Tag or no?

[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

[soundedlikeastrike]

The appeal must be obvious, in your sit. I signal safe and say "no he didn't" attempt, nor fake, to second. D has to tell ya what their doing.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

The appeal must be obvious, in your sit. I signal safe and say "no he didn't" attempt, nor fake, to second. D has to tell ya what their doing.

OBR yes they do, but not in FED. See 8.2.3, which has BR out after F3 "casually steps on first base, though he believes the runner has beaten the throw."

How FED knows what F3 believes is another matter...

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by mbyron

OBR yes they do, but not in FED. See 8.2.3, which has BR out after F3 "casually steps on first base, though he believes the runner has beaten the throw."

How FED knows what F3 believes is another matter...

Perhaps you were still out of the country at the time, but FED eliminated the accidental appeal. They failed to clean up the case book, however. They sent memos out to ignore 8.2.3 I don't know why it's still there.

[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.