Please help me with this call.

Batter/runner beats the throw to first, but misses the base. The umpire calls him safe. On his way back to first, he is tagged and the umpires signals safe again. The manager comes out to argue and the umpire says: "can not do your job for you, coach. Play ball." Before the next pitch, the play is appealed at first, and the runner (previous batter) is called out.

Did the umpire get it right?

Thanks in advance,

Luis

The initial safe call was correct. Missed bases require an appeal.

The second safe call was corect if the fielder did not announce it as an appeal.

The out call is incorrect if the runner had touched first by then.

Well, the umpire got at least part of it right! He did use the proper mechanic for the miss of first base, but he should have called the runner out when he was tagged going back to first.

Tagging the runner would constitute an unmistakeable appeal. No need to return the ball to the mound to make an appeal.


Tim.

I agree with BigUmp on this. If F3 merely accidentally touches the base with his foot, it does not constitute an appeal, but tagging the runner most certainly does. A fielder need not ask the umpire for permission to tag a runner who has missed a base, the tag speaks for itself.

The umpire in this case was correct in his first call of safe, blew the obvious appeal attempt by F3, then further blew the call by calling the runner out on appeal after touching 1B legally, by virtue of the first blown call.

Thank you all. My friend, who is quietly following this topic, owes me lunch.

Luis

I disagree that a tag of the runner in and of itself is an unmistakable appeal. Tagging a runner returning to first is common. Some do it routinely. Some are looking for a call based on an attempt to go to 2B. Some are doing it because they think the runner did not "immediately" return.

An appeal for a missed base must be unmistakable - therefore the fielder must announce why he is tagging the runner.

And SDS, as an example of why a tag is not in and of itself an unmistakable appeal. Bases loaded, Batter hits a double, leaving runners at 2B and 3B. Some runner missed some base. You need to identify which runner and which base.

Rich, you're the most knowledgeable coach I've ever seen on the rules but you're being too cute here. Your last example of the bases loaded double involves multiple runners, possibly missing mutiple bases. The original situation involved just one runner and just one base, therefore the situations are not even remotely similar.

In good baseball (not Little League) contrary to your assertion, fielders don't "routinely" tag runners returning to first base. Tagging a runner returning to first, in all levels that I work, is an unmistakeable appeal. Failure to call the BR out at this point is malpractice on the part of the umpire. In other words, only a Little League umpire would fail to recognize this appeal.

I know that I've seen this question before. The discussion on McGriffs centered on whether we should use the J/R mechanic for lower level baseball. I do a lot of semi-pro and adult rec baseball and have some really good partners. I doubt they would call it as suggested when this play was called differently in the pros this year. An appeal has to be obvious. If you have a wide throw at 1st and the batter-runner misses 1st, what do you do if the fielder walks over to the base an steps on it? That is an unmistakeable appeal according to a couple of you. What if he is 10 years old and the same thing happens but he is just tagging 1st because that is what he is supposed to do and doesn't realize that that is also an appeal? Do you still use the same mechanics and spend ten minutes explaining yourself?

I'm new here but just find it funny that the question pops up in the same form over here and the same guys answered it right away exactly like they did over on McGriffs.

no verbalization necessary
 

That is my point though. Picture this:

BR is trying to return to the base quickly, since he knows he missed the base. F3 knows BR missed the base, or another fielder says "tag him, tag him." F3 tags the runner. He then holds the glove up to show BU that he has control of the ball, and has appealed. Now, does he really need to say "I am appealing that he missed the base"? I think not. I have never required this sort of confirmation. If F3 tags BR or the base, then looks at BU as if to say "well, are you paying attention too?", that to me constitutes a proper appeal, and no verbalization is necessary. If on the other hand, F3 unintentionally touches the base with his foot as he is passing it, then I don't have an appeal.

Rule 7.10(b) applies here, with the Case Book interpretation as follows:

"An appeal should be clearly intended as an appeal, either by a verbal request by the player or an act that unmistakably indicates an appeal to the umpire. A player, inadvertently stepping on the base with a ball in his hand, would not constitute an appeal." (emphasis mine)

Pete, first of all, this ain't McGriff's. What a joke that place is. Second, exactly which of the previous posts on this subject said anything at all about walking over to the base and stepping on it being an unmistakable appeal? No one said any such thing.

Welcome to a real discussion board, Pete.

Bob, I have to go along with Rich on this. In fact ,this was changed in Fed ball just 2 years ago and all codes (Fed., NCAA,OBR) now are the same. Unmistakeable appeal is exactly what it means now.

Contrary to your belief, malpractice is exactly what you are performing by calling the BR out.

