Bad throw to first, B/R misses first ....

[Senor Azul]

I think this explanation found in the Jaksa/Roder rules interpretation manual will help (yes, it’s OBR but we have already established that all codes use this reasoning):

“A runner who, in the course of running the bases, goes by a base (within a body’s length) has either touched or passed the base; in either case he has ‘acquired’ the base. If he has touched the base, he is not vulnerable to a subsequent appeal that he has missed that base. If he has passed the base, he has failed to touch it, but is considered to have touched it until there is an appeal against his failure to touch. The defense has a responsibility to recognize a failure to touch a base.”

[JaxRolo]

Ok ...I'd like everyone to first pardon my caffeine free morning brain-fart post ....

Yesterday, Varsity league rivalry game, 2nd inning ....  bouncer to F5, throw takes F3 off the bag and up as he must jump, B/R misses first (not perfectly clear, but.....     Now, after B/R returns to first, then F3 tags him (while he's standing on first) and said to me ....'blue he missed first' ....I just signaled safe, and off we went.

Question though (and here's the brain-fart):   If F3 said to me, "blue he missed first" and tags B/R as he comes back to first before he arrives, THEN he would be out, if in fact, he missed first. Yes?   And further, .... F3 must tag the B/R, NOT just touch first, correct?

Fart....fart.....fart...........

Haven't read other replies but you signal safe.

Then F3 can either touch the base or tag the runner on the appeal before he gets back to the base.

[Rich Ives]

6 hours ago, Storm13 said:

I would have never guessed in a million years that if a runner did not touch 1st base that he/she had acquired the base...and would never have guessed that an appeal would be needed in order for the defensive player to get an out of a player that has not touched the base.  Guess I am wrong...lol

It is a missed base.

A missed base requires an appeal.

It's that simple.

[Storm13]

13 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

It is a missed base.

A missed base requires an appeal.

It's that simple.

But on a force play is it really that simple?  If the runner does not touch the base on a force play how can that force no longer be in effect?  I just do not see the logic in the interpretation that is all.  I am obviously wrong in my thinking but just think that if you don't touch the base you really have not eliminated the fact that you are force to that base.

[ALStripes17]

But on a force play is it really that simple?  If the runner does not touch the base on a force play how can that force no longer be in effect?  I just do not see the logic in the interpretation that is all.  I am obviously wrong in my thinking but just think that if you don't touch the base you really have not eliminated the fact that you are force to that base.

BR to 1B is not a force by def'n

And what's the difference in that or a defense tagging a runner sliding into 3B (safely) when the runner missed 2B? The runner is safe on the continuing play, and the defense doesn't get an out on him just for tagging him without making it obvious that it's an appeal for missing 2B.

We don't change that thinking just because the BR can run through 1B.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, Storm13 said:

But on a force play is it really that simple?  If the runner does not touch the base on a force play how can that force no longer be in effect?  I just do not see the logic in the interpretation that is all.  I am obviously wrong in my thinking but just think that if you don't touch the base you really have not eliminated the fact that you are force to that base.

You are partially correct -- if there is an appeal, then the out will be a force out.

 

Your mistake, I think, is in thinking that "force outs" and "appeal outs" are two completely separate things.

[Rich Ives]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

You are partially correct -- if there is an appeal, then the out will be a force out.

 

Your mistake, I think, is in thinking that "force outs" and "appeal outs" are two completely separate things.

Would not be a force out at first base.

[stkjock]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

You are partially correct -- if there is an appeal, then the out will be a force out.

 

Your mistake, I think, is in thinking that "force outs" and "appeal outs" are two completely separate things.

 

6 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Would not be a force out at first base.

would it become a time play on the appeal, if it's the 3rd out, or would be force? (and potentially take a run off the board)

[ricka56]

13 minutes ago, stkjock said:

would it become a time play on the appeal, if it's the 3rd out, or would be force? (and potentially take a run off the board)

Ives was being technically correct...runners are forced to advance when a batter becomes a runner, so BR is technically not a forced runner. For most practical purposes, BR going to 1B is the same as a force play. It is not a time play when the defense appeals BR missing 1B. 

[stkjock]

Thank you Rick, That's what made sense to me as I posted the question.

[noumpere]

Also, this is the HS section, and there's some case play or another to the effect that when BR is out before reaching first it is a force out.  I recognize that this goes directly against the "force play" definition in FED.

[Rich Ives]

36 minutes ago, stkjock said:

 

would it become a time play on the appeal, if it's the 3rd out, or would be force? (and potentially take a run off the board)

It would make the B-R out before touching first.  One of the conditions for a run not counting but separate form the force out condition.

[Dbellyflop]

On 4/14/2016 at 6:25 AM, maven said:

First, please be aware that this thread is in the HS section. OBR citations are not appropriate (even though the rule and mechanics are the same).

@maven

Sorry for the OBR quotes in the High School section, i was just reading unread posts and didn't realize where the post was. and thanks for the explanations, 

however, everything i can find in all rules says the batter becomes a runner when he hits a fair ball, and a runner acquires the right to a base when he touches it.

Here's FED.

Rule 8, Section 2.

