Quote:
Originally Posted by jicecone
"An appeal should be clearly intended as an appeal, either by a verbal request by the player or an act that unmistakably indicates an appeal to the umpire"
Given the rulebook language quoted above and not having a copy of JR, how is the runner returning to second any different then the runner returning on a tag up or missing home plate. They are both unrelaxed actions and both appealable errors. How does JR justify this . Or am I missing something.
|
I'm trying to understand it too. And I found another problem (at least for me).
Under the general definition of an appeal that applies to a runner (missed base or retouch appeals), J/R states it must be obvious, i.e, by voice and/or unmistakable act (7.10 Comment).
J/R defines action as relaxed or unrelaxed, depending on whether the runner being appealed is attempting to reach a base and the ball is at or approaching the base.
Retouch appeals can be made when the action is relaxed or unrelaxed, and the appeal must be obvious. However, if the action is unrelaxed, the appeal "is only obvious when the runner has clearly failed to retouch, i.e., the runner is at or returning from
a considerable distance away from his TOP base when a fly ball is caught [sic]." (Emphasis added).
An attempt to "double up" a runner who had left the base on the hit (or pitch) and was trying to beat the throw back would always be an obvious retouch appeal.
But consider R3, one out, fly ball to the outfield. R3 leaves the base just before the ball is first touched (caught). Both the umpire and F5 see R3 leave early. R3 stumbles on his way home and tries to return to 3rd. F5 calls for the ball and stretches for the throw, believing he is making a retouch appeal. The umpire knows F5 is trying to appeal, but according to J/R, it is not an appeal because R3 was not a "considerable distance" from the base when the ball was caught. If it's not an appeal, it's a tag play, so if R3 gets back to the base before he is tagged, he is safe. Any subsequent appeal (if J/R even allows it) is denied because R3 corrected his error before the appeal.
In my opinion, that's not how it should be called on the field. What if R3 had continued home and was safe on a close play? The defense could appeal his failure to retouch 3rd, and the appeal would be upheld because the action is now relaxed. It seems to me that strictly following J/R would result in
different rulings on the same appeal.
The rule already says that the appeal must be obvious
to the umpire. The stuff about a considerable distance away from the TOP base is unnecessary, and confounds the interpretation IMO.
Getting back to your (and my) problem, J/R says "A missed base appeal of first (rounded), second or third occurs only when the action is relaxed" (and there is no exception for an obvious appeal) so if the runner is scrambling back to the base, he must be tagged to be out. Furthermore, (from the two relevant examples), if the runner
is tagged, it's still a time play at the plate, so even if R1 is out, he's out on the tag and not by appeal.
Maybe J/R denies subsequent appeals in those two examples because R1 made it back to the base and therefore corrected his error before the appeal - it's not clear.