Mr. Ives got it right, gentlemen. The runner is assumed to have touched the base and called safe. The defense can tag the runner all they want, they have to appeal him to get him out. A simple rule that gets argued ad-nauseum. We call the runner safe and when the defense properly appeals, we bang him out. And as was pointed out by jicerone, all 3 books now agree so from MLB down to LL, the call and the mechanic should be the same.

Actually Steve, mine did. In the play I suggested the step on 1st would be the appeal, not the tag, since you indicated that you would have signalled safe as he passed the bag. If you would have waited and not signalled, it would have been the proper call all along, epsecially with younger players. The ball beat him to the base. There is a reason why they have to touch 1st and not just run over it.

I've seen some of your comments and they are no better than what I've seen over on McGriffs. You like to take shots at people who disagree with you. You did it over there too.

[Edited by Pete in AZ on Nov 15th, 2005 at 07:16 PM]

<i>Actually Steve, mine did. In the play I suggested the step on first would be the appeal, not the tag, since you indicated that you would have signalled safe as he passed the bag. If you would have waited and not signalled, it would have been the proper call all along. The ball beat him to the base. There is a reason why they have to touch forst and not just run over it."</i>


Actually Pete, signaling safe is the correct mechanic. ANY missed base has to be appealed, first is no exception.

Pete , you are way off here. Our signal has nothing to do with this. In accordance with the rules, a missed base is a running error that must be appealed by the defense, unmistakably. Yes in actuallty the ball beat him to the base but the rules tell you to consdiderthat runner as safe until appealed.

Now our job is to enforce the rules, not how we feel about them.

Rich, I have a J/R manual and know what they say. I am confused because I saw two plays this year that had MLB umpires not call it that way. Both involved stumbles over first base and made the SC top plays of the day. In both, first was not touched. In one, the 1B slapped his mitt on first and the umpire called the runner out after he was rolling well past the base. In the other, the umpire called him out after Pujols was told by his pitcher that the guy never touched. He spun around and tagged him while he was laying on the ground in foul territory. He was called out.

The J/R mechanic doesn't make sense for little kids if they don't call it that way in the pros that's all. I respect your opinion, and know why it could be called that way, but it wasn't called in the pros and shouldn't be called like that for the little ones. It's a time waster.

Like an "expected call" or a missed home plate on a home run?

j-ice, please look at Fed Rule 8-2-3, APPEAL PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES, #2. This is located on page 48 of the 2005 rule book. Then read the NOTE, located at the end of the PENALTY (Art.1-5) section. Then go to the 2005 Fed Case Book, page 62, and find 8.2.3 Situation. In fact, hell, let's all go look this up.

I want to know where the words unmistakable appeal are located. If someone could point me in that direction, I would be much obliged.

Pete,

The reason the correct mechanic in this situation is to signal safe, is so as to not alert the defense of the miss of the base.

When a runner beats the ball to the bag, and misses the base as he passes it, he is in fact considered safe until the defense makes an unmistakeable appeal. On a close play like this, you would signal one way or another had the runner touched the base. If you don't signal anything, you're alerting the defense that somethings amiss.

I don't remember this being discussed on McGriff's. Even if it was, due to the poor quality of the poster's there, I doubt it recieved any real solid input.

I do remember a discussion about what would constitute an unmistakeable appeal on a play at third with continuing action.

That play went something like this:

R1, R2 - 1 out. B1 hits a trouble ball to left. F7 misplays the ball. R2 rounds third but misses the bag. F7 fires to F2 in an attempt to retire R2. R2 beats the throw and steps on the plate. F2 fires the ball back to F5 who puts a tag down on R1 coming into third, and in doing so, steps on third.

No verbal indication of an appeal is made. The question was, do we have an unmistakeable appeal for the third out?

BTW- Glad you decided to leave that disgrace of a board!

Tim.

Carefull Steve!

We posted similar reponses 1 minute a part from one another.
Some might think we are one person again!!
http://www.officialforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif


Tim.

Thats what happens when you have too many reference books. I'm looking at the 2004 BRD which exected the 2005 rules to conform completely at all levels. Well that didn't happen and I didn't follow up correctly. If I would have grabed the 2005 edition I would have seen that. My bad.

No problem jicecone, I don't have all the J/R's, or any of Carl's BRD's to reference. The Jaska/Roder, and other similar interpretation manuals, are only opinions on the rules. They are not hard and fast rules, they are guidelines to go by. There may be 237 errors in the OBR, but that's the book we get to go by, here in lowly amatuer land.:D

Steve

FED Standard Rule 8-2 Penalty (Art 1-5) states in part:

"A live-ball appeal may be made by a defensive player with the ball in his possession by tagging the runner or touching the base that was missed or left too early." It goes on the say.....

