Jump to content
  • 0
alex7

NCAA missed home-plate appeal question

Question

Hello, everyone. I'm stuck between b and d as possible answers, and am having a hard time thinking of a play the D would make that is NOT initiated by the offense. From the test:

R2, one out. R2 attempts to score on B3’s single to center field. F2 misses the tag on the sliding runner, but R2 also misses the plate. F2 sees B3 advancing to second and throws to F4 who tags B3 for the second out.
  • a.
    • R2 may not return and touch home after the subsequent play on B3
  • b.
    • R2’s run counts unless it is appealed.
  • c.
    • R2 may return and touch home after he enters the dugout.
  • d.
    • R2’s missed base cannot be appealed after the subsequent play on B3

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

and if anyone wants to engage on clarifying my thinking:

on missed touches of home with a play there, we're taught not to signal anything. I believe this is different than at other bases, where we would signal safe (BR misses 1st as D misses swipe tag).

How does our non-call at home affect appeal vs R abandoning, if neither side is aware of the missed touch of home?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
31 minutes ago, alex7 said:

and if anyone wants to engage on clarifying my thinking:

on missed touches of home with a play there, we're taught not to signal anything. I believe this is different than at other bases, where we would signal safe (BR misses 1st as D misses swipe tag).

How does our non-call at home affect appeal vs R abandoning, if neither side is aware of the missed touch of home?

They are affirming that they conform with OBR’s “continuous action after a batted ball”. B is the answer. What rule cite would be used I don’t know. It’s an OBR interp but I haven’t found an NCAA equivalent. But I like that this question would suffice as well as another in the test because their appeal rule, if taken literally, would not allow the run to count if appealed or an appeal to be made after a throw into dead ball territory during continuous action. I think@lawump would have an issue with making this test question suffice as an interp to continuous action. But that’s how NCAA does it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
8 hours ago, Jimurray said:

They are affirming that they conform with OBR’s “continuous action after a batted ball”. B is the answer. What rule cite would be used I don’t know. It’s an OBR interp but I haven’t found an NCAA equivalent. But I like that this question would suffice as well as another in the test because their appeal rule, if taken literally, would not allow the run to count if appealed or an appeal to be made after a throw into dead ball territory during continuous action. I think@lawump would have an issue with making this test question suffice as an interp to continuous action. But that’s how NCAA does it. 

The problem I have is that the NCAA has not published an official casebook and/or umpire's manual (with official interpretations).  It forces one to have to look at the NCAA's page on Arbiter (which has some interpretations) and old tests...as well as using persuasive (rather than binding) authority such as Referee Magazine's College Baseball Rules Study Guide and BRD.  They're in desperate need of a casebook like the NFHS or a MiLBUD/MLB Umpire's Manual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

How does our non-call at home affect appeal vs R abandoning, if neither side is aware of the missed touch of home?

The following text is from the 2018 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual (section 5.44, p. 60):

“On a play at the plate, should the runner miss home plate and the fielder miss the tag on the runner, the umpire shall make no signal on the play…the runner must then be tagged if he attempts to return to the plate, if he continues on his way to the bench, the defense may make an appeal…”

The defense is required to recognize that the plate has been missed. So, if the NCAA is anything like the pros the non-call at the plate would have no effect on the defense’s right to appeal. It does not matter whether the umpire’s act of not making a call signifies to the defensive team that the runner failed to touch the plate for purposes of an appeal play. Also, it is not considered abandonment—the runner passed the plate and his run would count unless there is an appeal. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Mr. lawump, I have also wondered why the NCAA does not have a case book. I think I may have found a reason why they don’t. The following interpretation is found in the 2016 BRD in the front matter on page 8—

Official Interpretation:  Paronto:  If no NCAA rule or interpretation exists to cover the situation, the umpire should adopt the OBR rule or interpretation. (e-mail to Childress, 8/4/15)

It goes on to say that the same interpretation appeared in the previous BRD (2015) but from a different rules interpreter. I know that Mr. Richvee has a copy of that edition and that he has mad skills using it so perhaps he can tell us who that previous rules interpreter is.

In addition, the study guide Mr. lawump mentioned (written by George Demetriou) states in its Introduction pretty much the same thing—

“There are a few situations in which the NCAA baseball rules do not address a specific situation. The NCAA has an understanding that for any situation not covered by its rules, the Official Baseball Rules or interpretations applies.”

A pretty cheap and simple solution to not having your own case book, don’t you think?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 1/16/2020 at 7:26 PM, Senor Azul said:

Mr. lawump, I have also wondered why the NCAA does not have a case book. I think I may have found a reason why they don’t. The following interpretation is found in the 2016 BRD in the front matter on page 8—

Official Interpretation:  Paronto:  If no NCAA rule or interpretation exists to cover the situation, the umpire should adopt the OBR rule or interpretation. (e-mail to Childress, 8/4/15)

It goes on to say that the same interpretation appeared in the previous BRD (2015) but from a different rules interpreter. I know that Mr. Richvee has a copy of that edition and that he has mad skills using it so perhaps he can tell us who that previous rules interpreter is.

In addition, the study guide Mr. lawump mentioned (written by George Demetriou) states in its Introduction pretty much the same thing—

“There are a few situations in which the NCAA baseball rules do not address a specific situation. The NCAA has an understanding that for any situation not covered by its rules, the Official Baseball Rules or interpretations applies.”

A pretty cheap and simple solution to not having your own case book, don’t you think?

2015 BRD PAGE 7

OFF INTERP 1-D4: FETCHIET: If no NCAA  rule or interpretation exists to cover the situation, the umpire should adopt the OBR rule or interpretation. ( phone call to cc, 11/27/01

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
8 hours ago, Richvee said:

2015 BRD PAGE 7

OFF INTERP 1-D4: FETCHIET: If no NCAA  rule or interpretation exists to cover the situation, the umpire should adopt the OBR rule or interpretation. ( phone call to cc, 11/27/01

It was also very clearly stated in more than one of the annual clinics I attended way back when.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 1/16/2020 at 6:26 PM, Senor Azul said:

Mr. lawump, I have also wondered why the NCAA does not have a case book. I think I may have found a reason why they don’t. The following interpretation is found in the 2016 BRD in the front matter on page 8—

Official Interpretation:  Paronto:  If no NCAA rule or interpretation exists to cover the situation, the umpire should adopt the OBR rule or interpretation. (e-mail to Childress, 8/4/15)

It goes on to say that the same interpretation appeared in the previous BRD (2015) but from a different rules interpreter. I know that Mr. Richvee has a copy of that edition and that he has mad skills using it so perhaps he can tell us who that previous rules interpreter is.

In addition, the study guide Mr. lawump mentioned (written by George Demetriou) states in its Introduction pretty much the same thing—

“There are a few situations in which the NCAA baseball rules do not address a specific situation. The NCAA has an understanding that for any situation not covered by its rules, the Official Baseball Rules or interpretations applies.”

A pretty cheap and simple solution to not having your own case book, don’t you think?


 

Another dead horse I like to bet on ... I mean beat on ...

 

WARNING: CONTROVERSIAL OPINION — This is possibly the most ignorant mentality in officiating.  “We don’t use their rules.  We use our rules.  Unless our rules don’t cover it, then you should be expected to know a completely different set of rules that you aren’t supposed to be using.”

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...