Tigers vs Injuns 5-1-09 Laz Diaz? no-call

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Lawrence.Dorsey

2) I can't figure out the J/R interpretation. Either you touched the bag or you didn't and if you didn't, the force should still be on. If Laz has no OBS or INT, then the runner should be out because the base was tagged prior to the runner legally acquiring it. I don't fall out very often on the players side when it comes to the rules but there is no way any player will know in a situation like this when to tag the bag or runner .

Lawrence

Lawrence, I'm sure you know that a runner who runs past 1B before he or the base is tagged is SAFE and is deemed to have acquired the base pending a missed-base appeal.

This is true at every level. The proper mechanic in a HS game would be to signal and verbalize "Safe" as usual and continue to observe in case of an appeal.

As for Diaz's call, I can see only 2 possibilities to explain his calling the runner safe:
a) he judged (incorrectly, as the replay demonstrates) that the runner touched the base with his hand before the fielder tagged the base while securely holding the ball.
b) he applied the J/R concept of "unrelaxed action" and required the fielder to tag the runner rather than the base for the missed-base appeal.

If the MLBUM sticks to the letter of 7.10(b), he's made a mistake either way.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

I grew up in Cuyahoga Falls, BTW.

I am glad there are other long suffering Cleveland fans willing to come out of the closet, sans bag over their head. How many umpiring dates have you lost this year?

I've had Falls 4 times this season. They lost every time; seems like a young team, and the pitching is not deep.

I actually haven't lost many games. I've been so busy at work that I haven't had many to lose!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SAump

Think of it in terms of a reward made on an errant throw into DBT.

A) 1st play by an infielder, or TOP.
1) Either a touch of 1B or a tag of the B/R is needed.
2) F3 chose to tag the B/R and lost the opportunity to touch 1B.

B) 2nd play by an infielder, or TOT.
1) F3 missed B/R on the 1st play.
2) F3 must tag the B/R and does not.

Sound good?

No, at least to me.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by David B

Video doesn't really show it but he should have made a call of some kind. Either safe or out. Looks like he just did nothing even from the different angle.

Thanks
David

LEt's ignore the contact and the missed base for a minute -- the ball is on the ground and the runner passes the base -- would a call be needed? Maybe not in MLB.

That's the same mechanic that should be used on the play described.

[David B]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

LEt's ignore the contact and the missed base for a minute -- the ball is on the ground and the runner passes the base -- would a call be needed? Maybe not in MLB.

That's the same mechanic that should be used on the play described.

I see your point, especially for MLB. Everyone could see the ball on the ground etc.,

Thanks
David

[SAump]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Lawrence, I'm sure you know that a runner who runs past 1B before he or the base is tagged is SAFE and is deemed to have acquired the base pending a missed-base appeal.

This is true at every level. The proper mechanic in a HS game would be to signal and verbalize "Safe" as usual and continue to observe in case of an appeal.

As for Diaz's call, I can see only 2 possibilities to explain his calling the runner safe:
a) he judged (incorrectly, as the replay demonstrates) that the runner touched the base with his hand before the fielder tagged the base while securely holding the ball.
b) he applied the J/R concept of "unrelaxed action" and required the fielder to tag the runner rather than the base for the missed-base appeal.

If the MLBUM sticks to the letter of 7.10(b), he's made a mistake either way.

Forget the J/R "appeal" interp for a moment. Take the play.

F3 picked up the loose ball and tried to tag the runner but lost it in the attempt.

Imagine the same situation at the plate, runner sliding into a tag and knocking the ball loose from the catcher. F1 hands the ball to F2 who steps on the plate. Runner then crawls back to the plate and touches it before being tagged out.

F3 fielded the ball and made an attempt to tag the runner. The ball comes loose and F1 retrieves it and gives it back to F3 who touches 1B. F1 did not retrieve a batted ball, or a deflected ball. He retrieved a loose or dropped ball after an errant tag attempt. F1 tossed the ball to F3 before B/R touched 1B. F3, incorrectly believing he was on the receiving end of a batted or deflected ball that had been fielded then tagged the base, not the runner. The umpire recognized the correct "play" and called the runner safe.

Sound better?

[tballump]

In attempting to pick up the ball the second time, the ball flies out of the glove towards the dugout, so you do not have to make a call in the first place. When the runner immediately returned to first base and no tag attempt was made, you now have a runner on first just like normal and no call is needed for that either, (when the pitcher throws to the first baseman on a pick-off and the 1st baseman makes no attempt whatsoever to tag the runner, no call by the umpire needs to be made). So, it is a weird play that technically needs no calls for either part of the play.

[realistic]

This play goes to show how great an umpire Laz Diaz is.

As an umpire, one feels that you have to make a call on a play. He realized that on the tag/ball coming loose, that there was no call. When the player was going back to touch first base and there is no tag attempt, there isn't a need for a call. But put them together in sequence as they happened, every player and coach out there was looking for a call because they didn't know the rule. Simply put, there is no need for a call to be made.

To further prove Laz Diaz's worth, he calmly explained the hard to understand situation to Wedge. That dude is always wound up tight. He was ready to explode but Laz diffused the situation right off the bat.

[mbyron]

The idea that no signal is needed here assumes that the BR touched the base on the first time by. Otherwise, you'd need a signal for the missed-base appeal.

I guess the explanation could be as simple as a missed call. :shrug: As I argued earlier, calling this runner safe is either an error in judgment or an error in rules interpretation.

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by mbyron

As I argued earlier, calling this runner safe is either an error in judgment or an error in rules interpretation.

