Appeals - Missed Base vs Home

[UmpTTS43]

Hope everyone had a safe New Year's holiday.

This is the time of year when I crack open my baseball library to get ready for the new season. Recently, there has been quite a few posts concerning missed base/home appeals on this and other boards. After replying to some, and now checking the rules, I found out that some of my replies, and others, are ...... get ready for it ....... WRONG.

I am only citing OBR. Not FED nor NCAA. With rule books and interpretations in hand, this is what I need to correct myself on.

Sitch A: R1, 2 outs. Ball is hit down right field line. As R1 advances around third base, he misses and falls down. F7 throws ball to F5. As R1 scrambles back to third base, F5 tags third base and appeals to the umpire that R1 missed it.
Approved ruling: R1 is out. The defense may appeal that a runner missed a base any time that the ball is live. It does not matter that the runner is in the vicinity of, and immediately returning to the base missed. A tag of the runner is not required.

This sitch can be applied to all bases, except home.

This ruling comes from The Wendelstedt Umpire School Manual. After reviewing my JEA (unknown date) and the 2008 MLBUM, they do not address this. Relaxed and unrelaxed actions have been used by J/R (don't own) and do not seem to apply here.

Sitch B: The runner slides wide of the plate and the catcher misses with his sweeping tag effort. The runner gets up and decoys that he is going to the dugout then reverses his path abruptly and dives for the plate. The catcher jumps on the plate with the ball held securely and appeals before the runner touches it. Is this a proper appeal or does the run count?
RULING: This out stands since the runner did not make an “immediate effort to return.” (Umpire's judgment) At one point, the catcher would have been required to leave the plate area to make the play.

This ruling comes from said JEA and is supported by Wendelstedt.

I thought that as long as the runner who missed home was trying to touch, even after getting to the dugout, he must be tagged. Not true. "Immediate effort to return" and "vicinity" governs here.

I know that my JEA is an older version. If it has anything different on this, please let me know.

I tend to give more credence to JEA and Wendelstedt in these situations rather than J/R.

Thoughts, opinions, critisisms?

[UmpTTS43]

I was hoping you would have a sence of humor on this SA. Humility sucks.

AEA, indeed.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

Sitch A: R1, 2 outs. Ball is hit down right field line. As R1 advances around third base, he misses and falls down. F7 throws ball to F5. As R1 scrambles back to third base, F5 tags third base and appeals to the umpire that R1 missed it.
Approved ruling: R1 is out. The defense may appeal that a runner missed a base any time that the ball is live. It does not matter that the runner is in the vicinity of, and immediately returning to the base missed. A tag of the runner is not required.

This sitch can be applied to all bases, except home.

This ruling comes from The Wendelstedt Umpire School Manual. After reviewing my JEA (unknown date) and the 2008 MLBUM, they do not address this. Relaxed and unrelaxed actions have been used by J/R (don't own) and do not seem to apply here.

On the contrary, this is exactly where the relaxed/unrelaxed distinction appears in J/R. If R1 is scrambling back to 3B, then the action is unrelaxed, and the runner must be tagged.

I surprised to hear that Wendelstedt has come out with a contrary ruling.

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

I tend to give more credence to JEA and Wendelstedt in these situations rather than J/R.

You say that you don't have J/R, and that you don't think it applies to these cases, so why is "credence" an issue?

Wendelstedt is the most recent source of "authoritative" opinion, and therefore the least credible. My own personal approach:

1. If Evans has published or stated a ruling, that governs. Jim is the most historically informed and comprehensive rules interpreter in the history of baseball.
2. J/R works very hard to keep their rulings up to date, and has developed a coherent framework around the rules (e.g. relaxed vs. unrelaxed action). If Evans has missed a point, I'll look at J/R.
3. Other knowledgeable sources.

[UmpTTS43]

mb,

Nice to see some decent debate, goal attained.

I believe Wendelstedt's interp comes from the fact that both the missed base and home plate situations have their own ruling.

Any runner is out on appeal when:
7.10(b) - When the ball is 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.

7.10(d) - He fails to touch home base and makes no attempt to return to that base, and home base is tagged.

Harry's Note: This rule applies to runners who pass, and miss home plate only. It cannot be transferred to other bases. If a runner misses a base, the defense may appeal any time that the ball is alive, even if the runner is immediately returnig to the base that he missed.

