Im having a hard time on this one, that actually happenned, what say ye all?
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.
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.
I ring up an out, out of instinct. Having never seen the play before, or probably never again, it just looked like an out.
Off coach argues that F2 needed to tag R3, and that R3 had up until he entered the dugout to touch home. Off coach asked me to check with my partner which I did. My partner stated that R3 was entitled to home, he was not awarded it.
He agreed with my call, and the call stood.
After the game, we talked about it some more, and I was having second thoughts. My partner stated how far do you want to protect the offense? The fact R3 blew right by home, didnt realize it, then only tried to retouch after becoming aware because of the actions of the defense.
Plus, he said you could get the out too, as he was high-fivin' when he returned to try to touch, getting a little push in the back, by the on-deck batter, to get back to home....."I'm giving this one to the defense."...he says.
I could be over analyzing this, but the fact that it was a walk, is what is sticking with me. Im having trouble getting past that. That it was on a walk. That I needed to give more leeway to R3 to touch, even though it was a stupid play, not necessarily a rules violation.
I have since got an AO on this, but first, has anyone got anything different? Or if the same call, but for a different reason? Thanks......

R3 Misses Plate on Walk
 

chuckfan1,

Without searching for or citing the rule (which I know I should)I've got an out for R3 on the appeal. Unless I missed something, why would the coach be looking for a tag anyway? Your scenario was bases loaded, so its a force out.

IG3

It wasn't a force out. R3 was entitled to advance to home without liability to be put out due to the bases loaded walk. If a runner overruns an awarded base he has to be tagged.

For plays at home - see 7.08(k)

<i>k) 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.
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.</i>

R3 Misses Plate on a Walk
 

Oops, thanks Rich. Swing & miss in my first post. I'm glad it's only February.

IG3

Rich, explain to me in rule book terms why this was NOT a force out. I 'm not convinced. Were the runners not forced to advance to the next base because the batter received a "Base on balls"? Is 7.08k applicable then? I'm not saying your wrong, you just have not convinced me , your right.

Rich, I am basing my info upon Section 32, pg 30, The 2005 BRD 2005, "Awards To: Runner: Forced To Advance Following: Base on Balls".The Section has to deal with a force runner having to touch bases on a "base on balls", In Fed and NCAA all runners missing a base are subject to appeal on all bases, and if successful the game would continue. In OBR only R3 and R! must touch. But in ALL cases, the implication that the runners were FORCED on an award to the batter for a Base on balls, still exists.

Unless I am missing something here?

[Edited by jicecone on Feb 13th, 2005 at 09:37 PM]

It's not a force out, it's an appeal play, for missing a base. This is a last time by situation. The runner acquired home base when he passed it, thus removing the force. He can be called out for missing the base, on appeal. 7.08k requires him to be tagged if he is making an immediate effort to return to home to correct his miss.

Right, and from the original sitch, it sounds as if he was NOT making an immediate effort to return to the base. He was nearly in the dugout, and he turned around only because he (or a teammate) saw the defense initiate an appeal. As I read 7.08k, he's out on appeal when a defensive player in possession of the ball steps on HP -- no need to tag R3.

Original sitch: <i>"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."</i>

The runner was in the immediate vicinity of the plate attempting to return. Tag required.

No. Read the previous sentences of the original sitch: "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."

Clearly, this does NOT count as "immediate effort" to return to the plate. He did something else: high-fiving teammates! The appeal was slow enough to allow R3 to run back towards the plate, but his rush at that point doesn't change the ruling. Tagging the plate is sufficient for the appeal.

Contrast: R3 comes in, takes 2 steps past the plate, realizes he might have missed it, and returns to touch. THEN he has to be tagged.

You guys are just mincing words here and it is begining to smell!

Rich Ives gave you the answer to the situation that was posted. It is not a force out, it is forced action. You are getting hung up on words here. R3 must abandon 3rd base because of forced action of a bases loaded walk. His obligation is to touch the next base (home plate in this instance). If he fails in his duty, the defense can appeal by tagging R3 or with the ball in hand, touching home plate. It is a simple call!

Give me a break. It's not "mincing words" to distinguish two different cases. The original post asked whether R3 had to be tagged, and the general answer is: "it depends," not "no" as your post would have it. Rich gave the wrong answer for the situation, but at least he knows the general answer.

The original post stated:

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.

Sounds to me as if R3 was attempting to return and touch home just before F2 stepped on the plate. From that description, I agree with Mr. Ives. A tag is required.

Go to the book or my post above and read the rule again.

