Missed Base, Time Play?

[NWO Ump]

Just wondering if anyone can confirm a ruling on this situation:

R3, R1 and two outs.  B3 hits grounder up the middle.  F6 gloves the ball and attempts to tag the sliding R1 instead of tagging the base.  The tag is missed as R1 slides past the base without touching it.  As R1 scrambles back to 2^nd base, F6 tags him.  However R3 scores before the tag was applied to R1 for the 3^rd out.  Curious on the ruling.

My ruling is he passed the base and is “assumed” to have touched it and is called out on the tag and the run counts.  Defense would need to appeal the missed base and at that point, call overturned, 3^rd out is was a force and then the run would be taken off the board.  Is my interpretation of this accurate?  I compare it to R1 rounding 2^nd, getting 1/3 the way to 3^rd, and retreating only to be tagged out at 2^nd on the retreat.

Would I be making an incorrect ruling?

[maven]

You are correct.

Without an appeal, the play on R1 is a play on a runner off base. Because he has acquired 2B (for the moment), the force is off, and retiring him is a time (not "timing") play. Score the run.

Note that it's treated the same as if he slides past the base and touches 2B on the way by. R1's off base and may be retired, but the force is off.

Should the defense subsequently appeal the missed base, that may be granted (assuming R1 in fact missed the base) as an advantageous 4th out. The out on appeal supersedes the tag play. Because R1 did not legally acquire 2B, the appeal results in a force out, and the run does not score.

Same ruling all codes. Mechanics for FED might differ if it's a dead ball appeal.

[NWO Ump]

30 minutes ago, maven said:

You are correct.

Without an appeal, the play on R1 is a play on a runner off base. Because he has acquired 2B (for the moment), the force is off, and retiring him is a time (not "timing") play. Score the run.

 

Thank you.  I did make the change.  That was natural habit typing error.

[maven]

1 minute ago, NWO Ump said:

That was natural habit typing error.

BTDT!

[Biscuit]

C'mon Maven, save something for the rest of us to explain. It's boring when you nail it in the first response!

[maven]

44 minutes ago, Biscuit said:

C'mon Maven, save something for the rest of us to explain. It's boring when you nail it in the first response!

The usual suspect will be along eventually to correct me. I'm sure there's something wrong.

[BLWizzRanger]

A light went off on this after thinking about this. Maybe I an thinking about this too much. I understand the tag of the runner is not a force play in this scenario.  And if I was the U2, I would not verbalize R1 missed the base and await for the play to end with the tag.  Since the play on the runner finished the play, it was a timing play for R3 scoring and an appeal for the fourth out can be had.

But, lets change this with the following two scenarios.  Two outs, R3 and (a) R1 or (b) no R1. 

R3 breaks for home before the pitch and touches home plate before the third out is made. The batter either (a) hits to F4 in the basepath or (b) dribbles up the 1b line.  In (a), R1 stops running and F4 applies the tag to R1 to make the third out.  In (b), BR stops and is tagged out in the baseline. 

Since (a) is a play on the R1, the run scores BUT an appeal can be made at second for the fourth out and this takes the run off the board.  In (b), it is the same - an appeal can be made at first for the fourth out?

Or (a) can stand as a tag out and an appeal is not allowed but, in (b), it is the third out on the BR and the run doesn't score regardless.

 

 

[maven]

First, it's time play, not "timing play." We're seeing this a lot lately!

Second: in both plays (a) and (b), no run can score.

32 minutes ago, BLWizzRanger said:

Since (a) is a play on the R1, the run scores BUT an appeal can be made at second for the fourth out and this takes the run off the board.

This is incorrect. In (a) it's a force out when F4 tags R1 before he touches 2B. No appeal required to nullify the run.

32 minutes ago, BLWizzRanger said:

In (b), it is the same - an appeal can be made at first for the fourth out?

No. In (b) the third out is made by the BR before touching 1B.

Either way, no run can score. Same ruling all codes: no run can score when the third out is either a force out or made by the BR before touching 1B.

33 minutes ago, BLWizzRanger said:

A light went off on this after thinking about this.

Better to leave that light off.

[Replacematt]

14 minutes ago, maven said:

Better to leave that light off.

Oof...easy there.

[BLWizzRanger]

Time. Time. Time. Got it.

In my scenarios, since the force play was still on or available and the runner is positionally in front of the base they are being forced to, the third out ends the inning with no run scoring whether the fielder touches the base or tags the runner.  Got it.

