. 

 

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'll have to respectfully disagree with Carl on this one. I need obvious and intentional. 

 

That's the one. Now same in all codes.

[MooseLoop]

So when does the runner "beat the throw"?  When his lead foot touches the ground at or past the base?  Or when his entire body has completely passed the back of the base?  Or somewhere in between?

[JaxRolo]

It doesn't have to be verbal as long as it's obvious

[Sayhey]

Mooseloop- great question. A runner aquuires a bag when he either touches a bag or passes by the bag. He is subject to be out on appeal if he passes by the bag. An umpire must use judgement to determine when a runner passed by the bag. If he touches to the foul side of the bag I would say he has passed by the moment his foot or hand reaches the point where he is at or near the bag and would have touched the bag had he been moved over a few inches. As for running over the top of the bag and not touching I would say he has passed by when his foot is over the front edge of 1st base, but I am not sure. I look forward to learning the answer. I appreciate the discussion. Thank you.

[Majordave]

First,

 

@Richvee said:

 

"Just looked it up in the 2015 BRD. Carl changed the ruling. 

 

ruling (revised) At all levels the umpire will take no action. The "casual" step was not an appeal."

 

My question:  So what does the "Umpire will take no action" mean?  

-Not rule on a casual/accidental appeal without obvious appeal intent?

-Not rule a runner safe or out initially?

 

I think I know but wanted to make sure and clear up any confusion.

 

Second,

 

I agree with Sayhey on passed by with foot of runner landing equal to/near/crossing leading edge of 1B dimensions extended.

[maven]

"The umpire will take no action" means we don't rule on the so-called "accidental appeal": since it is not properly constituted, you just wait. Since the defense isn't looking at us for a ruling, not doing anything should be what everyone expects.

 

OTOH, if they look at us waiting for a ruling, then the appeal wasn't accidental after all: we might ask for clarification, but such an appeal should be ruled on.

 

The "take no action" remark applies after F3 casually steps on the base. It does not relate to ruling on the initial play, in which the runner acquired the base.

[noumpere]

Call the initial play the same way you would call the play IF BR had touched the base.

 

So, for example, if the throw pulls F3 off and BR runs past, and F3 steps on the base as he throws the ball back to F1 -- probably nothing.

 

Or, if F3 passes the base and just a split second later F3 catches the ball while on the base, probably a casual safe (it's pretty obvious to everyone that F3 was already past).

 

Then, rule on any subsequent appeal as you would any other appeal.

[Jimurray]

Mooseloop- great question. A runner aquuires a bag when he either touches a bag or passes by the bag. He is subject to be out on appeal if he passes by the bag. An umpire must use judgement to determine when a runner passed by the bag. If he touches to the foul side of the bag I would say he has passed by the moment his foot or hand reaches the point where he is at or near the bag and would have touched the bag had he been moved over a few inches. As for running over the top of the bag and not touching I would say he has passed by when his foot is over the front edge of 1st base, but I am not sure. I look forward to learning the answer. I appreciate the discussion. Thank you.

I think that is the current interp from somewhere. I believe previous to that interp there was another one requiring all of the runner to be past the back edge of the bag before you rule him safe because there was always a chance of a touch as the runner passes.

Picture the BR's lead foot landing a few inches short in front and, as the trail foot goes over without touching and lands behind 1B,  the lead foot touches the base as it comes forward off the ground. The ball beats the touch but does not beat the passing of the front edge. The old interp (if my memory is correct) would have you call the BR out. The current one would have you safe him and require the defense to appeal it. But since they saw the touch they probably are not going to appeal. They will probably just argue about what you saw.

[Umpirechick1]

This actually came up at Southern Camp a few weeks ago.  They (MLB umps) said correct terminology is a player has "reached" the base (doesn't mean he touched it) once he passes it, even if he hasn't touched it.  And yes, player can then be called out on an appeal, whether verbally or by touching the bag. 

[noumpere]

 

I think that is the current interp from somewhere. I believe previous to that interp there was another one requiring all of the runner to be past the back edge of the bag before you rule him safe because there was always a chance of a touch as the runner passes.

 

Picture the BR's lead foot landing a few inches short in front and, as the trail foot goes over without touching and lands behind 1B,  the lead foot touches the base as it comes forward off the ground. The ball beats the touch but does not beat the passing of the front edge. The old interp (if my memory is correct) would have you call the BR out. The current one would have you safe him and require the defense to appeal it. But since they saw the touch they probably are not going to appeal. They will probably just argue about what you saw.

