R3 Misses Plate on Walk

[Tim C]

3d asked:

"So, at what point does the play relax?"

3d, sorry I missed this when you asked, my bad:

The play becomes "relaxed" when the player enters the dugout.

Tee

[Tim C]

DG commented:

"For this case it appears the runner was not scrambling, he was walking away from the plate and therefore relaxed."

And in another post noted:

"If he has walked away from the vicinity the unrelaxed action is over . . ."

Again he mentioned,

"A runner who has left the dirt area and is high-fiving his teammates near the dugout, who only tries to return when he realizes the defense is appealing, has passed by the immediate stage of this play. His actions as he walks away is a relaxed action . . ."

And continued:

"A runner slides past the plate, is on the ground in the dirt area, and is diving back to tag the plate. This is immediate. Tag him. A runner has left the dirt area and is high fiving his teammates . . ."

DG, with all due respect these quotes from your posts identify where you and I disagree.

First, in my experience, the "no tag, no touch" play at the plate is seldom, if ever, a slide and tag situation. In the most general of examples the play usually involves a runner who is out by a few steps, F2 is in possesion of the ball and there is a "dance step or two" by the runner and a swipe tag by F2 that misses.

The runner never winds up near the plate. The momentum of the runner carries him far from the plate (different sized DBT will make your mileage vary). When the runner tries to return the activities increase.

Second, it appears that you have tied a players physical activities with saying the play moves from unrealxed to relaxed. As I tried to say previously, the body language, the intenseness of the play does not change a play from one aspect to another -- it is the play (or lack thereof) and the final actions of players that make the change.

DG, it has become obvious to me that we sometimes get hung up on terms rather than activities.

I know you respect others thoughts on this what I ask is that you step back a little and think through the "average" situation where this occurs and consider the references that have been brought to the thread by others than myself.

I think we have all grown from this discussion.

Tee

[mcrowder]

DG and dddd - this is the third time that one or both of you have espoused an incorrect position in such a way that I find myself agreeing with Tee on something. Please cut it out. A couple more of these, and I will have to come to the conclusion that despite our disagreement regarding the usefulness of TWP discussion, Tee is a reasonable man. And I certainly don't want to be backed into that corner. Please desist from supporting untenable positions in the future. Thank you.

[DG]

Originally posted by mcrowder
DG and dddd - this is the third time that one or both of you have espoused an incorrect position in such a way that I find myself agreeing with Tee on something. Please cut it out. A couple more of these, and I will have to come to the conclusion that despite our disagreement regarding the usefulness of TWP discussion, Tee is a reasonable man. And I certainly don't want to be backed into that corner. Please desist from supporting untenable positions in the future. Thank you.

Ouch! That really hurt, or did it? Considering the source I don't feel so bad. I have considered Rich's suggestion that perhaps I am incorrect in my view on this, and it's possible, but I have not seen an AR on this, just opinions.

What are the other two times I have espoused an incorrect position. I remember one, and Tee called me on it, and he was correct. I am having a discussion with the members of my Fed association on this one now, and they don't agree with my newfound position on this, and I didn't even bring up the subject. I don't remember the third one, and the one I remember may not be what you have in mind. What is the other one?

[Edited by DG on Feb 16th, 2005 at 07:37 PM]

[Tim C]

DG:

I don't think it is really important how many disagreements people have. What is important that, when possible, we find a common ground to help each other learn.

I think if you re-read the thread (I know it is really long) you'll find both OBR and FED references that should ease your mind that there is a common agreement that perhaps your view was 90* off center to the real action.

Again, I respect that you have the right to pursue your own answers and make the judgment yourself.

All I know is that 100% of my class now understands "relaxed" and "unrelaxed" action better than they did before.

Tee

[mbyron]

Originally posted by Tim C
DG:

I don't think it is really important how many disagreements people have. What is important that, when possible, we find a common ground to help each other learn.

Tee

This is a fine point, and let me add that in this thread there seems to be no disagreement about the rule or its interpretation. The disagreement concerns the application to a particular case, which is the least serious of the three kinds of disagreement.

For those of you who feel that in the case under consideration the runner must be tagged for the out, let me ask this: the rule in OBR allows that the catcher may tag the base, not the runner, in some cases. These cases do not include the runner entering the dugout; assume that the runner has not yet entered the dugout. Please describe such a case in a way that clearly distinguishes it from the case posted in this thread. Please also say more than just "relaxed action." The devil seems to be in the details. Thanks!