"Note: When a play by its very nature is imminent and obvious to the offense, defense and umpire(s), no verbal appeal is necessary, e.g. runner attempting to retouch a base that was missed, or failure to tag up and a throw has been made to that base or plate while a play is in progress."

Also, the appeal procedures and guidelines referenced on page 48 of the Fed standard does not indicate the need for a verbal appeal for a live ball appeal but does for a dead ball appeal.


OBR 7.10

States in part: “An appeal should be clearly intended as an appeal, either by a verbal request by the player or an act that unmistakably indicates an appeal to the umpire. A player, inadvertently stepping on the base with a ball in his hand, would not constitute an appeal. Time is not out when an appeal is being made.”

original post lost
 

Okay, I already replied to this, but somehow when I went to edit my post, it got erased. Boo-hoo.

Pete, in case you didn't read that post, I have never, ever written anything on the McGriffs board, except once, to tell people not to use my moniker for their filthy, disgusting humor. Anything else you saw by SanDiegoSteve was written by one or more of the anonymous creeps over there.

What I was going to add is that I didn't mean that you call safe as the runner passes the base. You would use normal, delayed timing, just like any other safe/out call.

Looking back on it, it wasn't worth erasing my post for.:D

I forgot 8.2.3 Situation (page 62 of the FED case book

B1 hits a slow roller to F5 and arrives safely but misses first base. F3 catches the ball with his foot off the base and casually steps on first base, though he believes the runner has beaten the throw.
RULING: B1 is out. Because a force play is being made on he runner and is the result of continuing action, F3 is required to appeal the missed base and does so by stepping on the missed base.

i think ive seen this thread 10 times on various boards and it always ends up going 2+ pages...for no reason.

if you were as good as lance cokalinski, you would do this all during batting practice before the game. he teaches this at his school i believe.

Brian,

You and I both know that if PWL were Lance, he wouldn't be sober enough to make a coherent post any time soon!

Hic....Up.......http://www.officialforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Tim.

PWL, you say you go the the local high school? Is it the only one? How many high schools are there where you live? Your rules seminar may work in a small town, but not in a large metro area.

Here in S.D., our association supplies umpires to 81 high schools county wide. It would be impractical to go around giving a clinic on how to play baseball. By the time the kids around here get to the JV level, they are expected to already know how to play. It is the responsibility of the coaches, not the officials, to educate the players. The coaches here are experienced, not new to the job. We as umpires are supposed to hit the ground running from day 1. The coaches here treat even scrimmage games like the playoffs. They certainly would not even listen to any kind of instruction from the umpires. Now, if I'm working Pinto League, on the other hand, sure, I'll explain obstruction and interference, and other things in an instructional manner. Any level above that, however, and we leave it to the coaches.

Brian, not everyone has seen this thread before, obviously. I mean just look at the differences in opinion we're getting!

http://media.theinsiders.com/Media/O...4853_argue.GIF

"Pete,

The reason the correct mechanic in this situation is to signal safe, is so as to not alert the defense of the miss of the base.

When a runner beats the ball to the bag, and misses the base as he passes it, he is in fact considered safe until the defense makes an unmistakeable appeal. On a close play like this, you would signal one way or another had the runner touched the base. If you don't signal anything, you're alerting the defense that somethings amiss."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what do you do when the runner crosses the plate but misses home? He crosses and misses, the other team knows it but the ball is still in the outfield and the runner is being mobbed by his teammates for scoring the lead run. Do you still signal safe or do you make no signal and "alert the defense" that he missed the plate? Maybe you just ignore it and make the "expected call". I like the players to make the expected play.

WWTB,

It would depend on whether their was a force at the plate, no play at the plate, or a tag attempt at the plate on which mechanic to use. I suspect you already know this though.



On a force play at the plate, the umpire should signal safe if the runner beats the throw, even if the runner missed the plate, and wait for the appeal. The same mechanic should be used when there is no play at the plate. The "no call" at the plate is for a runner that misses the plate and the catcher misses the tag.

If you wan't to keep bringing up the "expected call" in each of your posts, I suggest you just put it in the form of a sig. We all know by now how you feel about this type of call. You won't change my mind, and I won't change your mind. Lets just A2D and move on.


Tim.

Do you own a TV? If the runner misses the plate on any of those plays, the home plate umpire does not signal safe and then reverse it on appeal. He stands there and waits for the action to end, then makes his call. It happened dozens of times this past season. By a highlight tape and watch the plays at the plate.

