Uh-oh, Warren. I disagree with something you said.
(2)If the runner attempts to return within a reasonable time, even after entering the dugout, he must be tagged for the "Out!" [Unrelaxed action]
Whether or not the runner must be tagged when returning, or whether the plate can be tagged, has nothing to do with a, "reasonable time." The question only comes down to whether the runner immediately returned to the plate or not.
JEA - 7.10(d)
PLAY: The runner slides wide of the plate and the catcher misses with his sweeping tag effort. The runner gets up and decoys that he is going to the dugout then reverses his path abruptly and dives for the plate. The catcher jumps on the plate with the ball held securely and appeals before the runner touches it. Is this a proper appeal or does the run count?
RULING: This out stands since the runner did not make an "immediate effort to return." (Umpire's judgment) At one point, the catcher would have been required to leave the plate area to make the play.
In the above example, the runner did not even reach the dugout, and still the plate could be tagged.
Jim Evans also talks about, "leaving the plate area," and "making no effort to immediately return."
His guidance is sound. Anytime a catcher must leave the area of the plate in order to tag the runner, the catcher may instead step on home plate.
Be careful not to misinterpret J/R and their relaxed action versus unrelaxed action concept. Every time a runner is scrambling back to a base, this is not automatically unrelaxed action requiring a tag. If the runner has progressed far enough away from the base (or plate) to make any appeal an unmistakable act, then this is relaxed action. A tag of the base will do.
Example:
-R1
-Batter smacks a liner to right field.
-R1 was off with the pitch.
-F9 makes a diving catch.
-R1 scrambles back to first.
-F9 fires to F3, who catches the ball just ahead of R1.
Obviously, when this happens, we all know R1 is out on the appeal. But he was scrambling back at the time of the appeal. He could even be so close that he missed beating the throw by a hair. But it matters not. R1 is out and all F3 had to do was tag the base, not R1. This appeal occurred under relaxed action.
Unrelaxed or relaxed action describes the appeal, and not the playing action. This sets up a dynamic in which any appeal made during unrelaxed action can never be interpreted as an unmistakable act.
Example:
-B1 hits it to F6, who bobbles the ball.
-B1 misses first base, but beats the throw by several steps.
-F3 is already standing on the bag with possession of the ball.
-B1 immediately tries to scramble back.
-F3 announces, "I appeal," just before B1 touches the base.
This appeal was made under unrelaxed action. The reason F3's appeal should be denied is that the act of tagging the base coupled with the verbal request must be unmistakable. Since there was no time between the attempt to put out B1 and his scramble back, it is uncertain whether F3's foot was on the base incidentally, or whether he intended an appeal. Therefore it is not unmistakable. Appeal denied.
Time is of the essence. Timing is everything - including during an appeal.
Example:
-Same play.
-This time B1 keeps over-running first base, by several steps.
-The base coach yells out, "You missed first!"
-F3 remains on the bag and then announces, "I appeal," just before B1 makes it back.
In this example, it is relaxed action. B1 had progressed a distance away from first base, B1's return to first is unmistakable in itself, F3's foot remaining on the base is also unmistakable, and there is no doubt here that the appeal should be upheld. B1 is out.
A scrambling runner does not always unrelaxed action make. It is the appeal which is the "action," and not the playing action.
What J/R is teaching us makes good, solid sense. An appeal which starts and ends under unrelaxed action can never be an unmistakable act. There's too much happening for it to be unmistakable. There isn't enough time for it to be unmistakable, despite what the fielder says afterwards.
There must be a relaxation of the action, from the time the miss of the base occurs (or failure to retouch,) to the time an appeal is made. Otherwise the appeal is not viable because it is not unmistakable.
If you keep in mind that these principles were devised to help us determine whether an appeal is unmistakable or not, you shouldn't have a problem understanding why unrelaxed action requires a tag. It is because when an appeal is made and there has been no relaxing of the action, it is impossible to determine if an appeal attempt is unmistakable or not.
I hope I've made some sense.
Sincerely,
Jim Porter
|