quote:
Originally posted by Jim Porter:
[snip]
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.
[snip]
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.
[snip]
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
Jim,
You have made EXCELLENT sense, and this is EXACTLY the position that both Bob Pariseau and I took on Relaxed vs Unrelaxed action in an earlier discussion on McGriff's and [UT1]. My recollection is that the opposing view was Unrelaxed action could be
reinstated after a period of Relaxed action IF the ball and the runner arrived in proximity to the base at about the same time.
I disagreed with that principle, as apparently do you from reading your wonderful post. Do you have anything to quote from Jaksa/Roder which clearly supports your interpretation that Unrelaxed action can't be reinstated if it is followed by a period of Relaxed action? If so, I will cheerfully revise my post, and my views, to concur with your interpretation, and enjoy the apparent vindication of Bob Pariseau's and my views on the subject expressed elsewhere quite some time ago.
Cheers, mate.
Warren
------------------
Member and Co-Moderator, UT