Missed Home
 

With a runner on 2nd, B1 singles. R2 attempts to score and there is a close play at the plate. F2 misses the tag as R2 misses the plate. F2 jumps up quickly, steps on home plate and yells " I'm appealing!" as he fires to 2nd to prevent B1's advance. As F2 appealed, R2 was (a) scrambling back to the plate, or (b) heading to the dugout. What do we have?

Was he still in the dirt circle?

Safe in A - Unrelaxed
Out in B - Relaxed

A: unknown. In his "scramble" did the runner touch the plate?

B: Out.

what in the heck do you mean Unrelaxed or relaxed? what is the hell does that mean.

not in the question.....it was he said "i'm appealing" so he touch home plate not the runner..

I think their trying to tell you the tag must be applied.

Unrelaxed action means play is still in progress
Relaxed action, unrelaxed action has come to an end {no baserunning or play in progress}.

From what information you've made available, runner in A, if he touched the plate would be safe. It would be unrelaxed action and F2 needed to tag him.

In "B", we have relaxed action and the runner would be out on the appeal.

Why would this matter? Are you confusing the rule change for failing to run on a dropped third strike with missing home plate?

Relaxed / Un-Relaxed action are terms used by the authorities ie; Evans / Roder to explain when an appeal will be acknowldeged.

Generally speaking when action is "un-relaxed" meaning runner scrambling back etc. the umpire will not honor any sort of an appeal and the runner MUST be tagged in order to record the out.

When action is relaxed meaning action is stopped etc. then the umpire will recognize the appeal.

Example: Ground ball to F4 who throws to F3. B1 beats the play but does not touch first base. B1 is some 10-12 ft passed the bag and F3 steps on first and says "Blue B1 missed the bag" - Umpire will make the ruling in this case out.

Same as above EXCEPT B1 after passing first base immediately scrambles back (action = un-relaxed). In that instance B1 must be tagged in order to get the out.

Therefore, in your play when R3 was scrambling back to touch home plate an appeal will NOT be honored.

Further clarification of "heading back to the dug-out" is needed but generally speaking in that case all F2 needs to do is step on the plate an make the appeal. You cannot expect F2 to chase after R3.

In summary the terms relaxed / un-relaxed are not in the rule-book but used by authorities to help explain the appeal rules.

Pete Booth

Dirt circle only applies to strike 3 situations

read the OP.... F2 said Im appealing then threw the ball to 2nd to stop the advancing BR.....

ok here is the answer...

In (a), R2 is not out and the run counts. F2 would have had to tag him for the appeal. In (b), it is an appeal play and R2 is out since he left the plate area heading for the dugout. The runner has to make an Immediate effort to return, of course this is a judgment call.

So....you already knew the answer, but asked everyone just to see who else did? Why? Is there going to be a quiz later on or something?

Yes I knew the answer... I just got the 2009 College study guide book and wanted to throw out some questions...LOL

So, everyone gave you the correct answer, you had no clue as to why they were correct, (as disclosed by your question regarding relaxed and unrelaxed action), and then you repeated their answers in an attempt to demonstrate that even if you didn't know why they were correct, you knew they were correct.

Strange game.

Why would a tag have to be made on your second situation? The runner missed the bag, so touching the bag would make him out, regardless if he's running back to touch it or not, right?

If I'm wrong, I'd love to see some references to this.

Not everyone gave correct answer...and I have never heard of the Relaxed or Unrelaxed... that is a Jaska and Roder thing... please show me that in the OBR rules, NCAA rules..

I knew that people had given the right answers... Likek I said i wanted to see if anyone knew the answers.. I had gotten the new study guide...

Please show me where your OP stated the rule set.

On a play where B1 beats the throw to first base but does NOT touch the base, the proper mechanic is for the umpire to signal safe.

At one time in FED ONLY an "accidental appeal" was allowed. That is NOT the case anymore.

Therefore, if B1 beats the throw and missed first base, F3 MUST tag B1 to get the out provided the action is un-relaxed ie: B1 immediately turns around to touch the base.


Pete Booth

[QUOTE]As been stated you will NOT find the terms Re-laxed / Un-relaxed action in the rule book.