[jicecone]

Originally posted by mbyron

This is a fine point, and let me add that in this thread there seems to be no disagreement about the rule or its interpretation. The disagreement concerns the application to a particular case, which is the least serious of the three kinds of disagreement.

For those of you who feel that in the case under consideration the runner must be tagged for the out, let me ask this: the rule in OBR allows that the catcher may tag the base, not the runner, in some cases. These cases do not include the runner entering the dugout; assume that the runner has not yet entered the dugout. Please describe such a case in a way that clearly distinguishes it from the case posted in this thread. Please also say more than just "relaxed action." The devil seems to be in the details. Thanks!

mb

In your next or first game that this comes up, make the call you think is correct and tell us what you got away with, because I gaurantee you either way, the only discussion will be when you bring it back to the board here. I don't know if it is posiible to explain it any more ways.

Now I'm going to to RELAX for the night. Am I'm not going to the dugout.

[DG]

I am continuing to research this subject.

From PBUC - "Should a runner in scoring fail to touch home plate and continue on his way to the bench, he may be put out by the fielder touching home plate and appealing to the umpire for a decision. However, this rule applies only where a 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, the runner must be tagged."

From Study Guide: College Baseball Rules - "Play 3-104 With one out, B1 singles and R2 attempts to score. There is a close play at the plate and F2 misses the tag as R2 misses the plate. F2 jumps quickly, steps on the plate and yells "I'm appealing" as he fires the ball to second to prevent B1's advance. Meanwhile, R2 scrambles back and touches the plate. Ruling: The run counts. That is not an appeal play since R2 did not leave the plate area and head for the dugout. He must be tagged."

Also from Study Guide - "Play 3-105 Same as Play 3-104, except R2 gets up and decoys that he is going to the dugout then reverses his pathc abruptly and dives for the plate. Ruling: R2 is out since he did not make an immediate effort to return (umpire's judgement). At one point, F2 would have been required to leave the plate area to make the play."

From Fed Case Book - "8.4.2 Situation O: R1 is on third with one out and when B3 hits safely. R1, while watching the ball misses home plate. F2 calls for the ball, steps on home to retire R1 and throws to third to get B3 sliding in. Ruling: Legal. Runner may be declared out for missing base during playing action. If R1 had attempted to return before defense initiated appeal action, he would have to be tagged."

I previously covered J/R discussion on relaxed vs. unrelaxed and I don't believe the runner who missed home has to be in the dugout to end unrelaxed action. There seems to be enough documentation for me to believe that a runner who leaves the dirt area around the plate headed for the dugout with no immediate concern for scrambling back to the plate to be called out without a tag upon proper appeal by defensive player on the plate with the ball verbalizing a desire to appeal. It appears that a good rule of thumb would be that if the runner leaves the dirt area, and the catcher would have to go after him to tag him then an out should be called without at a tag if the catcher stands on the plate with the ball and verbalizes his desire to appeal. Certainly, a player high fiving near the dugout qualifies to be called out without a tag upon proper appeal even if he then realizes that the defense is executing an appeal and tries to return to the plate. The return was not immmediate and only started due to defensive action.

Now where I have erred on this "untenable position"? I submit that based on the references I have provided there is at least a 50/50 chance that I am correct, and considering that one of the references provided indicates that an "immediate effort to return" is "(umpire's judgement)" I don't see how I can be called on the carpet so vehemently. My definition of immediate is clearly different than some others herein.

I suggest we all call it as we see it, and move on to another subject, since 100% agreement is rarely achieved on this forum. But the discussion is always good, and I learn a lot from it. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". That is a real stretch for me, especially that death part.

[Edited by DG on Feb 16th, 2005 at 09:58 PM]

[Rich Ives]

3 sets of rules - 3 sets of rulings.

This discussion was OBR. You can't apply NCAA or FED rulings to OBR.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by DG
I am continuing to research this subject.

From PBUC - "Should a runner in scoring fail to touch home plate and continue on his way to the bench, he may be put out by the fielder touching home plate and appealing to the umpire for a decision. However, this rule applies only where a 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, the runner must be tagged."