Since both senarios are defined we must take each for their worth. If it was possible to scramble back to a missed base, one rule could have been all inclusive.

I have subscribed to and applied the J/R interp of the relaxed/unrelaxed action in the past. It seems J/R took this from the home base senario and applied to other bases. However, there is nothing, with in the rules that support this interpretation. My JEA (first authority), does not deal with this situation. I am curious to know what Evan's take is on the relaxed/unrelaxed issue.

This is just a ruling that I found within a professional school manual. I don't mean to poo-poo J/R, just get the right interp.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by mbyron

... If Evans has published or stated a ruling, that governs. Jim is the most historically informed and comprehensive rules interpreter in the history of baseball.

There is a baseball historian from San Francisco named David Nemec. He may be the premier baseball authority in the country. And if you read his book on the history and evolution of baseball's rules, you will rephrase that statement about Evans. Evans is truly great, don't mistake what I am asserting, but Nemec's done research that Evans hasn't even considered.

Mr. Nemec's fascinating book about the evolution of the Official Baseball Rules: Amazon.com: The Official Rules of Baseball Illustrated: David Nemec: Books

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

There is a baseball historian from San Francisco named David Nemec. He may be the premier baseball authority in the country. And if you read his book on the history and evolution of baseball's rules, you will rephrase that statement about Evans. Evans is truly great, don't mistake what I am asserting, but Nemec's done research that Evans hasn't even considered.

Mr. Nemec's fascinating book about the evolution of the Official Baseball Rules: Amazon.com: The Official Rules of Baseball Illustrated: David Nemec: Books

What does Mr. Nemec have to say about this play then?

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

Evans is truly great, don't mistake what I am asserting, but Nemec's done research that Evans hasn't even considered.

If you believe that, you have no understanding or information regarding the depth of Evans' many years of research.

Mr. Nemec's fascinating book about the evolution of the Official Baseball Rules: Amazon.com: The Official Rules of Baseball Illustrated: David Nemec: Books

I have that book. Compared to the JEA it is superficial.

[Kevin Finnerty]

It has more to do with my respect for Mr. Nemec and his broad-based works, which are all based on more background and research on baseball than anyone alive, including Jim Evans.

I was keying on the words historically informed.

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

It has more to do with my respect for Mr. Nemec and his broad-based works, which are all based on more background and research on baseball than anyone alive, including Jim Evans.

I was keying on the words historically informed.

thats great he wrote a book..but was he ever a umpire... I'm sure he was not.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by SAump

Relaxed action has a clear and valid definition.
Unrelaxed action does not have a clear and valid definition.
It allows the offense to circumvent the "spirit" within the rules.
The MLB rules committe has been asked to "strengthen" this section.
Evans remains quiet and other umpires do not confirm his "most recent" position.
Perhaps Mr Evans is waiting, sifting through the extensive pile of "support" material.
Perhaps, he refuses to adapt past interpretations or acknowledge naughty problems even exist.
The 90 foot past a missed base versus pased some imaginary "immediate" vicinity is an item of contention between PBUC and Pro Rules.
I believe NCAA 8-6-4 was introduced between 2000 and 2004 (oldest one I could google).
Others are moving ahead of Mr Evans in this "small" area of the rulebook.
J/R and others have tried to address this issue and make allowances.

I'm trying to follow you SA, but sometimes it's hard. Maybe I should have had two threads, one for the base and one for home.

On missing a base, Wenelstedt and the silence of Evans says the base can be touched any time during a live ball appeal. J/R is the only one that has the relaxed/unrelaxed interp. I have found no official NCAA interp.

On missing home, OBR has "immediately" try to return and also "vicinity" meaning a runner that starts for the dugout cannot invalidate the catcher's appeal of just tagging the plate. The NCAA ruling is a bit more vague.

NCAA 8-6-4 When runners are out on appeals: The runner does not touch home plate and does not make an attempt to touch it.

By that language, whenever the runner makes an attempt to touch home, he must be tagged. "Immediately" and "vicinity" are not parts of their rule.

I am curious to know what Evans' "most recent" position was.

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

It has more to do with my respect for Mr. Nemec and his broad-based works, which are all based on more background and research on baseball than anyone alive, including Jim Evans.

I was keying on the words historically informed.

While Mr. Evans has done more research on the rules, their interpretation and evolution, both historically and practically, than anyone alive, inclucing Nemec.