The issue I was having was with the 'play on the runner,' the tag. As an umpire, he should see the bag wasn't touched and 'I' would think the force would still be on.  The fielder could touch the base for the force for the out but the fielder chose to make a play, a tag, on the runner past the base.  It is more the realization that the force was off because the runner was 'past the base.' 

Thank you.

[noumpere]

10 hours ago, BLWizzRanger said:

Time. Time. Time. Got it.

In my scenarios, since the force play was still on or available and the runner is positionally in front of the base they are being forced to, the third out ends the inning with no run scoring whether the fielder touches the base or tags the runner.  Got it.

The issue I was having was with the 'play on the runner,' the tag. As an umpire, he should see the bag wasn't touched and 'I' would think the force would still be on.  The fielder could touch the base for the force for the out but the fielder chose to make a play, a tag, on the runner past the base.  It is more the realization that the force was off because the runner was 'past the base.' 

Thank you.

 

"Force Play" and "tag the base" are not synonyms.  You can have a force play by tagging a runner; you can have an out that's made by tagging the base and it's not a force play.  We usually see this when someone asks about an appeal for failing to tag up and wonders whether the "force out" (sic) cancels the run scoring.

From OBR (but it's the same in all codes): A FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses his right to occupy a base by reason of the batter becoming a runner.

And your example (b) is NOT technically a force play (although it can be thought of as one in all common situations).  that's why "how a run scores" has an exception for the third put being made by the BR before reaching first.  IF this were a force, then this situation would be covered by the "force out" exception.

[BLWizzRanger]

SECTION 24 OUT: FORCE-OUT, PUTOUT, STRIKEOUT,
TAG OUT, THROW-OUT
ART. 1 . . . A force-out is a putout during which a runner who is being
forced to advance is tagged out, or is put out by a fielder who holds the ball
while touching the base toward which the forced runner is advancing (9-1-1
for special case.)

Who knew? Its says it right there.  I can turn the light on now...

[BT_Blue]

12 hours ago, BLWizzRanger said:

Who knew? Its says it right there.  I can turn the light on now...

Best to leave them off for the night. Lest you wake up the children. Lol

[Donny7]

On 2/20/2021 at 12:03 PM, maven said:

The usual suspect will be along eventually to correct me. I'm sure there's something wrong.

Maven,

In my time on this forum, there is no doubt that you are extremely knowledgeable, and supply the absolute best detailed, experience and fact-based answers/explanations. I have learned a lot from this site and the majority of it came from you and your willingness to share with others. For that, I am very grateful and appreciative, just as I’m sure Warren and all of the other members and guests that you have helped are.

You are right 99.9 percent of the time. There has only been one perfect person that walked on this earth, and it aint me, and it’s not you. Showing some humility .1 percent of the time would be good, and prove that you are human, just like the rest of us.    

[maven]

That's funny. Lack of humility in the OP prompted my uncharacteristic snark.

[BT_Blue]

3 minutes ago, maven said:

That's funny. Lack of humility in the OP prompted my uncharacteristic snark.

What's funny, is that it wasn't the OP. But a fellow commenter.

Also, I personally enjoyed the snark. But that's me.

[BLWizzRanger]

Donny7, in the grand scheme of things, handle Maven's snarks as you would the voice from the stands, ignore and laugh at the silliness. 

Looked at it another way, its just the old grizzled coach testing ya on a nut cracker...

Receive as well as you give...

 

 

[wolfe_man]

Just think of it as an umpire 'noogie' --- done in good cheer and with love from a brother.

 

[Kevin_K]

[GreyhoundAggie]

This is a great play to bring up. I'm pretty sure I might have screwed it up if it happened to me since I forgot about the "assumes to have touched" if they pass the bag for the purposes of appeal. I'd have treated it as a force out at first blush.

Thanks @NWO Ump for bringing this up and thanks to @maven for the great explanation.

[Donny7]

17 hours ago, maven said:

That's funny. Lack of humility in the OP prompted my uncharacteristic snark.

Intellectual Humility: The importance of knowing you might be wrong.

[Replacematt]

On 2/22/2021 at 7:29 AM, BLWizzRanger said:

Donny7, in the grand scheme of things, handle Maven's snarks as you would the voice from the stands, ignore and laugh at the silliness. 

Looked at it another way, its just the old grizzled coach testing ya on a nut cracker...

Receive as well as you give...

 

 

Are you trying to say that Donny has no frame of reference?

[BLWizzRanger]

7 minutes ago, Matt said:

Are you trying to say that Donny has no frame of reference?

Nope.

[Replacematt]

3 minutes ago, BLWizzRanger said:

Nope.

Then I guess we know that your actual name isn't Walter.