From: lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Real-life rulebook trivia
Date: 25 Sep 92 20:09:38 GMT
Organization: Holos Software, Inc.

In article <trn.717367284@warper.jhuapl.edu> trn@warper.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo) writes:

>No.  7.02 states the the runner must *retouch* all bases in reverse order if
>forced to return.  Assuming that the batter-runner was somehow retired before
>reaching first base, you could not nail the runner for missing second *twice*.
>You can't retouch something you haven't touched.

I think you're grasping at semantic straws here.  The baseball rulebook
is notoriously badly written.  I claim that "retouch" here is used
without the thought that the runner might have been stupid enough to
have already missed the base once.  You can change "retouch" to "touch"
and have the same meaning in all cases except the specific one that
we are arguing about: that is, saying "must touch all bases in reverse
order" comes to the same thing.  The "re" in "retouch" isn't there to
mean, as you claim, that perhaps he didn't touch it at all and this rule
doesn't apply.  If the meaning were that perverse they'd have spelled
it out in detail.  No, they said "retouch" simply because it more naturally
comes to mind in describing what happens when a runner is going in
the reverse direction.

>Perhaps you are correct, but I've never seen an appeal made on a runner that
>neglected to touch a base (first, second or third, that is) until the ball was
>dead and the runner had reached at least one base beyond the one missed.

If a runner misses second and heads for third, he either makes it
easily to third or there's a play on him at third.  The outfielder
doesn't know that he missed second base.  Hence, the appeal is always
made after the runner has already advanced.  I don't see how that
can mean that he didn't actually miss the base until he got all the
way to next base.

I mean, in the absence of a definition of "missed base"
you're claiming that a missed base is one that you missed and went on
to touch the next base.  Why?  What's so special about the next base?
I'm claiming that a missed base is missed at the point you head off
to the next stop.  Gee, when a runner doesn't touch a base, don't you
think, right then, "He missed the base"?  You don't think, "He either
missed the base or he's going to run an extra 160 feet to get to it,"
do you?

>>Consider that the rulebook says a runner who misses home can be called
>>out on appeal at home in the case where he makes no attempt to return
>>immediately to home.  This flies in the face of your idea of a missed
>>base, which is that a runner hasn't missed a base even after proceeding
>>well beyond it.
>
>7.08 (k).  Casebook notes on that rule:
>
>	"This rule applies only where runner is on his way to the bench
>	 and the catcher would be required to chase him. [...]"
>
>Rather than flying in the face of my argument, I'd say that this extra explicit
>ruling adds credence to it.  It's not the fact that the runner overran home
>that he's being tagged out for; it's the fact that he is trying to force the
>catcher to chase after him in an area beyond the confines of the base paths.

No, I still think it supports my argument.  The distinction is to make
clear that the usual case where the runner barely misses sliding into
home requires that he be tagged.  I'd say that this was true at second
base, too: if you're stealing second and slide by it they can't call you
out on appeal.  The extra clarification for home plate is needed because
it's the only place where, having reached the base, you'll trot off
somewhere.

>"Obvious" is the last refuge of the intellectually lazy.  Don't blow a good
>argument with this one.

No, I disagree.  I stand by my statement that my interpretation of "missed
base" so obvious that the rulebook writers didn't think it was necessary
to define it formally.  If a missed base means that the base not only has
to be missed but that the runner must have proceeded to the next base,
*that* would have called for a explicit definition.  This differs
from saying "It's obvious that I'm right" which is lazy.  Why *did*
they not define "missed base" if not because its meaning is obvious?

>Anyway, by extending the definition of "missed base" above to include
>touching and *retouching*, second base is a missed base the moment the ball
>is caught in the original scenario.  The runner has proceeded beyond that base
>without touching it the requisite number of times (i.e. 2) he must touch it
>in order to safely return to first.

Hm, he has to touch the base n times, where n mod 2 == 0?  Nah, baseball
folks don't think that way.

BTW, under your interpretation, if the runner on first in the fly ball
scenerio touches second base heading toward third, but then misses it
heading *back* toward first, you can't appeal at second base until
he get all the way to and touches first base, since he still has the
right to take the long way to second base.

This is just too perverse.

>Hmmm.  Wonder if we can get this one sent in for use on one of those "You
>Make The Call" commercials... :-)

Nah, they only take the cut-and-dried.