Since you said that is a Jaska and Roder thing.. it's apparent that you do not adhere to authoritative opinion concerning the rules.

It has been noted that there are some 230 errors contained in the OBR rule-book and that's why it's important at least IMO to have supplemental materials such as the J/R manual to better explain the rules through case play examples.

Pete Booth

The state of the US and this whole recession thing is making me feel unrelaxed!!

I suppose there is a difference between errors and insufficiencies. The 230 number covers a lot more than just errors in the rules.

It covers errors and inconsistencies....not insufficiencies.

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;561384]Pete your right I dont have a Jaska and Roder book.. Its on my Xmas list...LOL

What i was referring to was, That I have no idea about J/R manual...What i said was the Relaxed and unrelaxed is not any any of the rules books.... So I know I need the J/R manual.

[QUOTE]Mazz if you get paid for your services and Santa does not get you the JR manual perhaps you can use some of the game FEES to purchase it.

FWIW I would also purchase Carl Childress's BRD (Baseball Rule differences) which you can get on this site.

Pete Booth

If you depend only on the rule books you will never be a good umpire. You must get supplemental study materials that explain in greater detail, and/or explain what is not explained by the written rules.

How can B1 beat the throw to 1st base if he doesn't touch it? Isn't that HOW he beats the throw is by touching 1st?

When he passes a base, he is considered to be "at" that base.

Do you have a rules reference to this?

Merry Christmas
 

I doubt you'll get the response you were looking for tonight.
The situation Pete describes is taken from the MLBUM {or JEA}.
Pete already gave you the situation right out of the book.
Perhaps, you'll find it written in a casebook, the BRD, or J/R.
But you will not find proper umpire mechanics in a rulebook.

It adresses two events differently. Intent of both is the same.
1) miss home, no signal or signal safe and voice "No tag" on a very close play
and 2) miss 1B, signal safe. Why is it different?
Umpire should not alert offense or defense to the possibility of a missed base.
Considered coaching by some and an big no-no by umpires.

Edit: To correct mechanic 1 above by adding empahsis on a play at the plate.

I actually don't think this is true.... BTW I have a CCA manual, both PBUC's, and the MLB umpire Manual, NFHS rules by topic.

Please reconsider statement
 

On a philoshophical note, DG's statement is rather bold.
The fact you have them proves his point very well.

Fed did have an "accidental force play," where a fielder with the ball could get an out if he happened to kick dirt off a base that a runner had been forced to when he missed it. But this wouldn't have applied to the play in the OP. (Of course, Fed also went through a period when, for missed bases, umpires simply called outs, without any appeal.) The accidental force play derived from the way Fed wanted umpires to call the play in which the BR beats the throw to 1B but misses the bag and is five steps down the RF line when F3 gloves the ball. In OBR, of course, the call is safe and look for the appeal; in Fed, the call used to be "out." Pete explained above how they now rule.

In terms of OBR rules, there are uncountable plays for which correct decisions require knowledge of supplemental materials. We could all cite play after play for which reliance on the rule book alone would be futile.

Prior to reading this thread I'd have agreed with you, but apparently not all could do this.

I have had these books since I started to Umpire.... But I simply said, and I could be wrong, but you dont need these books to be a good umpire, simply knowing the rules and when to apply them is all you need. Those books help us to become better umpires, they also help us understand and interpret the rules in a better way. Which is why in a few days I will buy the J/R manual, as It is the only one I currently do not own.

"You don't need these books to be a good umpire"

"Those books help us to become better umpires"

non sequitur

Missed Home
 

Alert #1: 2008 BRD available.
Alert #2: 2008 J/R available.
$9.99 plus S&H now on Ebay
umpire book, Books items on eBay.com
May no one outbid you. Good luck!
Else, may each of these books find a good home.

No, it's not. I think you mean it's a contradiction, which it is also not.

I don't need to go to a professional school to be a good umpire. A professional school helps me to be a better umpire.

I doubt you'll disagree with those statements, nor is one intended to support the other.

It is something of a contradiction, since a good umpire should want to become a better umpire and use every means at his disposal to improve his performance. Therefore, he would need the books. But since B does not follow from A—and many would argue that A is false to begin with—the statement is also a non sequitur. Of course, we probably differ on the meaning of "good" in terms of umpiring.

