Leaving early kerfuffle

[ousafe]

Little League minors division. (Due to level of play I will give a ton of grace on interpretation of appeals. But I'd like to chase down the "proper" solution.)

R3 only, none out.

Fly ball to outfield, caught for an out. R3 has left early (actually never retouches after taking a secondary lead), touches home plate, and heads for his 3B dugout.

Coaches tell R3 to go back, so he runs directly from his dugout area to 3rd, without touching home plate again.

With R3 back in contact with 3rd, the defense fields the ball belatedly to 3rd where they tag the base but not R3.

What is the "proper" call? In my mind I have 2 solutions: 1) R3 has retouched and is safe. For an out, the defense now has to clearly appeal that he missed home plate on the way back, or 2) R3 has not retouched properly because he did not touch home plate on the way back, so R3 is out.

TIA

P.s. lots of coaches yelling various things the entire time!

[Velho]

To clarify: the situation is

1) R3 leaving early on the caught ball (i.e. the traditional, all codes, all levels of baseball "Leaving Early and subject to out on appeal if they don't tag up")

and NOT

2) "leaving early" in the LL rule of the "cannot leave the base until the pitch reaches the batter" (i.e. when we drop the red flag)?

This is situation #1, correct?

[ousafe]

Yes, situation #1. Thanks

[Coach Carl]

Missing home on the way back to correct his leaving early is also only an out on appeal --7.10(b) includes language for both "advancing" and "returning".  The defense is required to tag the base or the runner.  When the defense tagged 3rd the runner was safe on appeal for leaving 3rd early.  They can now appeal the miss of home by tagging home (which would be a clear appeal of the miss of home) or tagging the runner and giving you an indication that he missed home (to make clear what they are appealing).  

[GiantEngineer]

If he entered the dugout, he can't return to home or third (or any base for that matter)

[ArchAngel72]

Giant brings up something else critical.

 

Did he put a toe into the dead ball area of the dugout?

 

If so he cannot return to the field/base at all legally.

 

Op your description is a little hazy on that "area"

 

 

[beerguy55]

Isn't there an "egregious miss" consideration here?   Eg. R1 gets all the way to third before realizing deep fly ball was caught...R1 runs straight across the diamond to return to first and beats the throw from the defense to first base.  Are we really forcing the defense to change from one appeal to another, simply because the offense was able to correct the first infraction by a total cheat?

In OP R3 is shaving probably 80 feet off his route back to third base by not returning to home first.  (assuming, as stated above, that R3 hadn't entered DBT)

I'm thinking we're calling R3 out for not properly and fully correcting his infraction (by causing a new infraction)....and to that end, I don't care if it's egregious or not.  

[ousafe]

@ArchAngel72 R3 never entered his dugout or DBT in any way.

@beerguy55 you nicely captured my conundrum!

[Vegas_Ump]

29 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Isn't there an "egregious miss" consideration here?   Eg. R1 gets all the way to third before realizing deep fly ball was caught...R1 runs straight across the diamond to return to first and beats the throw from the defense to first base.  Are we really forcing the defense to change from one appeal to another, simply because the offense was able to correct the first infraction by a total cheat?

In OP R3 is shaving probably 80 feet off his route back to third base by not returning to home first.  (assuming, as stated above, that R3 hadn't entered DBT)

I'm thinking we're calling R3 out for not properly and fully correcting his infraction (by causing a new infraction)....and to that end, I don't care if it's egregious or not.  

This is still an appeal play!  The ball must stay in play (or get put back into play), the running violation must be properly described to the umpire (unmistakable appeal), and the play must be made at the proper base or a tag made on the offending runner.

If R3 went into the dugout, he has given up his chance to correct his tag-up violation.  So the appeal must be made at third base. [What he failed to do at the plate is moot!]  If R3 did NOT go into the dugout, he violated his obligation to retouch home plate and then go back to third.  So the appeal must be made with respect to home plate. [He's standing on third, so ostensibly he has corrected his original tagup violation.]  Defense touching home plate (after properly describing their appeal) or tagging the runner (after properly describing the violation at home) is sufficient.

Now, I am not that naive!  🙂  At that level, it's going to be a fire drill with coaches on both teams yammering what to do.  Wait for the festival to happen if time were called!  Oh boy!

Point is, the appeal is relevant but it's got to be done correctly.

Mike

Las Vegas

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

Isn't there an "egregious miss" consideration here?   Eg. R1 gets all the way to third before realizing deep fly ball was caught...R1 runs straight across the diamond to return to first and beats the throw from the defense to first base.  Are we really forcing the defense to change from one appeal to another, simply because the offense was able to correct the first infraction by a total cheat?

In OP R3 is shaving probably 80 feet off his route back to third base by not returning to home first.  (assuming, as stated above, that R3 hadn't entered DBT)

I'm thinking we're calling R3 out for not properly and fully correcting his infraction (by causing a new infraction)....and to that end, I don't care if it's egregious or not.  

OBR, in Wendestedt's interp/opinion, allows "last time by" to correct any baserunning infraction including egregious ones. The retouch would be legal and the appeal would have to be for HP. LL is OBR based but I don't know how WP would rule if there was some protest of such a situation. NHFS and NCAA do not allow "last time by" to correct egregious infractions.

[GiantEngineer]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

NHFS and NCAA do not allow "last time by" to correct egregious infractions.

Can you provide a citation for NFHS?

[Jimurray]

21 minutes ago, GiantEngineer said:

Can you provide a citation for NFHS?

8.2.6 SITUATION H:

 

R1 is stealing on the pitch and a fly ball is hit to right field. R1 misses second base by (a) a few inches or (b) a greater distance because R1 cuts across the infield missing second base as R1 advanced toward third base. F9 catches the fly ball and R1 now retouches second base as R1 retreats to first base. F9's throw is errant and R1 reaches first base ahead of the throw. The defense now appeals that R1 should be out as R1 did not initially touch second base.

 

RULING: In (a), R1 is not declared out as R1 touched second base on the return to first, and as a result, corrected the mistake by touching second on R1's Last time by the base. In (b), R1 is out on the appeal because a runner who misses a base by such a great distance in order to gain an advantage would still be vulnerable to appeal under the principle of last timeby.

[maven]

On this play, as folks are understanding, R3 has committed 2 infractions. (1) Failure to retouch ("tag up"), and (2) missing HP on the way back to 3B to correct #1. (For a short time, as he's on his way back to 3B, he is liable to be appealed for either one (but not both!)).

Once R3 is back on 3B, he has corrected his failure to retouch. He may do this even when the ball is dead. But missing HP may still be appealed.

The question of whether the miss of HP on the return satisfies FED's definition of 'egregious' is doubly moot, as the game was a LL game, and the runner made no effort to correct that error. 

[The Man in Blue]

It may be moot for the OP, but for the sake of training it is very “unmoot” … 😉