R3 Misses Plate on Walk

[SC Ump]

Originally posted by chuckfan1
...Off coach argues that F2 needed to tag R3, and that R3 had up until he entered the dugout to touch home...

While this might be true, there is still the consideration of relaxed vs. unrelaxed that must occur, just as DG mentioned.

In the play in the first post of this thread, with a walk, with a missed home plate, with the runner and teammates in front of their dugouts high-fiving each other... it seems to me to be relaxed action and the player would not need to be tagged.

[DG]

Originally posted by Rich Ives

He wasn't walking away. He was scrambling back. In fact, the throw arrived "just ahead of the now conscious R3" because he now knew he hadn't touched.

The thread I read said he was near the dugout high-fiving his teammates. If he has walked away from the vicinity the unrelaxed action is over.

[Rich Ives]

DG - go back and read it again.

Def coach notices this, and calls for the pitcher to throw the ball back to the catcher. Pitcher was standing in front of the mound. F1 throws to F2, who now steps on the plate, just ahead of the now conscious R3. R3 only tried to return to touch home, when alerted to the fact he missed home.

[dddunn3d]

ORIGINAL:
Bases Loaded. Ball 4 to batter. R3 comes in, but misses home plate by about two feet, fair territory, continuing on towards his 1st base dugout. Starts high-fiving teammates, etc. Does not get all the way to the dugout....
R3 only tried to return to touch home, when alerted to the fact he missed home.

I don't believe that action can go from unrelaxed to relaxed, then revert back to unrelaxed because the runner suddenly gets a clue.

Are there any interpretations, etc. that address bouncing between relaxed and unrelaxed action on the same play?

[Rich Ives]

Originally posted by dddunn3d
ORIGINAL:


I don't believe that action can go from unrelaxed to relaxed, then revert back to unrelaxed because the runner suddenly gets a clue.

Are there any interpretations, etc. that address bouncing between relaxed and unrelaxed action on the same play?

I don't think ou can limit your question to the runner's actions. You have to look at a situation and see if the overall action can relax/unrelax. HOw about: batter hits a triple, stops at third, action relaxes, F6 misfires on the return throw to the pitcher, ball goes into foul teritory, runner takes off again?

[mcrowder]

There's nothing that says you can't change from relaxed to unrelaxed action, and there's no rule that says the offense can't react to actions (or words) made by the defense. If defense is screaming "He missed the plate, he missed the plate!!!" and offense hears it an reacts, he is no longer "unrelaxed". Heck, the offense reacts to defensive plays (or misplays) all the time, taking action from relaxed to unrelaxed state. And on this play, the player had been unrelaxed for long enough to almost get back to the plate. I think you need a tag here.

Now, with this kid in the midst of his teammates, I'd surely be keeping a watchful eye on them. If any of them turns him around or nudges him toward home plate (or even halts his progress away from home plate), he's out for interference if it's clear he now intends to run home to avoid the appeal.

[Rich Ives]

Originally posted by mcrowder

Now, with this kid in the midst of his teammates, I'd surely be keeping a watchful eye on them. If any of them turns him around or nudges him toward home plate (or even halts his progress away from home plate), he's out for interference if it's clear he now intends to run home to avoid the appeal.

I'm not so sure you can do that. The prohibition is only for coaches at 1st and third.

7.09 e) Any member or members of the offensive team stand or gather around any base to which a runner is advancing, to confuse, hinder or add to the difficulty of the fielders. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate or teammates;

Not a fit.

7.09 i) In the judgment of the umpire, the base coach at third base, or first base, by touching or holding the runner, physically assists him in returning to or leaving third base or first base.

Not a fit.

7.10 d) He fails to touch home base and makes no attempt to return to that base, and home base is tagged.

Not a fit.

If a runner stumbles and falls, a following runner can help him up as long as he doesn't pass, so there are times when teammates can legally physically assist.