Um, I think this is the first time in this thread that you have concluded that the umpire definitely erred. Earlier, I think you were at least considering the possibility that the J/R interpretation of unrelaxed action applies. Actually, it isn't just a J/R interp. Childress writes in the BRD that an email from PBUC Staff says to "use 7.10d for all missed bases, not just home."

You also wrote "If the MLBUM sticks to the letter of 7.10(b), he's made a mistake either way." I'm going to quibble with that. The letter of 7.10(b) includes the phrase "fails to touch each base in order". Read literally, a player can't miss second base until he touches third. So we don't stick to the letter of 7.10(b); instead we replace the word "touch" with "acquire", and tacitly define a missed base as one which has been acquired, but not touched.

Now, as an example, consider a player who rounds third base, missing it, decides not to try for home, and is played on, but evades the tag before touching third. He is safe, even if F5 was touching the bag when he caught the ball. That's because appeals need to be unmistakeable, and there isn't time for F5 to announce an appeal, even if he thinks of it.

There are two missed base situations in which the nature of the play dictates that the defense could only intend taggng the base as an appeal. One is the OP sitch, and the other is a play at home. In both cases the player has acquired the base, and is at no further liability to be put out, so the only good reason to tag the base is to appeal the missed base. Yet rule 7.10(d) says that the player must be tagged if the runner is scrambling back to the plate. So OBR implicitly recognizes the concept of unrelaxed action (at home), and there is a good logical underpinning to extending 7.10(d) to all bases.

So I think that Diaz probably did extend 7.10(d) to first base. In that case there was no effective appeal.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Um, I think this is the first time in this thread that you have concluded that the umpire definitely erred. Earlier, I think you were at least considering the possibility that the J/R interpretation of unrelaxed action applies. Actually, it isn't just a J/R interp. Childress writes in the BRD that an email from PBUC Staff says to "use 7.10d for all missed bases, not just home."

My post was elliptical, omitting the qualifying "If the MLBUM sticks to the letter of 7.10(b)..." I admit that I don't know the status of the J/R "relaxed/unrelaxed" interp in pro ball. I remember Jim Evans poo-pooing it as "not in the rule book," and somehow came to think that pro ball doesn't use it.

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

You also wrote "If the MLBUM sticks to the letter of 7.10(b), he's made a mistake either way." I'm going to quibble with that. The letter of 7.10(b) includes the phrase "fails to touch each base in order". Read literally, a player can't miss second base until he touches third. So we don't stick to the letter of 7.10(b); instead we replace the word "touch" with "acquire", and tacitly define a missed base as one which has been acquired, but not touched.

That's a literal reading of "touch each base in order?" I don't think so: it's highly interpretative, since it depends on the assumption that a runner hasn't missed a base until he's touched the next base. That's like saying that when I'm driving I can't fail to make a turn until I make the next turn. But that's just wrong: I can fail to make a turn by driving past my street.

I agree with your tacit definition of a missed base, which is consistent with common sense but contradicts your "literal" reading. Also, we're not going to replace "touch" with "acquire," because that would make the rule wrong: a runner who misses a base has NOT failed to acquire the base. No reinterpretation of 7.10(b) is required with this tacit definition, since the concept of acquiring a base is not relevant to the missed-base appeal.

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Now, as an example, consider a player who rounds third base, missing it, decides not to try for home, and is played on, but evades the tag before touching third. He is safe, even if F5 was touching the bag when he caught the ball. That's because appeals need to be unmistakeable, and there isn't time for F5 to announce an appeal, even if he thinks of it.

This might be the right ruling, but for the wrong reason. Your ruling assumes that the announcement of the appeal must occur before the runner returns to the bag.

Nothing in the rules supports requiring the announcement of an appeal before the runner touches the base (or at any other specific time). As a practical matter, the announcement would have to come at approximately the same time as the play. But we're not denying the appeal because the fielder announced it too late.

Rather, if the runner is safe, it's because the fielder had to tag him and not the base (if we're extending 7.10(d) to the other bases).

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

There are two missed base situations in which the nature of the play dictates that the defense could only intend tagging the base as an appeal. One is the OP sitch, and the other is a play at home. In both cases the player has acquired the base, and is at no further liability to be put out, so the only good reason to tag the base is to appeal the missed base. Yet rule 7.10(d) says that the player must be tagged if the runner is scrambling back to the plate. So OBR implicitly recognizes the concept of unrelaxed action (at home), and there is a good logical underpinning to extending 7.10(d) to all bases.

So I think that Diaz probably did extend 7.10(d) to first base. In that case there was no effective appeal.

OK, that's a plausible explanation: he's using 7.10(d) instead of 7.10(b), even though the former is explicitly restricted to home plate. It's worth recognizing that this is NOT literal, but an interpretative "extension" of one rule in contradiction of the black letter text of itself AND another rule. If that's in the MLBUM, that would be good to know.

The issue here concerns what you're calling an "effective appeal," whether the fielder must tag the runner or not. I think that your reference to the idea that "appeals need to be unmistakable, and there isn't time for F5 to announce an appeal" is off topic. The rules specify no time frame for the announcement, which could happen well after the play is over.

[jwwashburn]

I am still wondering how that poor guy didn't break his neck when he flipped like that. YEOUCH~!

[bossman72]

F3 booted the ball and is chasing after it when the collision occurred (and also did not have possession of the ball).

Obstruction is the call. BR awarded first.

[_Bruno_]

Originally Posted by bossman72

F3 booted the ball and is chasing after it when the collision occurred (and also did not have possession of the ball).

Obstruction is the call. BR awarded first.

i saw F3 grab the ball and lose it during a tag attempt -> train wrack

[johnnyg08]

Do we have a new video clip? The link now shows an Inge homerun.