From Study Guide: College Baseball Rules - "Play 3-104 With one out, B1 singles and R2 attempts to score. There is a close play at the plate and F2 misses the tag as R2 misses the plate. F2 jumps quickly, steps on the plate and yells "I'm appealing" as he fires the ball to second to prevent B1's advance. Meanwhile, R2 scrambles back and touches the plate. Ruling: The run counts. That is not an appeal play since R2 did not leave the plate area and head for the dugout. He must be tagged."

Also from Study Guide - "Play 3-105 Same as Play 3-104, except R2 gets up and decoys that he is going to the dugout then reverses his pathc abruptly and dives for the plate. Ruling: R2 is out since he did not make an immediate effort to return (umpire's judgement). At one point, F2 would have been required to leave the plate area to make the play."

From Fed Case Book - "8.4.2 Situation O: R1 is on third with one out and when B3 hits safely. R1, while watching the ball misses home plate. F2 calls for the ball, steps on home to retire R1 and throws to third to get B3 sliding in. Ruling: Legal. Runner may be declared out for missing base during playing action. If R1 had attempted to return before defense initiated appeal action, he would have to be tagged."

I previously covered J/R discussion on relaxed vs. unrelaxed and I don't believe the runner who missed home has to be in the dugout to end unrelaxed action. There seems to be enough documentation for me to believe that a runner who leaves the dirt area around the plate headed for the dugout with no immediate concern for scrambling back to the plate to be called out without a tag upon proper appeal by defensive player on the plate with the ball verbalizing a desire to appeal. It appears that a good rule of thumb would be that if the runner leaves the dirt area, and the catcher would have to go after him to tag him then an out should be called without at a tag if the catcher stands on the plate with the ball and verbalizes his desire to appeal. Certainly, a player high fiving near the dugout qualifies to be called out without a tag upon proper appeal even if he then realizes that the defense is executing an appeal and tries to return to the plate. The return was not immmediate and only started due to defensive action.

Now where I have erred on this "untenable position"? I submit that based on the references I have provided there is at least a 50/50 chance that I am correct, and considering that one of the references provided indicates that an "immediate effort to return" is "(umpire's judgement)" I don't see how I can miss on calling this play the way I would call it.

Would you require a tag at first if the runner missed the bag and the throw was "just ahead" of him getting back, as the original post read? I hope so.

You are trying to force your opinion into the play. At this point several people have tried to show you how it should be called. It is obvious that you have your mind made up. Let's move on.

[DG]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
3 sets of rules - 3 sets of rulings.

This discussion was OBR. You can't apply NCAA or FED rulings to OBR.

Read the original post. It did not mention the type of game. The three separate set of references I provided were done to simply illustrate that they all seem to agree on the ruling.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by DG

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

[Edited by DG on Feb 16th, 2005 at 09:58 PM]

Wrong again.

Commonly attributed to Voltaire.

0 for 2.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by GarthB

Wrong again.

Commonly attributed to Voltaire.

0 for 2.

But since only 99.9% of the literary world disagrees with you, I guess you still have a 50% chance of being right.

[DG]

Originally posted by GarthB

Would you require a tag at first if the runner missed the bag and the throw was "just ahead" of him getting back, as the original post read? I hope so.

You are trying to force your opinion into the play. At this point several people have tried to show you how it should be called. It is obvious that you have your mind made up. Let's move on.

I am not trying to force my opinion on anyone. I am stating a point of view. Those that disagree with do as they see fit.

I'm not going to answer your question because if you read my post you would know the answer. If you will read it again very carefully you will learn how I would rule in this situation. Hint = key word = immediate.

[dddunn3d]

A very similar situation:

Bases loaded, 3-0 count, next pitch ball 4, R3 as before misses home plate.

R3 continues towards his dugout, a good 80' away from the plate, and is just two steps away from entering. At this time one of his teammates shouts to R3, "They're appealing you missing home!" R3 turns and observes that F1 has thrown the ball to F2; the ball is about half-way to home. R3 then starts to run back to the plate. Before R3 has traversed even one-third of the distance back to the plate, F2 has secured the ball while touching home, and asks for the appeal.

To those of you who have argued against my position:

Are you asserting that since R3 started back to home before F2 had the ball on the plate that he must be tagged, and that he cannot be called out simply on appeal?

(Edited for grammar, spelling, understandibility, etc.)

[Edited by dddunn3d on Feb 16th, 2005 at 10:42 PM]