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

[swkansasref33]

if you go below to the list of video clips its the 2nd row, 3rd column maybe?

[johnnyg08]

Yep, there it is...thanks. Looks like F3 has the ball at the point of the tag so I don't have OBS...B/R misses 1B, but then F3 loses the ball after the tag, B/R makes it back to 1B w/o a tag attempt. safe at 1B

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by _Bruno_

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

I didn't think he actually had possession... i think he swatted the ball with his glove, IMO.

But had it happened the way you said it, I agree, no obstruction and BR must be tagged when he scrambles back to the bag.

[johnnyg08]

Based upon the MLBUM p 35 we have an attempted play where the defense has attempted to retire the runner by attempting a tag. MLBUM also suggests using 7.08(k) as a reference. So I agree with the posters that this play is similar to a play at the plate where the runner misses the plate, in this case 1B, but immediately tries to get back to the base so this is a tag play. Are we in agreement here on a tag play or do some think that this should not have been a tag play, but a tag the base appeal?

[Dave Reed]

mbyron,
Regarding the "status of the J/R "relaxed/unrelaxed" interp in pro ball", those terms do not appear in OBR. But as UmpJM points out in the no-tag thread, MLBUM 5.3 clearly employs the idea. (It's worth reading that thread: JM quotes 5.3 from the MLBUM, and a poster named mbyron make some good points.) Additionally, we know that an appeal "must be made before the next pitch, or any play or attempted play", yet the MLBUM says that if an appeal is interrupted to make a play or attempted play which occurs as part of continuous action, then the defense may subsequently renew the appeal (5.4 1, 2, and 3). On the other hand, the appeal is no longer possible after a play following a "definite break in the action." Official OBR interps certainly use the general idea of "relaxed/unrelaxed", even though that terminology isn't invoked.

However, I haven't seen any discussion of 7.10(b) vs. 7.10(d) in the MLBUM, so it's not obvious that the J/R interp would stand.

About "literal reading" of 7.10(b): By literal, I intend just that-- "touch" means touch, not pass close to. I think trying to use "missing a turn" while driving as an apt analogy for missing a base is abusing the many meanings of the word "missed". Perhaps a better analogy would be 9 ball billiards, in which the cue ball must strike the lowest numbered ball on the table before it can strike any other. The cue ball isn't deemed to have struck the balls out of order until it actually strikes a wrong ball. Or consider a sick person who needs to visit the lab, a doctor, and a pharmacy--in that order. Even if he drives most of the way to the doctor's office before returning to visit the lab, he still can do things in the proper order, and hasn't yet done them in the wrong order.

Of course, we don't employ a literal reading of 7.10(b); it is just one of the "234" errors in OBR. So using the letter of 7.10(b) as a reason for not extending 7.10(d) has a dubious basis: the rule is already wrong, in the sense that we don't interpret it literally.

Childress comments: "The Committee intended the material quoted above ['while advancing or returning to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he, or a missed base, is tagged'] to cover a runner who left too soon on a caught fly ball. The ambiguity of the language forced the interpreters to 'revise' the ruling....."

Finally, I got carried away in suggesting that there is a time frame for announcing an appeal (aside from the trivial before the next pitch, etc.). You're right; the requirement is simply that the appeal be unmistakable.

[Dave Reed]

Well, johnnyg08's post made me look at 5.4 (12) in the MLBUM.

"Batter-runner hits a ground ball and beats the play at first base but misses the bag.
Ruling: The proper mechanic is for the umpire to call the runner safe, indicating he beat the play. If the defense appeals by tagging the runner (or base) and appealing that the runner missed first base before the runner returns to first base, the batter-runner would be declared out. Note also OBR Rule 7.08(k) Casebook comment and Section 5.3." [My bolding of "or base."]

Why didn't they just write "If the defense appeals by tagging the runner (or base) before the runner returns to first base, the batter-runner would be declared out", leaving out and appealing that the runner missed first base? And why drag in 7.08(k) and 5.3, both of which refer only to a missed base at home?

So take your pick: it's OK to just tag the base, but apparently the appeal process entails first tagging the runner or base, and then "appealing that the runner missed first base before the runner returns to first base." Or maybe the umpire should use 7.10(d) extended, which is what 7.08(k) and 5.3 are about.