People are searching for a reason to either allow the non-tag appeal or to just call him out. Before you search more, ask yourself if you are doing it just because the play as it unfolded didn't seem "right" so you are trying to justify shooting ther runner.

[dddunn3d]

7.08(k) ...

This rule applies only where runner is on his way to the bench and the catcher would be required to chase him. It does not apply to the ordinary play where the runner misses the plate and then immediately makes an effort to touch the plate before being tagged. In that case, runner must be tagged.

The AR(above) attached to the rule itself says 1)that the effort by the runner to return must be immediate, and 2)failing immediate return the runner is subject to being called out on appeal. Nowhere does it imply that the runner may, after a time, return to touch home and thereby reinstate the slight protection afforded by the AR of having to be tagged for the out.

We may ask "What constitutes an 'immediate return'?" Well, that's why there are umpires: it becomes a judgement call. However, in the original situation it is painfully obvious that the runner's return is NOT IMMEDIATE.

[mcrowder]

Rich, I see your point, but you have to look at the intent of the rules here, since (as often) it isn't spelled out perfectly. If you only look at the wording of the rules you quoted, without looking at the intent, there's nothing wrong with a fan coming on the field to aid a runner, or 3B coach running out to second base to aid a runner (or a coach who was formerly in the dugout aiding a runner).

Another runner currently on the basepaths can help a runner - but surely you're not extending this to allow a player to come from the bench to aid a runner.

ddddun - can you list ALL of 7.08k - I'm at work and don't have it in front of me. You have me thinking.

[Rich Ives]

Originally posted by dddunn3d
7.08(k) ...

This rule applies only where runner is on his way to the bench and the catcher would be required to chase him. It does not apply to the ordinary play where the runner misses the plate and then immediately makes an effort to touch the plate before being tagged. In that case, runner must be tagged.

The AR(above) attached to the rule itself says 1)that the effort by the runner to return must be immediate, and 2)failing immediate return the runner is subject to being called out on appeal. Nowhere does it imply that the runner may, after a time, return to touch home and thereby reinstate the slight protection afforded by the AR of having to be tagged for the out.

We may ask "What constitutes an 'immediate return'?" Well, that's why there are umpires: it becomes a judgement call. However, in the original situation it is painfully obvious that the runner's return is NOT IMMEDIATE.

All of 7.08(k) - I added the emphasis.

In running or sliding for home base, he fails to touch home base and makes no attempt to return to the base, when a fielder holds the ball in his hand, while touching home base, and appeals to the umpire for the decision.

The case book note attached to the rule:

This rule applies only where runner is on his way to the bench and the catcher would be required to chase him. It does not apply to the ordinary play where the runner misses the plate and then immediately makes an effort to touch the plate before being tagged. In that case, runner must be tagged

Bottom line:

"Immediate" is NOT defined in the rules.

He DID attempt to return.

The catcher would NOT have to chase him.

A tag is thus required.

Methinks you don't think it should be that way so you're looking for a reason to call the out on appeal.

[Tim C]

I have stayed out of the fray until now.

I stayed out for an obvious reason that will become evident.

I want to use a companion play to the original and then ask a question:

R2 -- outs don't matter.

Single to F8 and R2 is attempting to score . . .

We have a normal slide and tag play EXCEPT . . .

There is no tag and no touch of the plate by the sliding R2.

Now I have probably had this play about 50 to 100 times over my career.

About half the time no one recognizes (immediately) that I have made no signal. Runner starts to walk towards dugout and F2 stands near the dish head hanging and is "guessing" that the run scored.

Most of the time a voice rings out, "he missed the plate, he missed the plate!!!" and all attention is turned towards moi.

Now while the activity around the plate seems to be "relaxed" (i.e. runner is usually walking towards the dugout and catcher is still in the reflective state) it DOES NOT MEAN the play is relaxed . . . there is no outcome and therfore the PLAY is still "unrelaxed."

