Correct call?

[Monguila]

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

[Rich Ives]

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.

[BigUmp56]

Originally posted by Monguila
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

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

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.

[Monguila]

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

Luis

[Rich Ives]

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.

[Bob Lyle]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
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.

[Pete in AZ]

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by PWL
The umpire got the call partially right in this case. He was probably waiting for a verbal appeal. F3 in this case could have asked umpire for appeal by stating that runner missed 1B and touched the bag or by tagging the runner. If runner returns to base before any of this happens all appeals are off. If he called runner out he blew call.

[Edited by PWL on Nov 15th, 2005 at 05:29 PM]

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)

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by Pete in AZ
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.

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.

[jicecone]

Originally posted by Bob Lyle

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.

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.

[ozzy6900]

Originally posted by Monguila
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

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.

[Pete in AZ]

Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

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]

[Rich Ives]

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."


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

[jicecone]

Originally posted by Pete in AZ

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.

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.