 

 

 

I agree, and I do not like the current interp.  Heck, there was a play last year where on an overthrow to first, the runners lead foot missed the base, and he swiped the base with his trailing foot as he stepped toward and advanced to second.  Big discussion about the umpire ruling "safe" on the appeal, because the defense didn't see the swipe (and, honestly, neither did I during live action or the first couple of replays)

 

This actually came up at Southern Camp a few weeks ago.  They (MLB umps) said correct terminology is a player has "reached" the base (doesn't mean he touched it) once he passes it, even if he hasn't touched it.  And yes, player can then be called out on an appeal, whether verbally or by touching the bag. 

 

No one is disputing that.  The issue is what is the definition of "passes" (or "passes" or any other form)

[johnnyg08]

If I pass a car on the road, my entire car must pass the other car before returning to the lane of travel.

 

If I simply reach the other car before making my lane change, I will not be able to afford insurance.

 

A runner has not passed a base until his entire body has passed the base...if he's running, I count that as both feet.

[Replacematt]

If I pass a car on the road, my entire car must pass the other car before returning to the lane of travel.

 

If I simply reach the other car before making my lane change, I will not be able to afford insurance.

 

A runner has not passed a base until his entire body has passed the base...if he's running, I count that as both feet.

Minnesota's a no-fault state. You'll be fine.

[johnnyg08]

 

If I pass a car on the road, my entire car must pass the other car before returning to the lane of travel.

 

If I simply reach the other car before making my lane change, I will not be able to afford insurance.

 

A runner has not passed a base until his entire body has passed the base...if he's running, I count that as both feet.

Minnesota's a no-fault state. You'll be fine.

 

 

 

I appreciated that!!  

[Recontra]

I apologize if I'm the kind of knucklehead who has to occasionally repeatedly kick a horse to make sure it's really dead (did that with an elk once, but that bastard was huge and had lots of pointy things I was concerned about).  Where are the terms, "passed" or "passing" coming from?  I don't see them in the case examples. I'm thinking Johnny08's interp seems more reasonable than those above him.  Obviously, if he's beyond the base, he's presumed to have touched it, but something isn't quite sitting right with me--as if the rule wasn't really written for the banger, but rather for the presumption that a runner is presumed to have touched a base once he is beyond the base.  And if I'm totally wrong, it certainly won't be the first (or last) time. 

 

 

Mooseloop- great question. A runner aquuires a bag when he either touches a bag or passes by the bag. He is subject to be out on appeal if he passes by the bag. An umpire must use judgement to determine when a runner passed by the bag. As for ruIf he touches to the foul side of the bag I would say he has passed by the moment his foot or hand reaches the point where he is at or near the bag and would have touched the bag had he been moved over a few inches. As for running over the top of the bag and not touching I would say he has passed by when his foot is over the front edge of 1st base, but I am not sure. I look forward to learning the answer. I appreciate the discussion. Thank you.

 

I think that is the current interp from somewhere. I believe previous to that interp there was another one requiring all of the runner to be past the back edge of the bag before you rule him safe because there was always a chance of a touch as the runner passes. Picture the BR's lead foot landing a few inches short in front and, as the trail foot goes over without touching and lands behind 1B,  the lead foot touches the base as it comes forward off the ground. The ball beats the touch but does not beat the passing of the front edge. The old interp (if my memory is correct) would have you call the BR out. The current one would have you safe him and require the defense to appeal it. But since they saw the touch they probably are not going to appeal. They will probably just argue about what you saw.

 

 

Is that really right? 

 

(1)  BR slides head first into 1st, his right hand comes down on the dirt clearly past the front plane of the bag but 6" in foul territory. F-3 then catches the ball with foot in contact with bag. Then BR's left hand touches the top of the bag.  We're supposed to call that "Safe!" and insist upon a proper appeal of a missed base?

 

(2)  BR plants his left foot in the dirt 6" in front of the bag, his body is airborne over the bag when F-3 catches the ball with a foot in contact with the bag. Then BR's right foot comes down in the dirt beyond the bag.  We're supposed to call that "Safe!" because his body broke the front plane and insist upon a proper appeal of a missed base?

