another missed base scenario

[AlwaysImprove]

Are we all reading the same thread here?

MTR's first response was measured, factual and to the point. He answered the question in about as neutral a fashion as you could get.

Then...the original poster says the base umpire was out of position (he wasn't), that the plate umpire saw the miss (but it's not his call to make and, besides, I'm not sure how somebody knows for certain what another person saw), talks about the coach calling time to make the appeal (you can't do that), says that the rule is stupid and that the appeal process is ridiculous. After being called on that, he calls somebody "a tool" and talks about beating up an umpire.

So much for "simple courtesies"...Sorry, but with that attitude you better be ready to take whatever flak you get.

Really? Yeah, tool was uncalled for. Threat of violence was over a line, but should not be taken too seriously, as it is made on an anonymous message board, made by someone not even willing to take the effort to go locate a new rulebook. I doubt he would actually take the time to go find someone and beat them up for being condescending to him.

First I will clearly state. I always learn from MTR's posts. In that regard he gets the "AlwaysImprove" seal of approval, and that will continue.

That said, it takes longer than it should to read through the condescension and get to the actual meat. I think his answers often intentionally do not directly address, are obtuse, or leave out information to trip people up. I have learned with time how to read them, but new users are often going to react similar to Dad, Sean, clint and others on this thread.

This same communication pattern is rampant in the IT world. It is done on purpose. I suspect the same from MTR.

While MTR is probably the most knowledgeable in the rules book. What Dad is saying is that this is what UmpSteve, Bretman, tcanzino, Crabby_Bob and a others that post here do a much better job of communication and MTR has something to learn from them.

I mean the point of an Umpire Corner is for the more knowledgeable to tolerate stupid, inane or uniformed questions from the less knowledgeable.

[Steve M]

"While MTR is probably the most knowledgeable in the rules book. What Dad is saying is that this is what UmpSteve, Bretman, tcanzino, Crabby_Bob and a others that post here do a much better job of communication and MTR has something to learn from them."

While many of us are able to speak with knowledge and expertise, let's keep in mind that MTR speak with that and with authority. There is a difference.

[AlwaysImprove]

"While MTR is probably the most knowledgeable in the rules book. What Dad is saying is that this is what UmpSteve, Bretman, tcanzino, Crabby_Bob and a others that post here do a much better job of communication and MTR has something to learn from them."

While many of us are able to speak with knowledge and expertise, let's keep in mind that MTR speak with that and with authority. There is a difference.

Arrogance on the part of the meritorious is even more offensive to us than the arrogance of those without merit: for merit itself is offensive.
Friedrich Nietzsche

[clintbos]

But Clint, when you said earlier that you would signal the runner OUT (if I read what you wrote correctly), then why would the runner ever need to return to the base? And as has been stated and cited that a runner missing a based is assumed to have touched the base unless properly appealed by the defense.

Never have been able to find a 2011 ASA Book online so I have to use a 2005 book until I become active again I guess...

I stated I would signal an out after the live appeal requirements have been satisfied. If she never touched the bag and either appeal was never made, then you make no call.

She needs to return to the bag before the defense can make a live appeal. Look at it this way...She misses the bag, no throw is made to first base, she returns to the bag...who in their right mind would ask for a dead ball appeal...she is standing on the bag. Only way to get her out is throw the ball to first base (ball in possession) touching the based missed, runner is still on playing field, Live appeal satisfied runner is out.

In the case that Batter-Runner becomes Runner after missing the bag and continues to second and play was never made at first then a dead ball appeal becomes neccessary and the intention to do so needs to be announced and properly appealed for.

I am interpreting "ASSUME" as to keep your mouth shut until a play is made on her and make the call... decide did she get back to the base before the throw arrived or after. Bretman spoke about "giving the defense a gift" but no one has spoke about the runner scoring from second because first baseman is over there trying to get your attention saying "she missed the bag" and beating her foot up and down on the bag". That is two gifts to the offense - Missed bag and run scoring.

http://www.azsoftball.org/misc/2006/Misc/05.softball.umpire.rulebook.pdf

Page 134 of 290 Points of Emphasis 1. Appeals B. Live

You also seem to have stated that by virtue of a defender in possession of the ball and touching the base constitutes an appeal.

You just described a live appeal which I provided a link and a page number.

By definition and most of the laws of physics, an appeal is a secondary action. The primary action of being "in contact" was an attempt to retire the B-R on the way to 1B. Please tell me how you think that if F3 is receiving a throw from F6 with absolutley no vision of the B-R behind her would know that B-R missed the base.

I would agree a dead ball appeal is a secondary action. It is my contention F3 doesn't need to know whether she missed the bag or not. The page number I provided says nothing about having knowledge of what they are doing. How many 10U or sorry to say 12U catchers have you seen look astonished that your calling the batter out because she caught a bunted pop-up... she just reacted and happened to catch the ball...batter is still out.

Also, by definition, an appeal is an intentional act. What you write would be an appeal as a result of an unintended consequence.

There is nothing unintentional about a fielder throwing a ball to first in order to get the batter-runner out at first base.


I appreciate you and Bretman's informative replies and while I have had some people agree with me on this issue, I am concerned that a majority of you guys do not see this.

[Bretman]

I appreciate you and Bretman's informative replies and while I have had some people agree with me on this issue, I am concerned that a majority of you guys do not see this.

