Tag or no?

[UmpJM]

Illini Ref,

With the runner scrambling back to the base, the fielder is required to tag him in order to obtain the out.

JM

[bobbybanaduck]

disagree. that's only true for a play at the plate. 7.10(b) a runner is out on appeal when: with the ball in play, while advancing or returning to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he, or a missed base, is tagged.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

disagree. that's only true for a play at the plate. 7.10(b) a runner is out on appeal when: with the ball in play, while advancing or returning to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he, or a missed base, is tagged.

Wrong.

This is unrelaxed action. As such, the runner must be tagged.

[UmpJM]

bobby,

My "source" for the assertion that the runner must be tagged in this situation is the J/R discussion of missed base appeals of first when action is "unrelaxed", using J/R terminology.

From example play 2:

...because action is unrelaxed, the runner must be tagged, and such tag is an appeal of the overrun base, and the runner is out.

JM

[Forest Ump]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

bobby,

My "source" for the assertion that the runner must be tagged in this situation is the J/R discussion of missed base appeals of first when action is "unrelaxed", using J/R terminology.

From example play 2:

JM

Coach...doesn’t that apply to 2nd and 3rd only. An appeal play at 1st and home can be made when action is relaxed or unrelaxed. Therefore the fielder can hold the ball at 1st or home and properly appeal when the runner misses the bag even as he scrambles back to the bag. 2nd or 3rd would be relaxed only.

[UmpJM]

Forest,

I don't believe so. In regard to Home, the MLBUM is quite explicit that if the runner is attempting to return to home (rather than heading to the dugout) he must be tagged for a properly constituted appeal:

5.3 RUNNER MISSES HOME PLATE

Should a runner, in scoring, fail to touch home plate and continue on his way to the bench (making no effort to return), he may be put out by the fielder touching home plate and appealing to the umpire for a decision. However, this rule applies only where a runner is on his way to the bench and the catcher would be required to chase the runner. It does not apply to the ordinary play where the runner misses the plate and then immediately makes an effort to touch the plate before being tagged. In that case, the runner must be tagged. In such cases, base path rules still apply to the runner (i.e., he may not run more than three feet from the "baseline" between him and home plate).

J/R is the only source that I have found that specifically addresses Illini_Ref's posed sitch (B/R scrambling back to 1B after missing it) and it is quite specific in stating that the runner (not the base) must be tagged in order to uphold the appeal.

Since I can't find anything that contradicts this interpretation, and the logic strikes me as similar to that in the MLBUM regarding a runner missing home, I'm inclined to accept the interpretation as valid.

JM

[umpjong]

Fed. and NCAA clearly states you can tag the base for the appeal.
Fed. pg.49 art.5 &penalty
ncaa pg. 97 rule 6 a 3
and im sure pro would not make you tag a runner on a force play!!!
you would simply smile at the umpire step on the base with the baseball in hand and state he missed the base mr umpire sir. and your response would be, why yes young man you are correct and the idiot is out!!!

this is an appeal on a missed force play

[bobbybanaduck]

thinking about arguing this makes my head hurt.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

bobby,

My "source" for the assertion that the runner must be tagged in this situation is the J/R discussion of missed base appeals of first when action is "unrelaxed", using J/R terminology.

JM

JM:

What we have here may be an example of how the J/R is use in internet debates far more than it is in the real world of professional baseball.

In fact, while TC can better attest to the higher MiLB levels, umpires at the Single A level are discouraged from...no that's not strong enough...actually told not to consult rule books or interpretive manuals other than the OBR and PBUC's.

[mbyron]

FED and OBR seem to be quite different. FED explicitly addresses this question, and they want the out called. If BR misses the base, and F3 subsequently has the ball and steps on the base, BR is out. F3 does not even have to make an unmistakable appeal (need not say, "he missed the base" for example).

For OBR, it's less clear. The rationale for J/R's position makes sense to me.
1. A runner acquires a base when he passes it, whether or not he touches it.
2. BR may overrun 1B.
3. To allow F3 to appeal the missed base by tagging the base seems to defeat the purpose of (2).
4. On the other hand, some appeal must be allowed - the BR who misses 1B has committed a base-running error.
5. Tagging the BR if he's trying to return seems to be a good compromise.
6. If BR is not trying to return, the fielder need not chase him, just tag the base.

Notice that the terms "relaxed action" and "un-relaxed action" are not essential to this reasoning.

[johnnyg08]

Well, the above post, pretty much wraps it up for me. I've seen all I need to read about this one. Nice post mbyron!

[sri8527]

i look at it this way, slow roller too short, runner beats throw by a half-step but misses first, if all that is needed to get an out was touching first, then, as long as F3 maintained contact with the base, and had clean control of the ball, would you not then be forced to call the runner out? BR needs to be tagged.


steve

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The rationale for J/R's position makes sense to me.

Doesnt to me.

1. A runner acquires a base when he passes it, whether or not he touches it. 2. BR may overrun 1B

When does he pss it? When he passes some parallel line between 1B and 2B? Or the legal 3' margin of same? What about the "run box", is it considerd here?

3. To allow F3 to appeal the missed base by tagging the base seems to defeat the purpose of (2).
4. On the other hand, some appeal must be allowed - the BR who misses 1B has committed a base-running error.

Has he? He acquired it.

5. Tagging the BR if he's trying to return seems to be a good compromise.
6. If BR is not trying to return, the fielder need not chase him, just tag the base.

"Return" as in snail moving in the general direction of the acquired base that he missed? Can he overrun it again and start the sequence all over?

Notice that the terms "relaxed action" and "un-relaxed action" are not essential to this reasoning.

Forgetting the fact that you've missed the "new" FED interps, noneof this is reasonable.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by GarthB

What we have here may be an example of how the J/R is use in internet debates far more than it is in the real world of professional baseball.

Or any other baseball, all of the rd party rules interpretave junk books out there. They are for philosophical discussions, pointers, that sorta thing.

[Wendelstedt School]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

bobby,

My "source" for the assertion that the runner must be tagged in this situation is the J/R discussion of missed base appeals of first when action is "unrelaxed", using J/R terminology.

From example play 2:



JM

The rulebook clearly states that either the base or the runner may be tagged in order to be put out. The only restriction noted is that the ball must be alive. The interpretation you cite originally came from Nick Bremigan (RIP). He transfered the requirement to tag the runner at home plate when he is in the immediate vicinity and returning, to every other base. Unfortunately, this is not the opinion of most professional umpires. There is no relaxed vs. unrelaxed action noted anywhere. This shows the problem with umpires taking a specific area of the rules, and applying them to other areas of the field. This often occurs with plays where contact occurs with a runner and fielder, both just doing there job. Specifically addressed for the area around home plate, the fictitious "tangle/untangle" ruling has been applied way too often on the field in situations where interference or obstruction should be called.
Both of these situations are specifically addressed in the Wendelstedt Rules and Mechanics Manual; recently updated for 2008.