 

(3)  BR plants his left foot in the dirt 6" in front of the bag, his body is airborne over the bag when F-3 catches the ball with a foot in contact with the bag. Then BR's right foot comes down square in the middle of the bag.  That's every banger.  We all know that's an out.  But the interp above suggests he's safe, but subject to being called out on appeal.

 

(4) BR plants his right foot in the dirt 6" to the foul side of the bag but past the front plane. F-3 then catches the ball with a foot in contact with the bag. Then BR intentionally extends his left foot and touches the top of the back of the bag. We're supposed to call that "Safe!" and insist upon a proper appeal of a missed base?

 

I'm left with:  If BR actually touches the bag at some point as he passes after the catch, then he's out. However, if he never touches the bag as he passes after the catch, he'll be safe if he broke the plane before the catch.  I feel like a Pope who's just been told the sun and planets do not orbit the earth.

[johnnyg08]

Here are my thoughts:

 

Scenario 1:  Out on the play - no appeal necessary

 

Scenario 2:  Out on the play - no appeal necessary

 

Scenario 3:  Out on the play - no appeal necessary

 

Scenario 4:  Out on the play - no appeal necessary

[Jimurray]

I apologize if I'm the kind of knucklehead who has to occasionally repeatedly kick a horse to make sure it's really dead (did that with an elk once, but that bastard was huge and had lots of pointy things I was concerned about). Where are the terms, "passed" or "passing" coming from? I don't see them in the case examples. I'm thinking Johnny08's interp seems more reasonable than those above him. Obviously, if he's beyond the base, he's presumed to have touched it, but something isn't quite sitting right with me--as if the rule wasn't really written for the banger, but rather for the presumption that a runner is presumed to have touched a base once he is beyond the base. And if I'm totally wrong, it certainly won't be the first (or last) time.

Mooseloop- great question. A runner aquuires a bag when he either touches a bag or passes by the bag. He is subject to be out on appeal if he passes by the bag. An umpire must use judgement to determine when a runner passed by the bag. As for ruIf he touches to the foul side of the bag I would say he has passed by the moment his foot or hand reaches the point where he is at or near the bag and would have touched the bag had he been moved over a few inches. As for running over the top of the bag and not touching I would say he has passed by when his foot is over the front edge of 1st base, but I am not sure. I look forward to learning the answer. I appreciate the discussion. Thank you.

I think that is the current interp from somewhere. I believe previous to that interp there was another one requiring all of the runner to be past the back edge of the bag before you rule him safe because there was always a chance of a touch as the runner passes. Picture the BR's lead foot landing a few inches short in front and, as the trail foot goes over without touching and lands behind 1B, the lead foot touches the base as it comes forward off the ground. The ball beats the touch but does not beat the passing of the front edge. The old interp (if my memory is correct) would have you call the BR out. The current one would have you safe him and require the defense to appeal it. But since they saw the touch they probably are not going to appeal. They will probably just argue about what you saw.

Is that

(1) BR slides head first into 1st, his right hand comes down on the dirt clearly past the front plane of the bag but 6" in foul territory. F-3 then catches the ball with foot in contact with bag. Then BR's left hand touches the top of the bag. We're supposed to call that "Safe!" and insist upon a proper appeal of a missed base?

(2) BR plants his left foot in the dirt 6" in front of the bag, his body is airborne over the bag when F-3 catches the ball with a foot in contact with the bag. Then BR's right foot comes down in the dirt beyond the bag. We're supposed to call that "Safe!" because his body broke the front plane and insist upon a proper appeal of a missed base?

(3) BR plants his left foot in the dirt 6" in front of the bag, his body is airborne over the bag when F-3 catches the ball with a foot in contact with the bag. Then BR's right foot comes down square in the middle of the bag. That's every banger. We all know that's an out. But the interp above suggests he's safe, but subject to being called out on appeal.

(4) BR plants his right foot in the dirt 6" to the foul side of the bag but past the front plane. F-3 then catches the ball with a foot in contact with the bag. Then BR intentionally extends his left foot and touches the top of the back of the bag. We're supposed to call that "Safe!" and insist upon a proper appeal of a missed base?

I'm left with: If BR actually touches the bag at some point as he passes after the catch, then he's out. However, if he never touches the bag as he passes after the catch, he'll be safe if he broke the plane before the catch. I feel like a Pope who's just been told the sun and planets do not orbit the earth.

This thread will/will not clear up your confusion:

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/59334-failure-to-touch-1b/?hl=%2Bmissed+%2Bfirst+%2Bbase