The key words are

<i>he fails to touch home base and <b>makes no attempt to return to the base</b></i>

As described, he was attempting to return so the "hold the ball on the plate" part does <b>not</b> apply. A tag is required.

J/R refers to "relaxed" and "unrelaxed" action. For relaxed action the base may be tagged, for unrelaxed action the runner must be tagged. An unrelaxed action runner is trying to scramble back to a base missed. A relaxed action runner is well removed from the base. For this case it appears the runner was not scrambling, he was walking away from the plate and therefore relaxed. Think of it like this, for plays at the plate, the runners slides, misses the plate, is still in the dirt and is scrambling back to the plate. Tag him. If the runner is walking towards the dugout as if he thinks he touched the plate he is not scrambling, so tag the plate and appeal to the umpire.

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.

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.

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.

DG - go back and read it again.

<i>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, <u>just ahead of the now conscious R3. R3 only tried to return to touch home, when alerted to the fact he missed home.</u></i>

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?

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?

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.

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

<i>7.09 e) Any member or members of the offensive team <u>stand or gather around any base to which a runner is advancing</u>, 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;</i>

Not a fit.

<i>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.</i>

Not a fit.

<i>7.10 d) He fails to touch home base and <u>makes no attempt to return</u> to that base, and home base is tagged.</i>

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.

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.

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.

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

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

The case book note attached to the rule:

<i>This rule <b>applies only where runner is on his way to the bench <u>and the catcher would be required to chase him</u></b>. 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</i>

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.

Egads Man!
 

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

Immediate is Cystal Clear
 

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.

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]

OK,
 

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]

Yes, but ...
 

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).

<i>"I have to admit that I agree with Rich Ives!!!!!"</i>

I'm sure it's just a fluke and things will return to normal. ;-)

I'm with Tim and Rich on this one. With the runner returning to the immediate vicinity of the base he must be tagged. Only allow an appeal if the runner is not any where close to the base. From J/R: (In red) In relaxed action the runner(whose action is being appealed) is inactive, he is standing on another base, or is well removed from the base at which the appeal is being made. In unrelaxed action the runner(whose action is being appealed) is trying to scramble to a base and the ball is in, or approaching the vicinity. In this sitch the runner is definitely active as he is trying to return. Tag'em.

Immediate may not be defined in the rule book, but is defined in Webster's dictionary. 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. I respect the opinions of others though.

NFUmp, et. al.,
 

First,

From Dictionary.com:
im·me·di·ate adj.

1. Occurring at once; instant: gave me an immediate response.
2. Of or near the present time: in the immediate future.
3. Of or relating to the present time and place; current: “It is probable that, apart from the most immediate, pragmatic, technical revisions, the writer's effort to detach himself from his work is quixotic” (Joyce Carol Oates).
4. Close at hand; near: in the immediate vicinity. See synonyms at close.
5. Next in line or relation: is an immediate successor to the president of the company.
6. Directly apprehended or perceived: had immediate awareness of the scope of the crisis.
7. Acting or occurring without the interposition of another agency or object; direct.

As used in 7.08(k), immediate has the definition of #1 above, not #4.

Second,

Immediate is used elsewhere in Rule 7.00. Refer to 7.08(c):
Any runner is out when --
He is tagged, when the ball is alive, while off his base.
EXCEPTION: A batter-runner cannot be tagged out after overrunning or oversliding first base if he returns immediately to the base.

What is the difference between this "immediate" and the one in 7.08(k)?

Third,

Why were the clauses (j) and (k) added to 7.08 in the first place?

(j) was added to clairify further plays involving 7.08(c) EXCEPTION.

(k) was added because the defense, in a missed home situation, had no recourse under the other 7.08 clauses other than chasing down the runner.

I can't remember the details, but I do remember reading some MLB history(1940's or 50's I think) wherein a runner missed home as in this situation. The throw in to F2 was off-line. F2(maybe Berra, not sure) realized that the runner missed home and retrieved the ball. By this time the runner is sitting in his dugout with his teammates. F2 isn't sure which guy was the runner so he goes down the bench and tags them all!

He could take the time to do that because there was only the one runner. It was quickly realized, however, that if there were other runners they would have been able to advance while F2 was busy chasing down the errant runner. It did not seem right that the defense was being forced to make the choice between negating a run or preventing other runners from advancing. After all, it was the runner missing home, an offensive baserunning error, which was forcing the defense to make that choice.

Hence the 7.08(k) clause, and the subseqent AR making it incumbent upon the runner to immediately make an effort to touch home after missing it.

