"Unscoring" a run

[The Man in Blue]

4 hours ago, Replacematt said:

A) F2 sees R2 coming back to touch HP and assumes it's because R2 missed HP. F2 tags R2. What do you signal? Probably call R2 out, since I doubt that F2 is going to specifically call out a miss of home. I'm going to be very broadly accepting of an out here as long as it's an appeal, and not requiring it to be the appeal.

Interesting levels of detail in this conversation!

I'm curious about this one, though.  Why would we not be requiring F2 to explicitly state what he is appealing and then ruling accordingly?

NFHS case play 8.2.6.g (2018) deals with an appeal when two runners miss 2B.  The fielder states he is appealing that the batter-runner missed the base. The case play holds the defense must be explicit in which runner they are appealing in order for it to be a proper appeal.

My reaction on (A) above is that I am asking F2 what he is appealing.  If he says the runner missed home, I am signaling safe.  If he states the runner missed third, I am granting the appeal.  If he guesses wrong the first time, he is still able to correct that and make the correct appeal.

[MadMax]

On 5/11/2025 at 4:05 PM, The Man in Blue said:

Max, I know none of us are perfect, but that's two in a few days!  😋

The defense leaving the field is a HUGE part of it.  Once they have all left fair territory, they can no longer appeal.

Goldammit! 

Chalk it up to me lacking sleep, and traveling about 1200 miles in the past 4 days on the road. Ugh. 

 

[The Man in Blue]

It's all good, @MadMax . . . 

 

I still respect your AUTH-ORI-TAH!

And I still want to be you when I grow up.  😁

[The Man in Blue]

LOL . . . I haven't watched it yet, but attached to our weekly rules quiz was this video:

 

 

[Replacematt]

4 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Interesting levels of detail in this conversation!

I'm curious about this one, though.  Why would we not be requiring F2 to explicitly state what he is appealing and then ruling accordingly?

NFHS case play 8.2.6.g (2018) deals with an appeal when two runners miss 2B.  The fielder states he is appealing that the batter-runner missed the base. The case play holds the defense must be explicit in which runner they are appealing in order for it to be a proper appeal.

My reaction on (A) above is that I am asking F2 what he is appealing.  If he says the runner missed home, I am signaling safe.  If he states the runner missed third, I am granting the appeal.  If he guesses wrong the first time, he is still able to correct that and make the correct appeal.

So, first off, OBR has the same premise.

However, I'm thinking of the reality of such a play. This isn't going to occur in a vacuum--the runner isn't going to start to return on their own volition, or else they would have stopped and corrected the miss immediately after it happened. They are going to do it because someone, likely the defense but possibly an unthinking teammate, brings it to their attention. The totality of such a situation tells me that the defense is making an appeal of the missed base by tagging them. If, for some reason, there is some ambiguity, then yeah, I'll ask. But in a situation where everybody knows what is happening, even if the detail is vague, it's really grabbing the SH*#ty end of the stick and the turd that made it so to not grant the appeal.

One key difference here is that this caseplay (and the OBR one) really is about determining the difference between shopping for a favorable call and a legitimate appeal.

[The Man in Blue]

11 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

The totality of such a situation tells me that the defense is making an appeal of the missed base by tagging them. If, for some reason, there is some ambiguity, then yeah, I'll ask. But in a situation where everybody knows what is happening, even if the detail is vague, it's really grabbing the SH*#ty end of the stick and the turd that made it so to not grant the appeal.

One key difference here is that this caseplay (and the OBR one) really is about determining the difference between shopping for a favorable call and a legitimate appeal.

 

The runner heading back to the plate, IMO, is ambiguity.  Sure, we (hopefully) know why, but "everybody knows" is never going to be the case.  F2 sees him coming back, so he tags him.  F2 may or may not know why.  Sure, if the runner does a big old "air bomb stomp" on the plate, I agree with you, it is obvious we aren't talking about home plate.  

Food for thought: what about situation where the touch at third base was not your call?  Now you NEED to know what F2 is asking for. 

It isn't about denying an appeal, it is about knowing what it is they are are asking you to rule on.  As I said, nothing stops them from correcting their error if F2 missed home.  I agree, there is a big difference between trying to get the appeal right and just fishing.  IMO, not specifying or not knowing why is fishing.

[BLWizzRanger]

9 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

The runner heading back to the plate, IMO, is ambiguity.  Sure, we (hopefully) know why, but "everybody knows" is never going to be the case.  F2 sees him coming back, so he tags him.  F2 may or may not know why.  Sure, if the runner does a big old "air bomb stomp" on the plate, I agree with you, it is obvious we aren't talking about home plate.  

I was thinking what if the R2 was just going back to the plate to pick up the bat left there from the swing? A step back with urgency toward home plate would be a key in this situation, I guess. 

[Replacematt]

11 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

The runner heading back to the plate, IMO, is ambiguity.  Sure, we (hopefully) know why, but "everybody knows" is never going to be the case. 

Overthinking leads to overcalling. Overcalling leads to arguments. Arguments lead to ejections. Ejections lead to reports.

 

1 hour ago, BLWizzRanger said:

I was thinking what if the R2 was just going back to the plate to pick up the bat left there from the swing? A step back with urgency toward home plate would be a key in this situation, I guess. 

If you have an attempt, you do. If you don't, you don't.