appeal after overthrow

[bobbybanaduck]

Pete, the side of this argument ozzy and i are on is that the defense erred on it's attempt to appeal already by throwing the ball out of play. there is only one reason to throw to first base in this situation, to appeal that R1 had not retouched. and, by rule, if the dfense errs on it's attempt to appeal, they lose their right to appeal, so oz and i are not going to allow another attempt. again, i'm inviting a protest, but you've got to tell me what, exactly, you are protesting, and present your argument for the protest to be accepted. if you do that i will consult with my partner and then we'll decide whether or not to accept the protest.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Here is the thread in which my very same argument was shot down and the reasoning behind it. I'm still in Bobby and Ozzy's camp with this one.

Strange appeal play

[UmpJM]

bobby and ozzy,

The defense only loses its right to appeal if they throw the ball out of play during an appeal attempt that occurs after the continuous action of the play during which the baserunninig infraction occurred has ended.

While this is not explicitly spelled out inthe text of the rules, it is supported by the following from the MLBUM (my emphasis):

(3) If the pitcher or any member of the defensive team throws the ball out of play when making an appeal, such act shall be considered an attempted play. No further appeal will be allowed on any runner at any base. (This refers to when an appeal is being made after a definite break in action.)

JM

[PeteBooth]

again, i'm inviting a protest, but you've got to tell me what, exactly, you are protesting, and present your argument for the protest to be accepted. if you do that i will consult with my partner and then we'll decide whether or not to accept the protest.

[/QUOTE]

Hey it's Friday so let's have some fun. I'll play the rat (what else is new)

Here's the call on the field

1. Time
2. Number 23 awarded home (2 bases from TOT and again assumption is that R1 now R2 was already on second base at TOT)

Upon receiving his base running awards R2 does not go back and re-touch first base but goes directly to and touches 3rd and home in order.

The PU puts ball back in play and F1 throws to F3 appealing that R1 left early.

Your ruling on the field is that the appeal would not be allowed.


Me: "Blue can I have TIME"

You: Ok skip We have Time

Me: Why are you not allowing the appeal

You: You give me your explanation

Me: I hear what you are saying but R1 did not fulfill his base running obligations

You: Skip that's my ruling

Me: Ok Blue I protest

Now I guess we will see what happens

The play involved "continuous action" and therefore, IMO, the defense does not lose their right to appeal. In addition just because the defense erred does not relieve the base runner from fullfilling his base running responsibilities.

I think J/R and Carl's BRD mention "continuous action" when it comes to appeals so I will do some research over the weekend.

This is similar to the following:

B1 hits a rope to F9, misses first base and realizes his mistake on route to second base. He retreats back to first where the ball from F9 sails over F3's head and into DBT.

The umpire calls Time and makes the awards. If B1 does not go back and re-touch first base he can be out on appeal.

Pete Booth

[bobbybanaduck]

JM,

that was the argument i was waiting for. good work. now look farther down on the page. do you have a #6? i'm in the PBUC manual, not the MLBUM, so it may be different, though our #3's are the same.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

JM,

that was the argument i was waiting for. good work. now look farther down on the page. do you have a #6? i'm in the PBUC manual, not the MLBUM, so it may be different, though our #3's are the same.

Could the rest of us who don't have the PBUC manual get in on this too? How about posting the citation?

[UmpJM]

bobby,

The MLBUM #6 contains the "unmistakeable" provision:

(6) 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.

(Steve, I posted the text of #3 in my post above.)

If the defense catches a batted ball in flight and then throws in the direction of a base that a runner obviously left early and has a retouch obligation, that qualifies in my mind as an "unmistakeable act".

In the discussion of missed base and retouch appeals, J/R also adds the proviso that the runner is subject to appeal if the appeal occurs (again, my emphasis)

...before the next pitch or post-continuous action play ....

JM

[SanDiegoSteve]

JM...so aren't you proving our point or making our argument for us? If it is an unmistakeable appeal, why doesn't it count as an attempt of an appeal when F8 throws it into the dugout? Doesn't #6 here clarify that the appeal is not part of continuous action?

