quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress:
Well, it helps if you look it up, as Casey Stengel said.
Apologies to Jim Porter. Warren, you and I are just flat wrong.
Here's the relevant quote from Cris Jones:
"[The runner may] come back out of the dugout to correct a baserunning mistake if he does it in a timely manner. Once he has walked away from the plate and/or gone into the dugout, the defense does not have to tag him. They need only appeal."
I know why I missed this. I was so shocked the runner could return from the dugout, I simply did not imprint on my brain the fact that after he enters the dugout, 7.01(d) is no longer in effect.
I have also gone back to read carefully the play Wendelstedt ruled on. In that play the writer is careful to say that the runner beat the ball back to the plate. Apparently, then, even in 1989 it was the same as the Jones' ruling.
My last comment: How the heck did I miss this for 11 years?
Well, Carl, we may well have been just "flat wrong", but I'm not sure I'm ready to concede that quite yet, and here's why:
1. Cris Jones' PBUC ruling (reprinted above) was in two parts. Part (b) is that once the runner has left the plate area, or entered the dugout the defense doesn't have to tag him. They can tag the plate and appeal. That simply follows OBR 7.10(d) and I have no problem with it.
2. Part(a) of Jones' ruling was that having entered the dugout, the runner
is still allowed to return if he does so within a reasonable time period. That is the part of the ruling that was "new" to me. It may or may not be consistent with Wendelstadt's
Baseball America quote; I don't have that.
The real issue is entwined with Part(a). We have discussed Relaxed vs Unrelaxed action on this and other boards many times before. I seem to remember one momentous discussion involving yourself and a number of other posters on one side, and Bob Pariseau and myself on the other. It goes to the question in one of the posts above of exactly when does Relaxed action ever become Unrelaxed action again?
Bob Pariseau and I were aghast that a runner could run past a subsequent base (or two), and then turn around and attempt to return to a missed base and as long as the runner and the ball arrived in the vicinity of the "missed" base at approximately the same time, the action was UNRELAXED
regardless of how far ahead the runner had been. The runner MUST BE TAGGED.
In my post to which Jim objected, I simply applied this principle by saying that when the runner returns from the dugout with the obvious intention of correcting his baserunning error, the action again becomes UNRELAXED and the runner must be tagged. This is the same principle, as I understand it, that would be applied at a missed 2nd base if the runner was between 3rd and 2nd on his way back.
Now, allow me first to say that my views on this subject aren't set in stone. I too have read the JEA on the question. As you correctly point out, however, the Jones PBUC ruling about returning from the dugout clearly supercedes that position. What we have been trying to do in this thread is to come to grips with two different yet complimentary principles; relaxed vs unrelaxed action and tag plays vs appeals at home plate after the runner has left the plate area.
Can UNRELAXED ACTION be reinstated by the actions of the runner, after the runner has passed a succeeding base? Earlier concensus on McGriff's and UT (with Pariseau and Willson dissenting) was YES!
Can UNRELAXED ACTION be reinstated by the actions of a runner, after the runner has missed home plate and entered the dugout? Apparently NO, according to you and Jim Porter in this thread (with Willson no longer dissenting, just confused).
I think you will agree that this is a discussion worthy of this board, and of great value to all umpires who must decide when to allow an appeal for a missed base vs when to require a tag on a returning runner. In the case of the play at home plate, I would have said that if you will allow the runner to return, and require the defense to tag him, any time until he
enters the dugout, then you must also allow the runner to return and require the defense to tag him when he
leaves the dugout on his way back to the plate. This is clearly UNRELAXED ACTION in both cases! However, anytime the runner is actually IN the dugout, or is moving away from the plate and showing no intent to return, then an appeal can be allowed. This is clearly RELAXED ACTION in both cases! I don't see this interpretation of relaxed vs unrelaxed action as inconsistent with Jones' PBUC ruling. The wording isn't obviously inconsistent with OBR 7.10(d) or the JEA on the subject either.
What do you say Papa C and Jim? Have I made the source of my statement and the reasons for my disagreement clear enough to debate?
If unrelaxed action can be reinstated at 2nd base by the actions of a baserunner, why not at home plate? After all, Papa, you have told us many times that this play was transmuted from home plate to ALL of the bases by the MLU's. What about applying the principles of relaxed vs unrelaxed action at the base which sparked it for all other bases?
Cheers,
Warren Willson
------------------
Member and Co-Moderator, UT
[This message has been edited by Warren Willson (edited September 01, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Warren Willson (edited September 01, 2000).]