I have never taken the terms "relaxed" and "unrelaxed" to have anything to do with the players actions but it has everything to do with the activity of the play.

When my play continues we always see the famous R2 runner dance at home plate with R2 trying to figure out how to trick F2 to get exposed and let him sneak home.

The play, as always, has continued to be unrelaxed.

The play normally ends with F2 applying some type of TAG to end this dance.

First my question:

Would this play be different if it was a walk and R3 missing the dish?

Why did I stay out of this discussion so long?

I have to admit that I agree with Rich Ives!!!!!

It is rather obvious to me that a tag must be made as the play never became "relaxed".

Tee

[dddunn3d]

Rich - Now I think you're fishing for a reason to excuse the runner's initial improper action.

The AR attached to the rule is where the concept of "immediate effort to touch" comes into the situation ("[The]ordinary play [is]where the runner misses the plate and then immediately makes an effort to touch the plate before being tagged."). This sentence establishes two cases: 1) the "ordinary" play, and 2) all others. This situation as noted in the AR definitely falls under the category of not ordinary. Therefore the runner does not have to be tagged in order to be put out. It is as simple as that.

You wrote:

Bottom line:

"Immediate" is NOT defined in the rules.
He DID attempt to return.
The catcher would NOT have to chase him.
A tag is thus required.
[list=1][*]For the definition of "immediate" refer to the closest dictionary.
[*]He did attempt to return, but as I have tried to explain, once his attempt became non-immediate a tag was not required.
[*]Of course not; the fool runner came to the catcher. But consider this: what if the runner, instead of returning straight to home in his attempt to touch, runs back towards the backstop first, then dodges around awhile, then goes out towards the mound, etc. Are you going to try to make the same case that he must be tagged somewhere along this path? "Of course not," you reply. "The runner would then be out for leaving his basepath." OK, but when/where does the runner establish his basepath? At the point when he first turns towards home? Or when he realizes that he is subject to appeal? Or is it established for him when the defense initiates that appeal? There are too many nuances involved to argue your line-of-reasoning. That's why the AR states that the runners' attempt to return to home to correct the error must be immediate.

[dddunn3d]

T,

"I have never taken the terms 'relaxed' and 'unrelaxed' to have anything to do with the players actions but it has everything to do with the activity of the play."

Now it's my turn: HUH????

The action of the players is what constitutes a play. You can no more divorce the "activity of the play" from the players themselves as you could a dancer from her dance. I think the terms continuous and non-continuous fit your line-of-thought better.


BTW, you replied before me because I was discovering how to make bold type, italics, etc.

[Edited by dddunn3d on Feb 15th, 2005 at 06:12 PM]

[Tim C]

3d:

My point as succinct as I can make it:

No play can become "relaxed" when no call has been made.

By the PU having not made a call the play cannot become relaxed.

The PHYSICAL actions of players are only a portion to do with relaxed and unrelaxed . . . because someone stands around does not mean the PLAY is relaxed.

This play is, with no question, never "relaxed". No call was made and the play was continuing . . . quietly, slowly and even effortlessly does not matter . . . the players actions do not determine everything . . .

The play dictates the terms . . .

A tag is necessary and that is obvious (too me).

I have seen this type play many, many times in my own games and hundreds of times over the years in all levels of play and NEVER have I seen a touch of the plate to record the out.

I will go with common sense and tradition as a "Custer's Last Stand" if necessary.

Interesting play however, and not TWP.

Tee

Sorry I need to pull this back to edit.

[Edited by Tim C on Feb 15th, 2005 at 06:24 PM]

[dddunn3d]

Taking your play down a slightly different path:

R2 never does attempt to return to touch home, and the defense doesn't appeal. The run scores but you have yet to make a call.

Your words: By the PU having not made a call the play cannot become relaxed

So, at what point does the play relax? You may think I'm splitting hairs but the point I'm illustrating is important to 7.08(k).