You don't like the call so you're trying to find a reason. Give it up.

You can't use definition 1. We know it can't be definition 1 "Occurring at once; instant" because that really isn't physically possible.

For another look at "immediate" look at 7.08(c) [which you are attempting to invoke]. Do you require "instant" return or a definition 2 "near the present time - <i>immeduate future</i>" return? Most runners go a ways past the base, make a slow pivot, and walk of jog back. It certainly isn't "instant". It certainly is "near the present time - <i>immediate future</i>". No one ever gets called out for that. Must fulfill "immediate" as it pertains to baseball rules.

Therefore you have to go with definition 2 "Of or <b>near</b> the present time - <i>immediate future</i>".

The play meets all the criteria. A tag is required.

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. Tag the plate and appeal to the umpire. This is too easy. You don't like this call either, but in a game you will have to live with it.

Are You Thinking, or Just Arguing
 

Obviously, unless you have runners travelling at about 186,000 mi/sec, any action on the ball field will be non-immediate. However, we are not in Tron!. Staying for a moment in reality, it's not the result of the runner's action which must be immediate, it's the beginning of his action that must meet the immediate criterion. Therefore, when R3 missed home plate, travelled towards his dug-out accepting his team's accolades on his baserunning prowess, he lost the privilege of having to be tagged for the put-out.

I understand where you disagree; it's where the clause itself states that the runner "...makes no attempt to return to the base." Clearly in this situation R3 attempted to return. But you ignore the casebook notation which clearly defines when the runner must start his attempt to return to home!

I also have seen this play, maybe not a hundred times, but enough to see it called both ways. That just lends credence to my earlier assertion that it is the umpire's prerogative to judge what immediate means in the context of the play: within two seconds, three steps, before entering the dug-out, etc.

Rich, perhaps your daily, reality-based definition of immediate is different from mine. I am an air traffic controller. When I tell a pilot to make a thirty degree left-turn immediately it means right f$%&*@g now! The pilot knows this explictly, and within seconds I observe his radar track turning left. (I should also say that controllers use this specific word only when absolutely necessary to safeguard lives, and the pilots know it.)

After reviewing your pleadings in this thread, I find that I have explained why I believe my position is the correct one, and I have clearly refuted every explanation you have offered in trying to defend yours.

Take it from Aristotle: The unexamined life is not worth living.

[Edited by dddunn3d on Feb 16th, 2005 at 01:04 AM]

Re: Are You Thinking, or Just Arguing
 

I prefer Firesign Theatre:

<b>"If you push something hard enough, it <i>WILL</i> fall over."</b>

Re: Are You Thinking, or Just Arguing
 

That was Socrates (or Plato "quoting" Socrates), though some say Aristotle agreed.

Sorry, umpiring is only my hobby. ;)

Re: Are You Thinking, or Just Arguing
 

I agree with Rich, Tim, et. al.

Rule 7.08(k) reads "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 rule clearly states that the he (the runner) must make no attempt to return in order for it to be an appeal play.

Rule 7.10(d) reads "He fails to touch home base and makes no attempt to return to that base, and home base is tagged." (referencing an appeal play)

7.10(d) is the rule that governs an appeal play at home and that rule has no "immediate" stipulation in it. It states that an appeal play can be made if no attempt to return to home is made.

Since an attempt to return was being made, a legal appeal cannot be made and the runner must be tagged.

You cannot invoke 7.08(k) in this instance because the play in which "F2, who now steps on the plate" is attempting an appeal at home which is governed by 7.10(d)

The FED rule on this is clear -- the runner must be tagged if he attempts to return to home before the appeal. See 8.2.2N

Someone who has a BRD handy can look to see if the OBR rule is any different. ;)

DG and dddunn

You seem to be in a minority position. It's not just me. Consider that you may be incorrect.

Re: Re: Are You Thinking, or Just Arguing
 

Of course Socrates would say that. Examining life was his job.

I've still not understood why the word "immediate" was even being debated. This seems extremely clear that if the runner is trying to return to the base, he must be tagged, and in the original sitch, he was very near the base when the appeal occurred.

Section 462 pg281 BRD 2005. FED: The runner must be tagged if trying to return OR the defense touches the plate during continuing action on proper appeal. So it seems that tagging the player or making a live ball appeal is discretionary upon the official, wether they feel the runner is returning or not. Unless the runner enters the dugout.

"I believe" it is implied that in OBR up until the runner enters the dugout, action is considered "unrelaxed" as some are saying here, and the runner must be tagged. The appeal for an out in OBR can only happen after the runner enters the dugout.