For what it's worth, the only person who agreed with you in this thread was the guy that posted the question and admitted that he did not know or understand this rule.

I started to write a point-by-point rebuttal to some of the misconceptions you have about this play, then figured, "Why bother?". If you didn't believe it the first time I posted it, I doubt that you'd believe it the second time I posted it.

All I can really add is that the appeal mechanics I described several pages back are the accepted interpretations, reflect what is currently being taught to umpires and is how we are instructed to rule on this play.

Believe it or not...

[Dad]

I get the ruling now. I had nothing to do with this post, other than reading and learning. But it’s somewhat confusing, I’ve been around the game forever and have always heard get the force at first. I have heard this from coaches, players and umps. Now I get by strict rule interpretation this is not a force out. I’m sure a lot of us can agree when you change common knowledge with a fact it takes some time to get the point across. Again right or wrong the out at first has been a force out my whole life, now you say it’s not. I get it now and appreciate the explanations.
I guess yesterday was a bad day I generally go years between post. Well I don’t like the tone of the responses, people come on here looking for an answer and explanation, but get right call. Please guys sometimes a 30 second explanation or a minute after a game can go a long way. Also as coaches, parents, sometimes we need to listen and learn better.

[tcannizzo]

Never have been able to find a 2011 ASA Book online so I have to use a 2005 book until I become active again I guess...

And you never will, until ASA makes a major policy change to allow pdf versions, or someone rips a copy into a pdf and posts it on line. Personally, I wish they would because it is very practical to be able to search across the rules.
There used to be some availability from unofficial sources, including a resource out of Texas, but they have been quashed by ASA.
You will receive your own hard-copy when you register with ASA.

She needs to return to the bag before the defense can make a live appeal. Look at it this way...She misses the bag, no throw is made to first base, she returns to the bag...who in their right mind would ask for a dead ball appeal...she is standing on the bag.

And what umpire in their right mind would grant a dead ball appeal since the ball is still live?
Unless the ball entered DBT, in which case the runner is required to complete their base-running responsibilities, meaning returning to touch any missed bases.

Only way to get her out is throw the ball to first base (ball in possession) touching the based missed, runner is still on playing field, Live appeal satisfied runner is out.

The only way to use that logic is if no throw had been made due to player indifference, AND the runner missed the base, AND they then throw to the base BECAUSE in an attempt to make the live ball appeal.

You also seem to have stated that by virtue of a defender in possession of the ball and touching the base constitutes an appeal.

You just described a live appeal which I provided a link and a page number.

If you did this in a game, you would have incorrectly applied a rule. If coach protested game, he would win the protest.

Try this: While the action may be the same, i.e. "throw ball to base before runner touches base", there are two separate and distinct rules that call for this. One is a force out, the other is a live ball appeal. In a live ball appeal due to missed base, this is not a force out. These are very, very different.

I would agree a dead ball appeal is a secondary action. It is my contention F3 doesn't need to know whether she missed the bag or not. The page number I provided says nothing about having knowledge of what they are doing.

The word "knowledge" does not appear even in the 2011 book.
C'MON MAN!

How many 10U or sorry to say 12U catchers have you seen look astonished that your calling the batter out because she caught a bunted pop-up... she just reacted and happened to catch the ball...batter is still out.

Just as many 18-Gold players and coaches who astonished due to their ignorance of IFF, OBS, INT and numerous other rules. Which is equally irrelevant.

There is nothing unintentional about a fielder throwing a ball to first in order to get the batter-runner out at first base.

Correct. And what does the rule book say about that? B-R is OUT if the ball beats B-R to the base. Which did not happen. Why? because the rules state that if a runner misses a base they are assumed to have touched the base unless properly appealed. (wait, is there an echo in here?) What does this mean? It means that the runner is SAFE until another action taken by the defense that constitutes a legitimate appeal.

[Battle]

I understand all that is said here but what I don't understand is how the most routine play in baseball/softball got so complicated by the rule book. I would have to believe that in the beginning, it was a fairly simple ruling...who ever actually touched 1st base first got the call ( of course F3 would have to have the ball).

[tcannizzo]

I understand all that is said here but what I don't understand is how the most routine play in baseball/softball got so complicated by the rule book. I would have to believe that in the beginning, it was a fairly simple ruling...who ever actually touched 1st base first got the call ( of course F3 would have to have the ball).

Mike, jump in here with the history...but in the earliest game you didn't have to touch the base at all, just hit the player with a thrown ball.

[clintbos]

I appreciate you and Bretman's informative replies and while I have had some people agree with me on this issue, I am concerned that a majority of you guys do not see this.

For what it's worth, the only person who agreed with you in this thread was the guy that posted the question and admitted that he did not know or understand this rule.

I started to write a point-by-point rebuttal to some of the misconceptions you have about this play, then figured, "Why bother?". If you didn't believe it the first time I posted it, I doubt that you'd believe it the second time I posted it.

All I can really add is that the appeal mechanics I described several pages back are the accepted interpretations, reflect what is currently being taught to umpires and is how we are instructed to rule on this play.

Believe it or not...

Sean jordan Agreed as you stated.
Comp agreed with the exception of must be stated.
YOU agrreed by apparently stating a baseball ruling again with exception of appeal must be stated.
Crabby Bob agreed with no exceptions