Jump to content
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Chach

Lindor appeal at 2nd

Question

Guest Chach

On 9-7 the Indians' Lindor was called out on an appeal.   He was on 1st when Santana got a hit to the wall.  Lindor touched 2nd on his way to 3rd.  He got decoyed by the Royals' SS.  He retreated back between 1st and 2nd without touching 2nd.  He then advanced to 3rd.  An appeal was done and he was called out for not retouching.  I contend he was not required to retouch because he was not going back to his previous base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
1 hour ago, Guest Chach said:

On 9-7 the Indians' Lindor was called out on an appeal.   He was on 1st when Santana got a hit to the wall.  Lindor touched 2nd on his way to 3rd.  He got decoyed by the Royals' SS.  He retreated back between 1st and 2nd without touching 2nd.  He then advanced to 3rd.  An appeal was done and he was called out for not retouching.  I contend he was not required to retouch because he was not going back to his previous base.

If he passed 2B back on the way to 1B, passed being defined by an MLBUM diagram, he needed to touch 2B again on the way to 3B. Do you have a rule cite that backs up your contention? Edited to add: I think he actually touched 2B on the way back to 1B but didn’t touch it advancing again to 3B. And he definitely was past 2B on the way to 1B so he would have had to touch 2B on the way to 3B. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

To our guest, Chach, runners are required by rule to touch each base whether the runner is advancing or retreating. Here are the relevant rules--

5.06 Running the Bases

(b) Advancing Bases

(1)  In advancing, a runner shall touch first, second, third and home base in order. If forced to return, he shall retouch all bases in reverse order, unless the ball is dead under any provision of Rule 5.06(c). In such cases, the runner may go directly to his original base.

5.09(c) Appeal Plays

Any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when:

(2)  With the ball in play, while advancing or returning to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he, or a missed base, is tagged;

 

The sad thing about Lindor’s baserunning mistake is that it took a hit away from the batter Carlos Santana since the subsequent appeal was upheld Santana’s hit became nothing more than a force out at second base and a fielder’s choice in the scorebook.

Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  If at the moment the runner misses a base he was forced to touch by reason of the batter becoming a runner, it will be a force out upon appeal…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Chach, there is one more rule that is important to the Lindor play. It is Official Baseball Rule 5.09(b)(6) and it tells us that when a runner retreats a force can be re-instated (I’ve bolded the relevant portion). So when Lindor retreated past second base toward first he re-instated the force at second and then he bypassed second on his next advance to third making him vulnerable to an appeal.

5.09(b) Retiring a Runner

Any runner is out when:

(6) He or the next base is tagged before he touches the next base, after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner. However, if a following runner is put out on a force play, the force is removed and the runner must be tagged to be put out. The force is removed as soon as the runner touches the base to which he is forced to advance, and if he overslides or overruns the base, the runner must be tagged to be put out. However, if the forced runner, after touching the next base, retreats for any reason towards the base he had last occupied, the force play is reinstated, and he can again be put out if the defense tags the base to which he is forced;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

So when Lindor retreated past second base toward first he re-instated the force at second and then he bypassed second on his next advance to third making him vulnerable to an appeal.

This statement is misleading. He's vulnerable to appeal because he missed a base. The force being reinstated is irrelevant and does not "make" him vulnerable (it is not a kind of appeal play).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
12 hours ago, Guest Chach said:

On 9-7 the Indians' Lindor was called out on an appeal.   He was on 1st when Santana got a hit to the wall.  Lindor touched 2nd on his way to 3rd.  He got decoyed by the Royals' SS.  He retreated back between 1st and 2nd without touching 2nd.  He then advanced to 3rd.  An appeal was done and he was called out for not retouching.  I contend he was not required to retouch because he was not going back to his previous base.

It's called the "last time by" principle.  If he touched the base the last time by, it doesn't matter whether he misse4d it either (or both) of the first two time.  If he missed it the last two times, it doesn't matter whether he touched it the first two times.

 

(I will add (in an edit) that there are some subtleties to this, especially depending on rules code, that are beyond the scope of a "guest" forum.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

It occurs to me that the question might be coming from a different direction: the OP uses the term "retouch," which is umpire-speak for tagging up. Perhaps the question is: how could R1 be appealed for failing to retouch/tag up, when he was not going back to 1B (or 2B, and the ball wasn't caught anyway)?

Two points:

  1. The rules specify two kinds of base running appeals, retouch (tag up) and missed base. The appeal on Lindor was a missed base appeal (the relevant rules have already been cited).
  2. 'Retouch' has its rule book definition (= 'tag up') as well as an ordinary sense (= 'touch again'). As has also been pointed out, when Lindor goes past 2B three times, the crucial touch is the last time by. That's the one that is appealable (or not). If he touched it on a prior time by, then in a sense he's "retouching" the base, but this does not denote "tagging up."

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...