[bobbybanaduck]

the #6's are the same in both. so what it comes down to is the definition of continuous action, which i haven't found anywhere. my argument is that continuous action is qualified as play being made on advancing runners. this allows the defense to continue making plays on runners without being subject to losing their right to appeal. it should not, however, act as a safety blanket that would let them err on this unmistakable attempted appeal and still be allowed to appeal after throwing it out of play.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

how 'bout we try this scenario on for comparison. keep everything the same except instead of the ball being hit to F9 what if the ball was hit on a line to the second baseman? he catches it and throws to first to "double up" R1 who was off and running on the pitch. the ball sails into the dugout.

Exactly my point also! Most people do not realize that the "double up" is really an appeal play. Well, the throw from F9 (in my judgment) is an appeal, not a continuous action play. therefore, if you wouldn't allow a 2nd appeal on the "double up" from F4, why would you allow a 2nd appeal because F9 made the throw. The whole argument on this is "coach's thinking" which as we know is not usually correct. Furthermore, once I say "in my judgment", you are pretty much "dead" as a coach.

Regards

[UmpJM]

bobby and Steve,

That's not how I read it.

The only place I know of where the term "continuous action" is defined is in J/R:

Continuous action: an uninterrupted progression of play starting with the pitch and ending ty[ically when the runners have ceased trying to advance, and the defense has relaxed and is returning (or has returned) the ball to the pitcher. ...

The way I read the MLBUM and J/R is that the defense cannot lose its right to appeal during the continous action of the play during which the baserunning infraction occurred. Once action has relaxed (i.e., the "continuous action" of the play has ended) the defense can lose its right to appeal by throwing a pitch, making a play on a runner, or throwing the ball out of play as part of an appeal attempt.

JM

[bobbybanaduck]

ending when the runners have ceased trying to advance! there it is!

[PeteBooth]

JM I think it's time to ask Rick on this one.

Do you have Rick's E-mail address and then we can get some authoritative opinion on this matter.

IMO, you cannot let R1 "off the hook" for not completing his base running responsibilities. Since we had continious action the defense does not lose their right to appeal.

Pete Booth

[UmpJM]

Gentlemen,

Perhaps the following 2 case plays from the MLBUM will convince you that the defense does not lose its right to appeal if it throws the ball out of play in a "continuous action" appeal attempt:

(4) Runner on second base, no outs. Batter hits fly ball to right field that is caught for the first out. Runner at second base leaves too soon. Runner slides into third base safely, but the right fielder's throw goes into the dugout.

Ruling: Runner is awarded home. However, while the ball is dead the runner must return to and retouch second base. Furthermore, because he had already reached third base before the ball went out of play, the runner must return to second base before touching home (his next base). If the runner touches home, he may not return to second, and if the defense appeals he is declared out at second.

and....

(6) Runner on first, one out. Hit and run. Batter hits a line drive to the shortstop, who catches the ball for the second out. Shortstop's throw to first is wild and goes into the stands. Runner originally on first is between first and second when the wild throw is made and goes out of play.

Ruling: Runner is awarded third. However, while the ball is dead, the runner must return to and retouch first base before touching second on the way to third. If the runner touches second, he may not return to first, and if the defensive team appeals he is declared out at first.

Now to me, it is obvious that in both of these plays the defense threw the ball out of play during a "Continuous action" appeal attempt and, according to the MLBUM, the defense still has the opportunity to appeal should the runner fail to complete his baserunning obligation while the ball is dead.

Clearly, according to the MLBUM, the defense has NOT lost its right of appeal.

JM

[bobbybanaduck]

the first scenario is continuous action as the play is being made on the runner going into third. that play is not relevant to this discussion. the second play, however, is very much like what we have been discussing. i don't agree with it, but if that's what it says in the book, then the protest will be upheld. i have an email in on this sitch as well. i'll let you know what he comes back with. good discussion on this one, y'all!