If all you have is the OBR book, how are you going to call the play in which the runner from 2B, on a ground ball to short, stops in front of F6 to block his vision, and then, with no contact made, continues toward 3B just before the ball bounces up and hits F6 in the nose?

The "good" umpire—the one with only the OBR book and without the interpretive guides—could certainly call the runner out for interference. The "good" umpire could argue that the runner "hinder[ed] a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball," that by intentionally positioning himself in the way, he committed an act that "interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play." The "good" umpire would follow the book and make the wrong call.

Without the interpretive guides, you're going to call a lot of plays the wrong way. A good umpire does not call a lot of plays the wrong way.

There are dozens more plays—real-life plays, not third-world plays—that require knowledge not in the rule book.

Don, think of it as an appeal play. Do you automatically call the batter/runner out simply because he missed a base? I would hope not. First, you have to understand the concept of touching and aquiring a base. The short version is to simply aquire (beat the throw but miss the touch of the base) you may/will be vulnerable to appeal. When you touch a base your no longer vulnerable to the appeal. As for missing a base or the plate and the action is "unrelaxed", that being the runner knows he missed it and is trying to get back and touch the base, the fielder must tag the runner. The runner is trying to do what he is supposed to do, touch his base. It is the defense's responsibility to tag that runner. Simply standing on the base saying, hey blue he missed it before he could reach the base/plate doesnt cut it. The runner that continues on toward the dugout or another base has only aquired that base (he didn't touch it) and hence, out, upon the touch of the base by the fielder, with a proper appeal. Simply kicking dirt off the bag is not a proper appeal. Only in Fed land has that ever been an accepted appeal.

In regard to "those books", it is those books that make you a better umpire. It is those books that help you learn new concepts and develop a knowledge base on how to use and apply the rule books. It is those books that help you develop and understand advanced mechanics. In conjunction with "those books", you should attend clinics outside your association's Saturday social, this is how you do it clinic. Yes, there are some associations out there that are very good in their education, most however lack. I know mine does, we have very little rules and or mechanics discussion, until our Saturday social. Even then, there is absouletly no plate mechanics work. When I talk with some of our instructors about timing and the proper use of eyes, they respond back with, that's pro $hit and walk away. Expand your library, with both books as well as adding the reputable DVD's out there, your be amazed at how your game will advance. I know of no profession that has one or two books as it's only source of reference.

I think most of you missed the point.... I didnt say I dont have any books... I have all the books avail except J/R and BRD.... I have the Balk video, the Virtual umpire CD.. and a few more I cant think of.

I believe the poster was referring to interpretive books, not rule books. Which interpretive books do you include in "l have all the books avail except J/R and BRD"?

Non sequitur means that the speaker/writer intended for B to follow from A. That was not the case here.

"All the books" but not J/R or BRD. Which Balk video? A few more you can't think of... I wonder what you learned from the ones you can't think of? Good luck with your "live" interpretations.

I have the CCA manual as I umpire College ball Div-II, Div-III and JUCO... I h ave the PBUC both red and Blue. Jim Evan Balk Video is there any other:rolleyes: MLB Umpires manual : Procedures and Interpretations. And for High School I have ther rules by topic...

So I will have good luck with these books... Thanks Buddy:rolleyes:

Missed Base 101
 

You won't find this in a rule book.
THE LAST TIME BY.
by George Lucy & Warren Wilson
Link: THE LAST TIME BY
Kylejt inquired about the dirt "circle" in post #2. I think he may have made the right call.

Oh, so you are a college guy...:rolleyes:, you should get the Study Guide: College Baseball Rules....

What does R2 being inside or outside the dirt circle have to do with anything?

Tim.

It ends this circus
 

The OP tells you what the catcher did.
It fails to provide information about the runner.
Which option is close enough to meet the "established" criteria?
How long does immediately take?
About as much as option A) scrambling back to tag the plate from the area near the dugout.
Where does immediate vicinity begin?
About as much as B) heading toward the dugout from the area near the plate.
Where is R2, how did he get there, and what did he do afterwards?
I am willing to give either team the benefit of doubt.
But I need that info to make a ruling on this play.