ART. 8 . . . A runner acquires the right to the proper unoccupied base if he touches it before he is out. He is then entitled to this base until he is put out, or until he legally touches the next base while it is unoccupied or until a following runner is forced (2-24-1) to advance to the base he has occupied. A runner need not vacate his base to permit a fielder to catch a fly ball in the infield, but he may not interfere

 

[noumpere]

Yes, the rule *reads* about the same in all codes.    Also in all codes, if a runner misses a base, he is assumed to have touched it until there's an appeal.

 

Maybe lawump needs to add that phrase to the book, if it's not already there.

[JaxRolo]

But on a force play is it really that simple?  If the runner does not touch the base on a force play how can that force no longer be in effect?  I just do not see the logic in the interpretation that is all.  I am obviously wrong in my thinking but just think that if you don't touch the base you really have not eliminated the fact that you are force to that base.

First base is not a force play.

[PaulHull]

On April 14, 2016 at 6:47 AM, noumpere said:

8.2.2E  and 8.2.2M taken together seem to come pretty close.  Given the overall confusion on this play, though, I agree that something specific might be needed.

 

The casebook play in 8.2.2 Situation E takes place at second base.  It is interesting to note though, that the force play is still in effect even though the runner has passed the bag and is attempting to return.  "...the defense must tag him unless it is a force play, in which case all they would need to do is touch the base with the ball."  ( I assume this means "...with the ball [in their possession.])  

So, in the OP, the runner would be out if F1 tagged the bag after announcing the infraction.  

[Mister B]

Forgive me for resurrecting this one, but I have a question about the play at HP. If it's a force and R3 beats the throw but missed the plate, does there need to be an appeal or is the tag of the plate enough? Since, I would think that I wouldn't make the call until he touches the plate, I would then call him out if the ball got there and the tag was applied to the base before the touch was made.

[ALStripes17]

Forgive me for resurrecting this one, but I have a question about the play at HP. If it's a force and R3 beats the throw but missed the plate, does there need to be an appeal or is the tag of the plate enough? Since, I would think that I wouldn't make the call until he touches the plate, I would then call him out if the ball got there and the tag was applied to the base before the touch was made.

No. If R3 beats the throw, he is safe until a proper appeal is made on his base running infraction. Just touching the plate is not an appeal. The defense must make it obvious that they are appealing

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Mister B]

35 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

No. If R3 beats the throw, he is safe until a proper appeal is made on his base running infraction. Just touching the plate is not an appeal. The defense must make it obvious that they are appealing

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

So I would signal the runner safe and wait for the appeal. Now if I had a non-forced runner cross HP without touching it, I wouldn't make a call until he either touched the plate or was tagged out. Correct?

I know this is the HS thread, but does anyone know if LL supports unintentional appeals? 

[stevis]

1 hour ago, Mister B said:

So I would signal the runner safe and wait for the appeal. Now if I had a non-forced runner cross HP without touching it, I wouldn't make a call until he either touched the plate or was tagged out. Correct?

I know this is the HS thread, but does anyone know if LL supports unintentional appeals? 

Nope, the rulebook says "clearly intended."

[Mister B]

Thanks, what about the call at HP on a non-forced missed tag? Do I wait for the play or make the call and wait for the appeal? Also, if he missed HP and starts walking away, is tagging the plate and voicing the appeal enough for the out, or does the runner need to be tagged? 

[noumpere]

7 hours ago, Mister B said:

So I would signal the runner safe and wait for the appeal. Now if I had a non-forced runner cross HP without touching it, I wouldn't make a call until he either touched the plate or was tagged out. Correct?

 

5 hours ago, Mister B said:

Thanks, what about the call at HP on a non-forced missed tag? Do I wait for the play or make the call and wait for the appeal? Also, if he missed HP and starts walking away, is tagging the plate and voicing the appeal enough for the out, or does the runner need to be tagged? 

If the runner crosses uncontested, then no call is needed -- whether or not he touches the plate.  Wait for an appeal.

If there's a missed tag AND a missed plate, then signal nothing and keep watching.

If the runner is walking away, an appeal can be made by touching the plate (and making it obvious).  There's some language in some book to the effect that "if the runner has started to return, then the runner must be tagged" but we're giving all the benefit of the doubt here to the defense -- almost to the point that it's only if it's the runner's actions of starting to return that clue in the defense that the plate was missed that we are going to enforce this rule.

[maven]

37 minutes ago, noumpere said:

If the runner is walking away, an appeal can be made by touching the plate (and making it obvious).  There's some language in some book to the effect that "if the runner has started to return, then the runner must be tagged" but we're giving all the benefit of the doubt here to the defense -- almost to the point that it's only if it's the runner's actions of starting to return that clue in the defense that the plate was missed that we are going to enforce this rule.

That's in OBR, and has been the interpretation for a while, but I don't know whether the LL book & rulings have kept up with those changes. The ZR seems to be interested in the LL ruling.

[Mister B]

2 hours ago, maven said:

That's in OBR, and has been the interpretation for a while, but I don't know whether the LL book & rulings have kept up with those changes. The ZR seems to be interested in the LL ruling.

Thanks everyone. Our district UIC, suggested that, "When in doubt, follow OBR. It's better than making something up." 

[maven]

38 minutes ago, Mister B said:

Thanks everyone. Our district UIC, suggested that, "When in doubt, follow OBR. It's better than making something up." 

You could say that about any code.

The problem is, that it IS making something up. Why not default to cricket rules?

Where the codes differ, we need to know it.