I'm signalling safe and verbalizing "Safe! No tag!" If at that point F3 comes to BR and tags him, I've got an unmistakable appeal of the missed base, and an out.

I think in most cases on the field, kyle and everyone else here would agree with you. The key, as stated several times here, is an "unmistakeable appeal". We, as umpires, are allowed to think. J/R is a great guideline, but cannot cover EVERYthing.

Take in ALL of your information. I'd err on the side of an out here too - but it is NOT automatic, as you seem to be implying. There are numerous reasons F3 could be tagging the runner (some mentioned above). If F3 is doing this on every play, then this is not an unmistakeable appeal. If F3 had previously tried to get a cheap out after a runner turned left, and the runner in this sitch turned left as well, again - not an unmistakeable appeal. The appeal doesn't have to be verbal - but if not verbal is DOES have to be unmistakeable.

Often, on a play like this, if you don't rule an out immediately, F3 will look at you and say something like, "But he missed the base". If this is said quickly enough that, your natural pause in timing on other plays comes in handy here, as you can still call the out. If F3 doesn't say this, it's likely he was NOT making an appeal, and was tagging the runner for some other reason.

I'm more likely than not to call the runner out here. If for no other reason, the appearence of an out.

BTW- I attended a The 20th Annual Southern Umpires Camp a few years ago, and in attendance were about 12-15 MLB umpires (Davis, Nauert, Crawford, Emmel, Hudson, to name a few).

This same situation was raised, and there was quite a debate amoung the MLB guys as to the correct ruling. It was nice to see that they struggle with this kind of thing as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrizzlyUmp14 Varsity summer baseball - not the best game I've ever seen. There is a ground ball to the first baseman, which he bobbles. He eventually gets the ball and attempts to tag the runner, but misses him. The runner does not touch first base, but instead runs over it. The fielder then tags the runner. Is he out or not? Some other umpires said this would have to be an appeal play for missing a bag because once the runner "passes" a base, he has acquired that base. If that is the case, does tagging a runner count as an appeal or does the fielder have to verbally appeal the missed base?

The problem with questions such as these is that in OBR it is not SPECIFICALLY covered, hence you will get all kinds of responses. FED covers it.

The general guidline from the authorities in determining whether an umpire will honor an appeal depends upon the type of "action" involved.

Generally speaking if action is "unrelaxed" no appeal will be honored. During unrelaxed action the runner is scrambling back etc.

if action is "relaxed" then the defense needs to appeal.

Now to the thread. It's a had to be there scenario.

If B1 over-ran first and then immediately tried to scramble back and touch the bag and was subsequently tagged I would record the out because of un-relaxed action.

Same as above except B1 was about 10 ft. or so past first not in a hurry to return and on his way back to the bag F3 gave the non-chalant tag of B1 prior to his touching first, without making any kind of verbal appeal or unmistakable act then I would rule safe.

In Summary it all depends upon the type of "action" involved as to whether or not the defense needs to appeal or not. As stated, generally speaking if action is "un-relaxed" an umpire will not honor an appeal. If action is 're-laxed" then an appeal is needed to get the out.

Pete Booth

The fact that it says "appeal" - several times. It must be appealed. An appeal must be verbal or an unmistakable act.

Rich,

I believe that J/R is suggesting that a tag of the BR who has missed 1B and is not in contact during unrelaxed action IS a "properly constituted appeal" - that's what the text I quoted above says. There is no Official Interpretation or Authoritative Opinion that says anything different.

Just as with a runner returning to retouch on a caught fly ball during unrelaxed action, the action of the tag is sufficient to properly constitute the appeal.

JM

As you can see from the varied responses, opinions still differ.

Perhaps it is not covered in OBR, but it is covered in FED, and that is the rule set being used, so why not just go by the rule here? Why are we dragging OBR interpretations into the mix? I listed the FED rule interpretation that dealt with the situation, and the rule itself uses a missed base as an example.

Sure, if this F3 runs after every runner that crosses 1st base and tags them every single time, then this would not be an unmistakable appeal. But really, who does this? It sure wasn't mentioned in the original post, and would be something that would be important to know, right?

So, let's be realistic and assume F3 only ran after and tagged this one runner because he saw the same missed base that the umpire did. The poster has stated that right away, F3 applied a tag. This indicates that it wasn't any kind of non-chalant tag as Pete Booth has suggested. Now it becomes an unmistakable appeal, and no verbal is required.

Steve,

Around here, "varsity summer baseball" is American Legion baseball and is played under "slightly modified" OBR, rather than FED.

Of course in this particular case, I don't believe there is a difference between the two in terms of the proper call - the text of the FED is just not ambiguous as is the text of OBR.

JM

Okay, out here they continue playing FED rules in "Coaches Summer League" as they are still the same HS teams.

We have American Legion, and many other summer leagues that use OBR, but anything high school related use FED rules.

Pete,

While I agree with your conclusions for the most part, I believe there is a material flaw in your reasoning - and I don't think it's just semantics.

Appeals most certainly are upheld and recognized during "unrelaxed action". It's just that the "proper constitution" of missed base & immediate return appeals (i.e. 7.10(b), (c), & (d) ) differs in a material respect during "relaxed" and "unrelaxed" action. That is, during "unrelaxed action" the appeal MUST be made by tagging the runner and a tag of the base is not recognized as a properly constituted appeal.

During unrelaxed action, either the runner or the base may be tagged. It's still an appeal regardless of whether the action is relaxed or unrelaxed.

JM

Yep. Only a 9U player or something like that would tag every single runner returning to 1B as a habit. No one else would, and even if they did any umpire with a functioning brain stem would not call that a specific appeal.

In reality you would have a) people/players/coaches screaming at F3 that the runner missed the bag and b) F3 reacting to that and chasing down the runner to tag him to be sure. That is unmistakable.

You either have everyone see him overstep the bag, or no one saw it. In the first case the appeal will be unmistakable, in the second instance there is no appeal and the runner returns safely to 1B.

I'd like to think there is a third option. Neither everyone nor no one saw it. Just F3 and the BU. That would be enough for me.:)

Since this was a force play...mechanically speaking, the umpire must signal safe though...we can't be tipping off the defense with a no call...since it's a force either he's safe or out...now is it proper mechanics to signal "safe" and verbalize "no tag"...or is the safe signal followed by an appeal the proper way to handle this? I really think this is more of a mechanics question versus a rule question...and yes, it would be nice to have a video clip...

Since this was a force play...mechanically speaking, the umpire must signal safe though...we can't be tipping off the defense with a no call...since it's a force either he's safe or out...now is it proper mechanics to signal "safe" and verbalize "no tag"...or is the safe signal followed by an appeal the proper way to handle this? I really think this is more of a mechanics question versus a rule question...and yes, it would be nice to have a video clip...