...I have the 2009 College Study Guide that is where i got this OP question.

NCAA has the last time by in there rule book... Rule 2. page 46.

you cant have more info.,.. The OP was from the College Stude guide.. Quit reading into the question so much... The runner didnt not Immediately return to the plate, therefore in A F2 would have had to tag the runner as he was making an attempt to return to the plate by Immediately scrambling back. In be He ( the runner) got up and headed for the dugout and wasnt gonna make and attempt to return to touch the plate. I put the answers here again for you to read..




In (a), R2 is not out and the run counts. F2 would have had to tag him for the appeal. In (b), it is an appeal play and R2 is out since he left the plate area heading for the dugout. The runner has to make an Immediate effort to return, of course this is a judgment call.[/QUOTE]

From JV101
 

Yes, the correct answers have been given a 1/2 dozen times, or more.
What I have been trying to say, put down the book.
The catcher is standing on the plate with the ball, "I'm appealing!"
A) Did he make it up to gain an unfair advantage, or B) is he alert to the actions around him?
In A) I would allow the runner to correct his mistake. In B) I would grant the appeal.
The direction the runner is facing, either scrambling back or headed to, has no bearing on my call.

Who ran past the plate to avoid a tag play?
Had he slid into the plate, there would have been a tag out or a safe ruling.
Had he stayed relatively close to the plate, there would have been a tag out or safe ruling.
Yes, I would use the dirt area around the plate in my criteria for granting an appeal too.

I'll give you props for post #5
 

I think you made the right call here, for the wrong reason.
Pete Booth answered correctly in post #10, further clarification was needed in B.
Hopefully, I have my fingers crossed, someone will understand further clarification was need in A, as well.
F2 wouldn't have time to relax with an advancing B/R.
Props to him for knowing how to handle a "perplexing" situation.
What do we have, DP? The well-coached teams usually pull it off.

A) Did he make it up to gain an unfair advantage, or B) is he alert to the actions around him?


Did you read... The Catcher missed the tag,and the runner missed home, So F@ jump up and said" i'm appealing".. then F2 threw the ball to 2nd to try and retire a advancing BR... when/where was he trying to gain a unfair advantage? He knew that he missed the tag and R2 missed home, so and for him to gain a unfair advantage?....


The direction the runner is facing, either scrambling back or headed to, has no bearing on my call.

The direction the runner is facing.. where was that in the OP?... all it said was he was scrambling back to home... and then he ( the runner) left the plate area headed fro the dugout.

Ran past the plate? where in the heck are you making this stuff up from?... the runner missed home,Have you never seen a runner miss home on a slide where he is just sticking out hand to touch the plate?...

The "dirt area" should not be used to determine whether or not a runner who missed home can come back and correct his mistake. As long as he has not reached his dugout, he is allowed to go back and touch home. If such runner reaches, but does not enter, the dugout, and is making an attempt to touch home, he must be tagged for the out.

Even though the "dirt area" was included in the D3K senarios, it has no place in determining when a runner can correct his non-touch of home. The protest would/should be upheld if one should arise. We cannot make up arbitrary rules for which there is no support.

There are only two instances when a player cannot go back and touch home. One, as stated, when he has entered the dugout, and two, when a following runner has scored.

It took a while, but this post settles it. I'm with TT.

A step and a reach
 

Omitting the possibility of a quick tag out or to acknowledge a proper appeal play in situation A is also an arbitrary ruling on your part.

I am tempted to respond with "nor do an infinite number (or 1130 to date) SA posts contain a right", but if I did, I'd have to delete my post.

Please, stop trying to stir the pot. The correct answer has been given.

I was only responding to your incorrect interpretation of being able to use the "dirt circle" as some imaginary boundary that prohibits a runner from returning to the plate. Acknowledging a proper appeal requires acknowledging and understanding the proper rules. I have no idea what you are trying to convey in "situation A." Merely standing on the plate and stating that they are appealing does not constitute a proper in and of itself.

Coach, you are right about me ruling on the improper appeal being acceptable, but according to the AEA (Albert Einstein Annotated) concerning the relative time and space involved with this play, I stand my ground. :rolleyes: