Missed base?

[DVA7130]

I watching this video, and besides the ball going out of play, watch the runner. Would you call him out for missing first base on proper appeal?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om2B2XohSNs 00:50s is the best angle.

[maven]

No.

R1 may not legally "retreat" from 1B, so he cannot be required to touch 1B before advancing, even if he moves to the "wrong side" of the base. (Rule 5.06(a) Comment/Rule 7.01 Comment)

[Senor Azul]

Why would the runner have to retouch first base? He had already legally acquired the base when he touched the base as a batter-runner. He is not required to retouch first base in order to advance except after a caught fair or foul fly (and some awards). See rule 5.09b5.

[JaxRolo]

Last time by concept?

[DVA7130]

5 hours ago, JaxRolo said:

Last time by concept?

That is what I am thinking. I see no difference from second base.

[maven]

8 hours ago, DVA7130 said:

That is what I am thinking. I see no difference from second base.

For R1 there's a difference from 2B. For R2 there would not be. The difference for R1 vs R2 is apparent in this citation: Rule 5.06(a) Comment/Rule 7.01 Comment

The last time by concept applies to bases to which a runner is advancing. R1 cannot advance to 1B; R2 cannot advance to 2B.

[DVA7130]

I disagree. If r2 started towards 1st then obviously misses the base going to third, you wouldn't call him out? The rule cited doesn't seem to apply, and the runner can retreat to home as long as he doesn't pass it.

[maven]

1 hour ago, DVA7130 said:

I disagree. If r2 started towards 1st then obviously misses the base going to third, you wouldn't call him out? The rule cited doesn't seem to apply, and the runner can retreat to home as long as he doesn't pass it.

Both parts of this claim are false. The BR is the only runner who may legally retreat to home.

This is a TWP, and I will never have to rule on it. If I saw R2 start toward 1B (what, after leading 15 feet toward 3B?), he would either be doing something like getting a running start for a retouch (which is illegal on its own, apart from whether he retouches or "misses" 2B), or making a travesty of the game (also illegal, apart from whether he touches 2B).

R2 is not required to touch 2B in order to advance (he might be required to retouch it, which is not our topic; he is not required to touch it to advance). I'm not calling him out for failing to do something the rules don't require him to do, no matter how confused or whatever he might be.

To put it otherwise: R2 has legally acquired 2B in a manner that he cannot lose (on his own, so not counting a force play), because he cannot legally retreat. If he cannot lose his right to 2B, then he need not touch it to "reacquire" it.

[DVA7130]

It is very obviously not a TWP because I provided a video of it. A runner could very easily pass the base on a pick-off exactly as happened in the video.

You are saying, in your opinion, that he would not have to touch second again the last time by?

[Welpe]

I agree with Maven however I'm going to take a slightly different tack on this play and say I would not rule he had missed first because he never actually passes it on the base path. He has not gained distance towards home as if he were normally running the bases in reverse order (which he can't do going from first to home anyways for the reason maven has already said) so I don't believe he's required to touch it again. I would not sustain an appeal here.

[noumpere]

FED has a case play or interp on this dealing with "overrunning" third toward the outfield and then not touching on the way by.  That could be informative.

 

Sorry that I don't have time to find it this evening.

[maven]

2010 SITUATION 9: R1, on third base, attempts to score on a squeeze play. B4 attempts to bunt, but misses the pitch and F2 comes up with the ball and gets R1 in a rundown between third and home. F2 eventually attempts to throw R1 out at third, but makes a bad throw into left field. R1 steps on third, but his momentum takes him several steps down the foul line behind third base. R1, seeing the bad throw, turns, misses third base as he advances to home. After R1 has touched home plate and enters the dugout, the defense calls “Time” and verbally appeals R1 missing third.

RULING: R1 is out on the valid defensive appeal. R1 must touch third base again on his way to home plate. (8-2-1, 8-2-6c)

[noumpere]

Thanks, Maven.  I will point out that I argued the other side before 2010 (and I still think the ruling is "wrong.")

[Cav]

NFHS CB 2.29.3 Situation: With one out and R1 on first base, B3 hits a fly ball to short left field. R1 rounds second, but retreats toward first base when he thinks the ball will be caught. The ball drops, but F7 retrieves the ball and throws it to second base. R1 is between first and second.  RULING: R1 is out, as the force was reinstated when he retreated past second base.

Given that NFHS sit, 

A runner can legally advance/acquire/touch/pass a base;

That same runner can literally un-advance/un-acquire/un-touch/un-pass that same base by "retreating" in the opposite direction to a base to which he is no longer able to legally acquire/touch/pass; and,

That same runner's actions literally "reinstated" all of the running proscriptions with which he was burdened on one side of the base that he had "owned" but not on the other side.

The question becomes, if not already out there: If a force can be "reinstated" by a runner's own actions, cannot the obligation that he touch the base while advancing also be "reinstated?"

This can be the start of a new thread if the mods deem it so.

    

 

[maven]

31 minutes ago, Cav said:

The question becomes, if not already out there: If a force can be "reinstated" by a runner's own actions, cannot the obligation that he touch the base while advancing also be "reinstated?"

Nobody disputes that question. That's a garden-variety "last time by" question that doesn't settle whether to extend "last time by" to a base behind a runner.

The answer to the question of the OP is answered by the 2010 Interp I posted above. I don't like it, but I recognize its authority (and acknowledge noumpere's prodigious memory).

[BT_Blue]

I think the difference between the case play above and the OP video is the statement "several steps." In the OP video, Crisp takes one step past and one step to the side as he turns. To me... this does not count as "several."

Now... If he goes, some strange reasons, all the way into the coaches box. Then turns and misses 1st. I think we could have a valid argument that LTB could come into play.