Bases loaded and the ball is hit to deep short, R3 misses the plate but is there five steps ahead of the throw to home. The catcher steps on the plate as he catches the late throw. What do you call?

Do you signal "Safe" on every runner crossing the plate, even those that aren't played on? That is what you wrote.

I would have to disagree.

Okay, cool. We only work assigned scrimmages here, and we don't get paid for them, either. It's our "way of giving back", as we are told. Everybody gets 2 or 3 each before the pre-season tournaments begin. It sounds like the atmosphere where you work is less intense than here, where the coaches act like it's life or death. I envy you in that regard. In So Cal, every player thinks he's the next great superstar, and often, he is.

Tim, I have to go with WWTB on this one. The safe signal when missing the base mechanic is only used at first base. The play at the plate is a different kettle of fish. You don't want to signal safe when the runner misses home plate, since he has no obligation to return to the plate, unlike the BR at first base. If you do not signal safe on the BR at first, F3 will pick up on it immediately and gain an unfair advantage over the BR, who has to return to first. A runner who misses home, on the other hand will either head to his dugout, or try to return to the plate to touch it. If you call him safe, the runner may think that he did touch the plate, and not try to return, and the catcher may believe the same thing, and not try to tag the runner for the appeal. Is any of this making sense? It's late, and I'm a bit punchy.

Anyhow, the proper mechanic for the runner missing home plate is no signal or call until the action is over. Much like the mechanic for oversliding at 2nd or 3rd.

Garth and Steve agreeing with me?

Isn't there a Ghostbusters line about dogs and cats living together? I'm buying a lottery ticket!

In the words of James Brown, "I feel good".

Hell, you may even want to change that name to,

ImWindyNoMore

Get yourself some "hushpuppies and SEE THE WORLD.

IIRC, the general concensus is that the case play posted above is left over from the days of the FED's "accidental appeal." It should have been removed (or changed) when the rule changed.

A little later in the case book, you'll see similar plays where the ruling is "this is not an appeal."

~Sigh~
 

I also agree with Windy.

I agree with Bob, this error has been pointed out time and time again (and confirmed by the FED editors).

I agree with Brian -- I stayed out of the thread initally because the subject has been done over-and-over.

T

[Edited by Tim C on Nov 16th, 2005 at 09:23 AM]

Thank you, I too sighed. Mine was out of delight, but it was a sigh nonetheless.

Pete correctly stated that this was a retread a while ago. It was still a good topic for new officials. Believe it or not, many don't have a BRD, J/R, PBUC or BUD manual to fall back on. I would venture to say that more than a few people visit here to read without felling the urge to sign up. For those few, I'm happy that we could clarify a curious call. For TAC, I'm with you about it being beaten to death. Isn't it five o'clock somewhere?

Hush puppies??? Someday I'm trading in my plate shoes for a pair of flip flops and a stretch of sand.

Bob:
I agree that the "accidental appeal" should be removed or changed but it hasn't been so we are obligated to call our games per the book.

I read further in the case book, as you suggested, but could not find where it disallowed the "accidental appeal." Could you please give me the situation number?

Sorry, but my books are away for the winter. Try 3 or four pages later, on the right hand side of the page. I might get ambitious enough to pull them out.

Also, I think there's a difference between calling a rule that we don't like (we should do so) and enforcing a case play that's in clear contradiction to the rule book (we should use the rule book). I recognize that sometimes the distinction isn't clear, but I think it is clear in this instance.

To all the good folks who are tired of retread threads:

Retreads are unavoidable. They are not just for new officials, they are for officials who are new to forums. I for one, couldn't care less what McGriffs (barf), or ezteamz, or other forums have. This is the best one, and along with the ABUA site, are the two I spend my time on.

The search function on this site is disabled, so finding a similar thread is a tedious process. Most people have not stumbled upon this particular thread on this, or any other board. So to those of us in that group, it is a brand new bag, Papa. That was for Windy, er...James Brown.:D

I guess that I am just getting old.... I can't seem to find the requirement for a verbal appeal on a live-ball. I must be missing something since most of you say that it is required.

When I look at the rule book under Appeal Procedures and Guidelines (page 48 of the FED rule book) it doesn't mention a verbal appeal being required and that seems to agree with the case book (8.2.3).

What am I missing? I'd like to understand this because I have called runners out who have missed 1B (and not tried to go to 2B) when F3 has tagged the runner or just stepped on 1B with the ball in his possession.

Justme,

I think he is saying that the appeal has to be unmistakable, and that a fielder can't just kick the base out of frustration, or accidentally touch it in passing.
As long as it its obvious to everyone that it is an appeal, a live ball appeal need not be verbalized, unless multiple runners are involved. Then you would need to specify which runners' action you are appealing.