In answer,
 

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

Ahem,
 

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

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]

Mmmmm,
 

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

Re: Mmmmm,
 

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!

Re: Re: Mmmmm,
 

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.

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]

3 sets of rules - 3 sets of rulings.

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

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.

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.

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. ;)

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.

Consider if you will...
 

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]

BTW, My Favorite Voltaire...
 

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.

(And I find myself chagrined for my own mis-attribution of Socrates' quote.)http://www.officialforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Edited by dddunn3d on Feb 17th, 2005 at 01:37 AM]

The relevant point of the play in question is as follows "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.

This is an appeal play of a missed home plate and Rule 7.10(d) applies. Rule 7.10(d) reads "...he fails to touch home base and makes no attempt to return to that base, and home base is tagged."

The runner was making an attempt to return to the base, and the ball arrived just ahead of his return. J/R defines unrelaxed action as, ..."the runner (whose action is being appealed) is trying to scramble to a base and the ball is in, or approaching, the vicinity." J/R goes on to say that a missed base appeal of first or home by way of taging the alleged missed base can only occur when the action is relaxed.

This is the relevant appeal rule and the relevant use of relaxed versus unrelaxed action. If the runner is scrambling back to the base, a tag appeal of the runner is the only option offered to the defense. They cannot tag the base if the runner is scrambling back to the base, regardless of how long it took said runner to start scrambling. Immediate doesn't factor into the equation because that stipulation is not a part of the relevant appeal rule. The runner is unrelaxed and a tag of said runner is the only way to appeal.



[QUOTE]Originally posted by DG

Quote:

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.

[Edited by Kaliix on Feb 16th, 2005 at 10:56 PM]

Dear Kaliix, et. al.,
 

Rule 7.08 starts thusly:
Any runner is out when --

And, Rule 7.10 starts:
Any runner shall be called out, on appeal when --

Do you see and understand the difference between these two rules, and when they should be applied?

As I've tried to make clear, the entire reason that 7.08(k) was added to the rules is to spare the catcher from having to chase a runner all over the ballpark trying to tag him.

7.08(k), IMO, supercedes 7.10(d) in these situations because of the inclusion of the sentence "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." If this is defined as the proper application of the rule in the ordinary case, then the proper application of the reverse is also true. (I.E., it is not required to tag the runner if he has not made an immediate effort to touch the plate.) However, we have that little caveat in the text of 7.08(k) and 7.10(d): "...and [he] makes no attempt to return to the base..."

Here then the culmination of my argument:[list=1][*]If an appeal is initiated by the defense on a runner who has missed home, and such runner has not yet attempted to correct his error at the time of such appeal, that runner is subject to being called out on the appeal, unless;[list=a][*]Such runner is, in the opinion of the umpire, sufficently near the area surrounding home plate so that the catcher would not have to give chase to the runner.[*]Such runner has immediately initiated an attempt to touch home to correct his error.[/list=a]
These above exceptions require that the runner be tagged.
[*]If a runner misses home and initiates an attempt to correct his error before the defense initiates an appeal of his miss, then he must be tagged for the out unless;[list=a][*]Such runner is, in the opinion of the umpire, sufficiently removed from the area surrounding home plate, so that the catcher would have to give chase to the runner.[/list=a][/list=1]
In any case, if after missing home, the runner then enters DBT he may not return to correct his error.

How's that?

This thread is getting ridiculous!

Re: Dear Kaliix, et. al.,
 

dddunn3d,
7.08(k) can't supercede 7.10(d) for a couple reasons:
1) You can't pick and choose what part of the rule you want to follow. 7.08(k) states that the "rule applies only where runner is on his way to the bench and the catcher would be required to chase him." In the given play, the runner was attempting to touch home, so 7.08(k) CANNOT APPLY.

2)The play in question is an appeal play and appeals are governed under 7.10. Hence the Any runner shall be called out, on appeal when -- beginning. Do YOU understand the difference?

The runner was returning, action was unrelaxed, the only type of appeal allowed per MLB Rules and J/R is a tag of the runner.

<i>"Hint = key word = immediate."</i>

If you are going to use the dictionary definition of words to make a ruling, then please let us know how you call an "out of the baseline" violation in a rundown.

Do you subscribe to the "runner makes his own baseline" approach or do you use the actual words which read:

<i>"7.08 Any runner is out when_
a) 1) He runs more than three feet away from <b>a direct line between bases</b> to avoid being tagged unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball;"</i>

If you accept that this rule may not mean exactly what it says in terms of strict dictionary definitions , then you have to accept that other rules may not mean what the exact definition means.

