LL Rules - appealing an out at home plate

[Frank Drebin]

A third out is called on a slide at the plate by the home plate umpire. The throw from right field to the plate was up the line a bit. The catcher brought the ball down in his glove, dropped to his knees and leaned over in one motion and tagged the runner out in front of the plate with both hands on his glove. It was a close play, but the runner was correctly called out. It appeared that he did not quite reach the plate.

All of the players leave the field, meanwhile the third base coach walks toward his dugout and begins conferring with his other coaches. They then call the home plate umpire over to their dugout. As they are talking Team A begins getting ready to take the field and team B is preparing to bat in the top of the 6th holding on to a 3-2 lead in a loser out game. Team A informs the umpire that they want to appeal the (judgement) call at home by saying the catcher obstructed the runner.

As team A's players are leaving the dugout and taking the field to assume fielding positions an argument begins in front of Team A's dugout. One of Team A's coaches now begins yelling to the baserunner who wound up at first base on the third out play to go back out first base. The player runs out of the dugout without a helmet toward second. By this time Team B's coach is telling his player to tag the player that was running out toward second base. He does not tag the player. A different player runs out to second with a helmet. Everyone is rather confused, especially the kids. As the argument heats up the field umpire is called in and the discussion continues and the home plate umpire, after briefly discussing the matter, rules 'Catcher Obstruction', the run counts and orders Team B back onto the field and Team A back in their dugout to continue the inning.

Questions:
1. Can a safe/out call at the plate be appealed even though it is a judgement call?
2. If so, what is the procedure?

The umpire definitley lost control of the game/situation and the scene that ensued was an ugly one with kids running in and out of dugouts, coaches, players, parents and fans visibly upset. The play was your garden variety close play at the plate. The Tournament Director was at a lost, as it appeared he did not know the rule.

Epilogue:
Team B came back out and retired the last batter on two pitches, tallied one run in the top of the 6th to go up 4-3 and then retired the side on 7 pitches to close the door.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Frank Drebin
A third out is called on a slide at the plate by the home plate umpire. The throw from right field to the plate was up the line a bit. The catcher brought the ball down in his glove, dropped to his knees and leaned over in one motion and tagged the runner out in front of the plate with both hands on his glove. It was a close play, but the runner was correctly called out. It appeared that he did not quite reach the plate.

All of the players leave the field, meanwhile the third base coach walks toward his dugout and begins conferring with his other coaches. They then call the home plate umpire over to their dugout. As they are talking Team A begins getting ready to take the field and team B is preparing to bat in the top of the 6th holding on to a 3-2 lead in a loser out game. Team A informs the umpire that they want to appeal the (judgement) call at home by saying the catcher obstructed the runner.

As team A's players are leaving the dugout and taking the field to assume fielding positions an argument begins in front of Team A's dugout. One of Team A's coaches now begins yelling to the baserunner who wound up at first base on the third out play to go back out first base. The player runs out of the dugout without a helmet toward second. By this time Team B's coach is telling his player to tag the player that was running out toward second base. He does not tag the player. A different player runs out to second with a helmet. Everyone is rather confused, especially the kids. As the argument heats up the field umpire is called in and the discussion continues and the home plate umpire, after briefly discussing the matter, rules 'Catcher Obstruction', the run counts and orders Team B back onto the field and Team A back in their dugout to continue the inning.

Questions:
1. Can a safe/out call at the plate be appealed even though it is a judgement call?
2. If so, what is the procedure?

The umpire definitley lost control of the game/situation and the scene that ensued was an ugly one with kids running in and out of dugouts, coaches, players, parents and fans visibly upset. The play was your garden variety close play at the plate. The Tournament Director was at a lost, as it appeared he did not know the rule.

Epilogue:
Team B came back out and retired the last batter on two pitches, tallied one run in the top of the 6th to go up 4-3 and then retired the side on 7 pitches to close the door.

1. The appeal was not legal. There's no procedure for such an "appeal." Appeals occur on illegal equipment and players, on batting-out-of-order, and on baserunning mistakes.

2. The villain here is the plate umpire, who caved. Who is in a position better suited to rule on the play, field umpire or plate umpire? The answer is obvious.

3. From your description of the play, I don't see how it could be obstruction.

4. Unfortunatgely, the team was a victim of "get it right, regardless." That's all the rage now. Your example proves how wrong-headed it is.

5. Get ready for it: Dropped ball at first, pulled foot, get a second opinion, trust that your partner, wherever he was, had a better view than you, his judgment is better than yours.

