So who saw the rules screw-up in Wednesday's (4-15-09) Padres @ Mets game?

[UMP25]

His voice may only be one man's, but has has stated more than once that baseball's rules ought to be rewritten in a way to eliminate contradictions, ambiguities, etc. Doing so, he explains, would result in the rules making more sense than they currently do.

[Durham]

Well, the NCAA continually tries to clarify their rule book and remove ambiguity and look at how much thicker it seems to get each year. And all the while the rules stay essentially unchanged. The OBR has worked for a hundred years with slight changes along the way, leave it alone.

[Durham]

I am no authority so maybe that is why I ask, "What in the world do relaxed and unrelaxed refer too?"

[UMP25]

Part of the reason the NCAA book seems to get thicker is because IMHO they're too concerned about things that may not be as critical as they believe, or because they seem to want to create new things about which to worry every year.

The coaches having to wear helmets now is one example.

[Armadillo_Blue]

The terms refer to the status of the runner upon whom the appeal is being made. If the runner is making an attempt to return to the bag after missing it then a tag must be applied. If the runner is not attempting to return then the action is unrelaxed and the base can be touched and a verbal appeal made.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Armadillo_Blue

The terms refer to the status of the runner upon whom the appeal is being made. If the runner is making an attempt to return to the bag after missing it then a tag must be applied. If the runner is not attempting to return then the action is unrelaxed and the base can be touched and a verbal appeal made.

If this is correct, and I do not believe it is, then why do we allow the live ball appeal of a runner leaving early to be decided by the ball simply being returned to the base ahead of the runner? Per your ruling the defense would be required to tag the runner and not just return the ball to the base.

[johnnyg08]

isn't there something in the rule where there's the 'obvious' factor where there's a retouch obligation versus simply just missing a base?

[Durham]

either way aren't they both appeals?

[johnnyg08]

they are, but you eliminate the accidental appeal

[Armadillo_Blue]

Originally Posted by Durham

If this is correct, and I do not believe it is, then why do we allow the live ball appeal of a runner leaving early to be decided by the ball simply being returned to the base ahead of the runner? Per your ruling the defense would be required to tag the runner and not just return the ball to the base.

If you read what I wrote, the concept is a concept applied to a runner returning to a base missed. The concept does not apply to leaving early on a fly ball.

The most common usage of the relaxed/unrelaxed concept is the play at home where the runner misses the plate and the fielder misses the tag. Technically the runner has missed home so by rule the catcher could just step on the plate and announce an appeal. In practice, however, if the runner is scrambling back toward the plate we require a tag of the runner for an out. This would be unrelaxed action.

If, however the runner starts walking towards the dugout, making no attempt to correct his error, this is unrelaxed action. In this instance we do not require the catcher to chase down the runner, but instead allow him to step on the plate and appeal the miss.

Although most often seen at home, this concept can be applied equally to other bases, i.e. a runner slides around second and then scrambles back towards it.

[soundedlikeastrike]

Consider this:
C. time please.
U. sorry coach, you can't make a second trip.
C. I'm pulling him, get my lefty.
U. Okay.

I'm thinking that's a legal substitution and not a trip.

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

Consider this:
C. time please.
U. sorry coach, you can't make a second trip.
C. I'm pulling him, get my lefty.
U. Okay.

I'm thinking that's a legal substitution and not a trip.

Can't happen during the same at bat that he took the trip. (unless F1 is injured)

[Tim C]

Why do people try to cover for nothing more than an error?

It is basic:

"Whether you consider it a "visit" or not is irrelevant. A manager/coach cannot make a second trip to the same pitcher while the same batter is at bat. Period. Furthermore, the manager/coach cannot try to circumvent this by just changing his pitcher, even if he does so from the dugout. The at-bat must be completed before the already-visited pitcher can be removed (absent injury or substitute).

"The crew working this game didn't disagree; they simply f---ed up."

I am amazed people know little about basic rules.

[UMP25]

Amen, Tim! Sometimes I think I'm talking to a wall. This rule is not that difficult to comprehend.

[tiger49]

My understanding is he threw 10 straight balls that weren't even close. I bet the manager came out and told the crew "Something is wrong with my pitcher but he won't tell me. Can I take him out now so it won't get worse?"

Considering the crew talked a bit about it before letting the trip happen there had to be some discussion about an injury, and is any MLB umpire going to stop a manager when there is even a small hint of an injury. They are umpires not doctors or trainers.