Evans' research includes material that predates Cartwright and the Knickerbocker rules and includes material by parties who were responsible for creating, interpreting, enforcing and recording the rules of baseball.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by SAump

My apologies. It is hard for me to communicate.


Rule is vague as to when "initiates a play" applies during unrelaxed conditions.
There is no Pro equivalent {crossing my fingers that I did not exagerate here, help?}.
In ASA softball (greymule provides ruling in older thread), there is no "tag-only" appeal requirement.
I think it correctly interprets the "speed or action" taking place on a 60 foot diamond.
My presumption is that whatever took place in softball, carries back over to baseball.

As Mr Childress would possibly say it, "All rule codes now agree."

First, I don't work softball, don't know softball, really don't care about softball in these situations.

That being said, you are correct when you say that under NCAA, when the offense initiates a play prior to an appeal being made, the defense does not loss it's right to appeal. This is not true under OBR.

Sitch: R1, hit and run. grounder to F6 who tries to retire BR. BR safe. R1 at third but missed second. Continous actions stops. F1 gets the ball and the defense is screaming "appeal second." As F1 turns to throw to second, R1, on third, breaks for home. F1 throws to F2 but R1 safe at home. F1 now appeals miss of second by R1.
Ruling: NCAA - Appeal upheld. 8-6-b-4 Run does not score. OBR - Appeal denied. Run scores.

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

I believe Wendelstedt's interp comes from the fact that both the missed base and home plate situations have their own ruling.
...................
Since both senarios are defined we must take each for their worth. If it was possible to scramble back to a missed base, one rule could have been all inclusive.

I think that there are two rules because the situation at the plate is inherently different to other bases. 7.10(d) is written to specifically to handle the situation in which the runner is (perhaps temporarily) not aware that he has missed the base, and believes that he is no longer a base runner. The rule allows the runner to be put out by tagging the plate. Here is the telling quote from the MLBUM (which by the way I regard as a higher authority than Evans): (MLBUM 5.3, PBUC 3.3)

"However, this rule only applies 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 the plate)." [my bolding of "ordinary play"]

A reasonable reading of this suggests (contrary to Wendelstedt) that the play at the plate is only special if the runner leaves the plate area. Other wise, it is treated just like any other ordinary play at any base, including base running rules.

Does this prove anything? Nope, it isn't that clear. But I am puzzled why you think that Wendelstedt's interp should be preferred to one that has been published for years.

This is just a ruling that I found within a professional school manual. I don't mean to poo-poo J/R, just get the right interp.

J/R is an updated version of a professional school manual, and I believe that the majority of today's MLB umpires used that manual in school.


And, while writing this post, I wanted to check the spelling of Bremigam (who wrote the article that popularized the extension of 7.10(d) to all bases) and ran across this thread:Tag or no?.

If I'd seen that sooner, I wouldn't have needed to type much into this post!
The thread includes posts from Wendelstedt School, and, IMO, cogent responses from Coach JM and mbyron.

[UmpTTS43]

And, while writing this post, I wanted to check the spelling of Bremigam (who wrote the article that popularized the extension of 7.10(d) to all bases) and ran across this thread:Tag or no?.

If I'd seen that sooner, I wouldn't have needed to type much into this post!
The thread includes posts from Wendelstedt School, and, IMO, cogent responses from Coach JM and mbyron.

After reading the entire thread, I find that it only reaffirms the interpretation that the base only needs to be tagged during a live ball. As you noted, Wendelstedt posted as well as bobbybananaduck. Those two posts hold more credibility concerning this interpretation.

J/R was used as an instruction manual at one time, therefore a lot of the current MLB umpires use their interps. That is no longer the case. As the old guard is replaced, we will see different interpretations applied and more than likey, not from J/R.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

If I'd seen that sooner, I wouldn't have needed to type much into this post!
The thread includes posts from Wendelstedt School, and, IMO, cogent responses from Coach JM and mbyron.

Mr. Roder's latest interpretations have been used out of context of his personal opinion by just about everybody. He readily admits that in the Chapter 1 title. He gives you "an" interpretation in his book. He realizes other MLB umpires have problems with his "latest" interpretation. He leaves it there, doesn't add, or take away from it. He realizes every other Pro "opinion" has its own unique set of problems. Mr Evans knows this and doesn't bother to address the issue. I am sure they don't worry about what one attributes their interpretation to be in this "small" part of the book. If they knew, they'd tell you.