Lah, me.

[tjones1]

Frank,

I would still like to know when you are hosting your mechanics clinic?

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
1. The appeal was not legal. There's no procedure for such an "appeal." Appeals occur on illegal equipment and players, on batting-out-of-order, and on baserunning mistakes.

Please elaborate on appeal procedures for "illegal equipment and players." What rule code(s) include illegal equipment and players as appeal plays or procedures?

[Rich Ives]

The word "appeal" appears several times in the rules, not just in 2.00, 6.07 and 7.10.

You can appeal a check swing.

You can appeal a rules misinterpretation.

So what would you call this:

You go to the umpire and say "F9 has an illegal glove"

You go to the umpire and say "#10 is an illegal player/substitute"

Appeal seems like a good enough word.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley

Please elaborate on appeal procedures for "illegal equipment and players." What rule code(s) include illegal equipment and players as appeal plays or procedures?

From the MLBUM: 8.6 CHECK-SWING APPEALS
The Casebook Comments to Official Baseball Rule 9.02(c) provide that the manager or catcher may request the plate umpire to ask a partner for help on a half-swing when the plate umpire calls the pitch a ball. The rule further states that appeals on a half-swing may only be made on a call of ball and when asked to appeal.

Also from the MLBUM: Any pitcher starting or entering the game wearing a colored glove must wear the same colored glove for the entire game. As provided in Official Baseball Rule 1.15, the pitcher's glove shall be uniform in color, including all stitching, lacing, and webbing. Upon appeal from the opposing manager, the Crew Chief shall cause a glove that does not meet this regulation to be removed from the game. A blatant or recurring violation should be dealt with immediately by the umpire.

The NFHS has many case plays dealing with illegal players. You are right that they don't use the word "appeal." They say that the illegal player is "discovered" and the plate umpire is "informed" of the illegality.

I can see how you were confused. Like many amateur umpires, you were thinking that "appeals" are only those covered by 7.10. I'm glad I had the chance to clear this up for you.

Added as an edit: Oh, I forgot: What is your opinion of the substance of my reply to Frank Drebin? (We know what you think about the semantics.) Do you agree the umpires acted improperly?

[Edited by Carl Childress on Jul 26th, 2005 at 11:24 AM]

[mcrowder]

I agree fully with Carl's first post.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

From the MLBUM: 8.6 CHECK-SWING APPEALS
The Casebook Comments to Official Baseball Rule 9.02(c) provide that the manager or catcher may request the plate umpire to ask a partner for help on a half-swing when the plate umpire calls the pitch a ball. The rule further states that appeals on a half-swing may only be made on a call of ball and when asked to appeal.

Also from the MLBUM: Any pitcher starting or entering the game wearing a colored glove must wear the same colored glove for the entire game. As provided in Official Baseball Rule 1.15, the pitcher's glove shall be uniform in color, including all stitching, lacing, and webbing. Upon appeal from the opposing manager, the Crew Chief shall cause a glove that does not meet this regulation to be removed from the game. A blatant or recurring violation should be dealt with immediately by the umpire.

The NFHS has many case plays dealing with illegal players. You are right that they don't use the word "appeal." They say that the illegal player is "discovered" and the plate umpire is "informed" of the illegality.

I can see how you were confused. Like many amateur umpires, you were thinking that "appeals" are only those covered by 7.10. I'm glad I had the chance to clear this up for you.

Added as an edit: Oh, I forgot: What is your opinion of the substance of my reply to Frank Drebin? (We know what you think about the semantics.) Do you agree the umpires acted improperly?

[Edited by Carl Childress on Jul 26th, 2005 at 11:24 AM]

Check swing appeals I was aware of, and did not ask about.

Your citation of the illegal equipment "appeal" is something I had never noticed before, and certainly does support your statement that "appeals" are applicable to illegal equipment.

My training is that "appeal play" or the more generic "appeal procedure" are limited to baserunning appeals and batting out of order. I don't consider it particularly advisable to conflate the word "appeal" to include every instance of a coach asking an umpire a rule enforcement question, as that tends to feed the fire of the coaching myth that they are "entitled by rule" to "appeals" on calls that don't go their way.

The substance of your first reply was entirely accurate; certainly I agree the umpires acted improperly, embarrassingly so.

[UmpJM]

Originally posted by Carl Childress



1. The appeal was not legal. There's no procedure for such an "appeal." Appeals occur on illegal equipment and players, on batting-out-of-order, and on baserunning mistakes.

Originally posted by mcrowder
I agree fully with Carl's first post.

Gentlemen,

Now hold on just a gol' durn minute there!

I know it's kind of towards the back of the book, so perhaps you missed:

9.02

... (b) If there is reasonable doubt that any umpire's decision may be in conflict with the rules, the manager may appeal the decision and ask that a correct ruling be made. Such appeal shall be made only to the umpire who made the protested decision. (c) If a decision is appealed, the umpire making the decision may ask another umpire for information before making a final decision. No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere with another umpire's decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making it.

Now, the play in question was described as one involving the possibility of an obstruction call. None of us (with the possible exception of Frank Drebin) actually saw the play. As with any such call, without having been there, there is no way to comment definitively on the proper ruling on the play. According to Frank's judgement, there was no obstruction - based on my mental picture from his description, I would be inclined to agree. But my judgement, as well as Frank's, are irrelevant. The only judgement that matters is the umpire's judgement.

There are also a number of details missing from Frank's description of the play that, if supplied, might make me more inclined to think that there was obstruction on the play.

Another key point from Frank's description is which rule code the game was being played under. Different rule codes have different criteria by which the umpire properly judges whether the fielder has or has not illegally impeded the runner. Under LL rules, the catcher is not allowed to set up in the baserunner's basepath without posession of the ball. If he does and hinders the runner prior to gaining posession of the ball, it's obstruction. Perhaps the umpire initially improperly felt the catcher was not liable for obstruction because he was "in the act of fielding" the throw.

But, if I'm reading his post correctly, Frank's question isn't really about whether or not there was obstruction on the play (it would seem he has already reached his own conclusion on that question); rather, it concerns the propriety of the Offensive Manger's questioning of the call, and the procedure that was followed that ultimately led to the reversal of the original call made on the field.

Carl unequivocally states "The appeal was not legal." and mcrowder jumps on his bandwagon. Well, if the offensive Mgr. had a reasonable belief that the PU had improperly applied the rules in not calling obstruction and calling his runner out, he was perfectly legal in utilizing his 9.02(b) rights in appealing the umpire's possible misapplication of the appropriate rule(s).

Now, we didn't hear the conversation, so we don't know whether the manager was "objecting to the umpire's judgement" of the play or appealing his application of the rules. If the former, I would agree with Carl's assertion; if the latter, I must disagree.

If we assume he was appealing the application of the rule, what about the procedure? Let's see.

First, he waited until action was "relaxed" before initiating his appeal, and it was certainly before the next pitch or play. So far, so good.

It does not appear that he requested "Time" - not a big deal in this situation, but certainly better to do so.

He went to the umpire who made the call in question. Again, per 9.02(b), that is the proper procedure.

The umpire who made the initial ruling requested input from his partner. Per 9.02(c), again, perfectly proper if he decides he wants to.

Finally, the umpire who made the original call came to the decision that his initial ruling was incorrect and reversed it to what he believed to be the correct call.

Now, all the sillines with having runners run out on to the field and fielder's trying to tag them during the conduct of the appeal is just that - silliness. Kind of unseemly and pointless, but not that big a deal.

To those who would suggest that obstruction is always a "judgement call" and, therefore, cannot be properly appealed, I say horse hockey!

All rulings made on plays during baseball games involve both an element of judgement and an element of rules application. The judgement part is "what happened". The rules part is "how do the rules apply to what I judged happened." While the "what happened" part is generally not subject to appeal, the "how do the rules apply..." part is. It says so right in the rules!

JM

(Edited to correct part about "which rule code"

[Edited by CoachJM on Jul 26th, 2005 at 01:57 PM]

[PeteBooth]

To those who would suggest that obstruction is always a "judgement call" and, therefore, cannot be properly appealed, I say

Now you are speaking as a COACH.

Let me give you an EXTREME case to proove a point.

Lete's assume r2 and 2 outs.

Ground ball to F6. As F6 is about to field the ball R2 clobbers him and NOTHING is called. Guess what, you can plead to your hearts content but if blue didn't call interference there is no interference.

The CALLING of OBS/INTERFERENCE is a JUDGEMENT call. The ENFORCEMENT is governed by rule. It's only in the second part that a coach can appeal.

Example; assuming FED rules. R2 is obstructed a few steps off of second base. After playing action ends, blue says I am keeping R2 at second. In FED this is a misapplication of the rule and the coach can request an appeal or Protest.


The FIRST PHASE of OBS/INTERFERENCE is to CALL IT which is judgement.