The case book situations he is refering to are on page 71, 8.4.2 Situations A and B.

Steve,

Thanks for the response.

I see the 8.2.3 ruling as an entirely different situation from 8.4.2. While they both deal with a missed base 8.2.3 is talking about 1B in particular, and provides two factors that are different from 8.4.2 A&B: (1) a force play is being made on the runner & (2) is the result of continuing action. As you know there's a big difference between over-running 1B versus the other bases, the runner is allowed to return to 1B without being tagged out unless.......
If a runner over-runs the other bases and the F has the ball he's going to be tagged out, or make it back the the base.

In 8.4.2 Situation A it clearly states that F3 kicks the bag in disguest, he's not continuing the play, that's different than what 8.2.3 states. In Situation B F6 isn't making a play either, again different from 8.2.3.

There is either no force play and/or continuing action in Situation 8.4.2 A&B. That makes it different from 8.2.3 and helps explain to me why 8.2.3 is handled differently in the case book.

PWL,

You are 100% correct and believe it or not that's what I was saying in my last post, in a less direct way than you. I was just pointing out that 8.2.3 & 8.4.2 were for entirely different situations.

Someone had said here that it isn't a legal appeal at 1B unless there's a 'verbal' appeal. I did not agree with that and offered 8.2.3 as my example as to why a verbal appeal wasn't required. 8.2.3 clearly states that if F3 steps on the bag it is an appeal and the runner would be out (if he hasn't returned to 1B by then), even if F3 didn't realize that the runner had missed the base, because it was a force play and a continuation of a play.

Then someone said that 8.4.2 explained it differently. I was pointing out that the differences between the two situations in my last post.

Thanks

It doesn't have to be verbal - but it does have to be unmistakeable. I can envision a few unmistakeable appeals that aren't verbal, but not many. It CAN'T be a touch of first within the flow of the game though. There has to be SOME sort of discontinuity to indicate the fielder is appealing the miss, and not just touching the bag. When in doubt... well.... that's kind of the definition of "mistakeable", isn't it... so when in doubt, it's not an UNmistakeable appeal.

Neither the FED rule book nor the FED case book use the term "unmistakeable" when talking about appeals.

I have quoted both books in pervious posts. Like it or not that's what is written, I didn't make the stuff up.

FED Rule Book:
8-2-5 Peanalty (Art. 1-5) on page 48
Appeal Procedures and Guidlines on page 48 & 49

FED Case Book:
8.2.3 Situation on page 62

Justme,

While it doesn't say "unmistakable" in the Fed book, it uses the word "obvious" in its place. So it does have to be unmistakable, which is the same thing as obvious.

BRD - very first item.

FED - "During a live ball appeal the defense must make a verbal appeal unless 'a play by its very nature is imminent and obvious to the offense.' EXCEPT If the action is continuing and the tagged base is a 'force' base, the defense makes the appeal merely by stepping on the missed base."

The attached play says for the first base play, casually touching the base is an appeal in FED but in NCAA and OBR it must be unmistakable.

The examples given for "imminent and is obvious to the offense, defense and umpire(s)" are, missed bases, and tag-ups. That's exactly what they are saying, that a missed base is obviously what's being appealed! So, on these plays at least, no verbalization is ever necessary, unless multiple runners are involved. Then, and only then, do you need to verbalize (which runner is being appealed).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rich Ives
BRD - very first item.

FED - "During a live ball appeal the defense must make a verbal appeal unless 'a play by its very nature is imminent and obvious to the offense.' EXCEPT If the action is continuing and the tagged base is a 'force' base, the defense makes the appeal merely by stepping on the missed base."

The attached play says for the first base play, casually touching the base is an appeal in FED but in NCAA and OBR it must be unmistakable.

[/QUOTE

Rich, That's what I have been saying in my post. I was speaking of FED... I think that my post was clear about that.

As I understood it the original situation posted here was talking about the runner missing 1B when he over-ran it and how the appeal should be handled. I pointed out that if the runner were tagged or the base touched before he returned he would be out, without a verbal appeal. I was trying to explain that in some cases what is consider an appeal in FED is different than OBR (and also NCAA).

In all codes, the runner has acquired the base when he/she passes within a body's length of the base and must be appealed to be out. The first call of safe was correct if the runner passed the base before the throw arrived. The second call of safe on the tag would depend on the circumstances i.e. if an appeal was actually in progress. Once the runner touches the base, an appeal for missing the base cannot occur.

Oh great, another one digging up 3 year old threads.

cynic