Hmmm,
 

3d wrote:

"Do you see and understand the difference between these two rules, and when they should be applied?"

Are you actually trying to tell us that YOU understand these rules BETTER than we do?

Tee

dddd/dg - you guys are asking for "authorities" on these rules. You're getting them. And then arguing with them, asking for authorities. Not sure why you are continuing the argument, and why their explanations have not been valid in your mind.

Interesting thread with very valid arguments on both sides. Let me add some some clarification if I may.

From original sitch:

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.
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.

Form the picture in your mind's eye. He passes and misses home plate and head towards 1st base dugout. This is where his natural momentum is taking him. In my experience as well as everyone else's, offensive players will come out of dugout towards home plate to high five player who is scoring on a bases loaded walk or home run. So he probably is not very far removed from plate area. Then the Def coach alerts him to the fact that an appeal play is emminent and tries to return...IMO a short distance...
as catcher is tagging the plate, "just ahead of the now conscious R3". In this case I would agree with the Off coach. A tag should have been made.

Please Address this 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.

Is this a legal appeal or does F2 have to tag R3?

As to Basepaths...
 

For Rich Ives' benefit:

I follow the well-defined essence of 7.08(a) in that the "direct line between bases" starts from the point on the field where the runner is standing, and extends from that point to each of the bases to which he can travel. Ergo,

The "skunk in the outfield" is a legal play.

MrUmpire...
 

Notice I said well defined. As this thread shows this type of play and the rules governing is far from well defined.

Now will someone please offer their ruling on my adjunct play:

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.

Re: Please Address this Situation:
 

<i>This rule applies only where runner is on his way to the bench <b>and the catcher would be required to chase him</b>.</i>


Would the catcher have to chase the runner (leave the plate area)?

<i>Notice I said well defined. As this thread shows this type of play and the rules governing is far from well defined.</i>


7.08(a)(1) is well defined. It's just "wrong".

The rules are not black and white. That's why there are case books and interpretation manuals. Roder even has a book "More Than 100 Problems With The Official Baseball Rules".


At this point, is there ANYONE you would believe?

Re: Please Address this Situation:
 

I like Rich's answer, if the catcher is going to have to give chase in order to make the tag, then standing on the plate with the ball and appealing is sufficient.

That is in sharp contrast to the runner arriving back at the plate a moment before the ball. In that case, a tag is required in order to make an appeal per the earlier stated rules.

Dearest T'
 

I do not assert that I know the rules better than anyone else here; on the contrary, my very posting on this board should be evidence of that.

But when it comes to asking someone with more experience han I, I have a difficult time accepting an interpretation just because it comes from a BIG DOG. I guess I've had enough experiences with Smitty to have a healty scepticism.

However, when a situation or rule is explained to me in a clear and logically consistent fashion, I will be the first to say I see the light, and thanks.

In this situation, however, no one has yet to make that argument. That's why I have asked three times for a ruling on the above similiar play. When someone can rule on that play in a consistant fashion commensurate with the original situation that started all of this, then I will be able to say I see the light.

The Chase is the Thing
 

With apologies to Shakespeare

If you go back and re-read my posts, you can see where my thoughts have evolved to this point. You have finally stated what I've been saying all along: If the catcher would have to chase the runner, then a simple appeal suffices. But if the runner is close enough to the plate so that the catcher does not have to chase, then the runner needs to be tagged.

Re: The Chase is the Thing
 

Great, then we are all in agreement on the original play. Since the runner arrived at the plate a moment ahead of the ball, a tag is required.

Re: Re: The Chase is the Thing
 

I like happy endings.

dddunn,


I will offer a ruling on your ajunct play. Meat is out when catcher tags the plate.

There is a clear difference between original play and the play you outlined.

Mike

I agree that he must be tagged. As long as he has not stepped into the dugout he can return and since "time" has not been called the coach can not make a verbal appeal. The coach should have kept his mouth shut and not alerted the runner.

Re: Re: Please Address this Situation:
 

But you really don't know that until you see what the runner does. What if the runner comes all the way back to the plate and touches home with no tag attempt while the catcher just stands there and watches. The catcher didn't have to chase him as the runner came all the way back. Or do you just judge that on when the catcher catches the ball. As soon as he has posession, does he have to go after the runner? If yes, then appeal if not, then tag. Is that how I am reading this?

As soon as he has posession, does he have to go after the runner? If yes, then appeal if not, then tag. Is that how I am reading this?


Yes