Pete Booth

[smoyer]

LL rule 7.10 d All defensive players have left the field[all in foul territory]no appeals are allowed.

[UmpJM]

Pete Booth,

I must respectfully disagree with your point (if I understand it correctly) that the "calling" is purely judgement (and by implication, cannot be properly appealed) while the enforcement/penalty part of the ruling is the "rule" part that may be properly appealed (if incorrect).

Let me use your extreme case to illustrate my point.

Were I the defensive manager during your play, here is what I would do.

1. I would wait until the action of the play had relaxed and request "Time".

2. When granted, I would approach the BU (assuming two man crew) and I would ask him:

a. If, in his judgement, there was a collision between the R2 and my F6. Assuming he says yes, I would then ask

b. If, in his judgement, F6 was attempting to field a fair batted ball at the time of the collision. Assuming he says yes, I would then ask him

c. Why he did not make a call of interference per 7.09(l)?

Now, in real life, I've gotten a number of interesting answers to this question. For example: "Because the runner was in the baseline"; "In my judgement, the fielder should have been able to field the ball anyway"; "The ball was still on the infield grass".

When I get such replies, which indicate that the umpire does not have a proper understanding of the application of Rule 7.09(l) (or whatever the rule relevant to the situation in question), I suggest that he has misapplied the rule and request that he correct his call. If he fails to do so, I thank him for entertaining my appeal and inform him that I am protesting the game. I then promptly return to the dugout.

Again, all calls involve both judgement and rule application. Judgement is "what happened" - rule application is "what is the proper call based on what happened."

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by CoachJM


Let me use your extreme case to illustrate my point.

Were I the defensive manager during your play, here is what I would do.

1. I would wait until the action of the play had relaxed and request "Time".

2. When granted, I would approach the BU (assuming two man crew) and I would ask him:

a. If, in his judgement, there was a collision between the R2 and my F6. Assuming he says yes, I would then ask

b. If, in his judgement, F6 was attempting to field a fair batted ball at the time of the collision. Assuming he says yes, I would then ask him

c. Why he did not make a call of interference per 7.09(l)?

What about this response which BTW is a more common response. Sorry Skip didn't see it as I turned to get into position for a call at first base. Skip to the PU - What about you "Skip I was watching R3 touch home".


As mentioned, if the call IS NOT Made then there is nothing to appeal other then one's frustration. You are correct in that sometime Blue can trap himself but it has been my experience that when Blue thinks he "kicked one" the best response is to simply say "sorry Skip didn't see it"

Also, keep in mind that even if you request time Blue does not have to GRANT it.

Pete Booth

[UmpJM]

Pete,

I am painfully familiar with the "Sorry Skip, I didn't see it..." response. When I get it, I usually am able to realize that further pursuit of my appeal is pointless.

I know there are many managers who will respond to this with a tirade about where the umpire should have been looking, or positioned, or whatever. Personally, I've never seen anything good accomplished by pissing off an umpire during a game - at least not for the one who did the pissing off.

I'll usually just drop it at that point. On occasion, I have followed up with the umpire's assignor after the game.

Usually when the umpire really doesn't know the rule, they tell me what they saw when I ask my questions. They seem to be quite confident that they know the rules better than a mere coach possibly could, so they usually just tell me what they saw. (I'm also usually pretty polite when I'm asking.)

I also understand that I request time and the umpire, at his discretion, calls time. In 11 years of coaching, I've had exactly one umpire refuse my request for time when I wanted to appeal his ruling - sort of.

The play involved a retouch appeal on a caught fly ball where the ball was subsequently thrown out of play and the R1 who had left early was (properly) awarded 3B. When my team executed the appeal, the BU ruled safe. I immediately requested time and began to walk towards the BU, who was in C. After I had taken about two steps out of the dugout, he gave me a "stop sign" - so I stopped. I was about to announce my protest from that spot and return to the dugout, when the PU asked the BU if he could have a word with him. I waited.

They has a private conversation for a minute, and then the BU reversed his call. I have no idea what they talked about, but they did end up getting the call right.

JM

[GarthB]

Originally posted by CoachJM

Again, all calls involve both judgement and rule application. Judgement is "what happened" - rule application is "what is the proper call based on what happened."

Oh, God. Another one.

"I want to appeal that call."

I called a strike, we're not arguing balls and strikes today, coach.

"But all calls are both judgment and rules application, I want to appeal the rules application part."

Brother. And they wonder why they're called Rats.