I'm sticking with extending 7.10(d) (at least until tomorrow)

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

I'm sticking with extending 7.10(d) (at least until tomorrow)

Perhaps because you're a nice guy who wants Laz Diaz to turn out to be correct.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Well, johnnyg08's post made me look at 5.4 (12) in the MLBUM.

"Batter-runner hits a ground ball and beats the play at first base but misses the bag.
Ruling: The proper mechanic is for the umpire to call the runner safe, indicating he beat the play. If the defense appeals by tagging the runner (or base) and appealing that the runner missed first base before the runner returns to first base, the batter-runner would be declared out. Note also OBR Rule 7.08(k) Casebook comment and Section 5.3." [My bolding of "or base."]

Why didn't they just write "If the defense appeals by tagging the runner (or base) before the runner returns to first base, the batter-runner would be declared out", leaving out and appealing that the runner missed first base? And why drag in 7.08(k) and 5.3, both of which refer only to a missed base at home?

So take your pick: it's OK to just tag the base, but apparently the appeal process entails first tagging the runner or base, and then "appealing that the runner missed first base before the runner returns to first base." Or maybe the umpire should use 7.10(d) extended, which is what 7.08(k) and 5.3 are about.

I'm sticking with extending 7.10(d) (at least until tomorrow)

I would agree with your MLBUM example, except there was an attempted tag play prior to B/R simply missing 1B...in this example, B/R didn't necessarily beat the play at 1B because there was already a tag attempt on him.

Does that have anything to do with the type of call here?, that's the only reason I have for referencing a play at home plate where this happens most often.

[socalblue1]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I would agree with your MLBUM example, except there was an attempted tag play prior to B/R simply missing 1B...in this example, B/R didn't necessarily beat the play at 1B because there was already a tag attempt on him.

Does that have anything to do with the type of call here?, that's the only reason I have for referencing a play at home plate where this happens most often.

HUH? BR reached (passed) 1B safely & that's how the call is made. An attempted tag of BR before he reaches 1B means nothing here - a proper appeal is required to obtain an out.

[johnnyg08]

Okay, that's what I was asking...that's why I asked if it made a difference or not.

If it does, then it seems as though his mechanics were incorrect based on the post by Dave Reed.

thx socalblue

[SAump]

Originally Posted by socalblue1

HUH? BR reached (passed) 1B safely & that's how the call is made. An attempted tag of BR before he reaches 1B means nothing here - a proper appeal is required to obtain an out.

F3 missed 2 opportunities to tag B/R. Rulebook aside, an appeal would not be recognized.

A) Does this apply?
Rule 7.10(c) He overruns or overslides first base and fails to return to the base immediately, and he or the base is tagged;
The Indians argued in favor of 7.10(b/d and c) with no luck.

B) Does the exception to Rule 7.08 (c) below apply to the OP?
Rule 7.08 (c) He is tagged, when the ball is alive, while off his base. EXCEPTION: A batter-runner cannot be tagged out after overrunning or oversliding first base if he returns immediately to the base;
The EXCEPTION means nothing in the OP. The exception which protects the batter-runner at 1B is immediately removed once 1B is passed untouched.

C) Does this apply?
Rule 7.08(e) ... The force is removed as soon as the runner touches the base to which he is forced to advance, and if he overslides or overruns the base, the runner must be tagged to be put out. ...
First base is treated no differently than any other base. Best explanation I have!

[socalblue1]

Originally Posted by SAump

F3 missed 2 opportunities to tag B/R. Rulebook aside, an appeal would not be recognized.

A) Does this apply?
Rule 7.10(c) He overruns or overslides first base and fails to return to the base immediately, and he or the base is tagged;
The Indians argued in favor of 7.10(b/d and c) with no luck.

B) Does the exception to Rule 7.08 (c) below apply to the OP?
Rule 7.08 (c) He is tagged, when the ball is alive, while off his base. EXCEPTION: A batter-runner cannot be tagged out after overrunning or oversliding first base if he returns immediately to the base;
The EXCEPTION means nothing in the OP. The exception which protects the batter-runner at 1B is immediately removed if 1B is passed untouched.

C) Does this apply?
Rule 7.08(e) ... The force is removed as soon as the runner touches the base to which he is forced to advance, and if he overslides or overruns the base, the runner must be tagged to be put out. ...
First base is treated no differently than any other base. Best explanation I have!

Tag attempts prior to batter-runner reaching/passing 1B mean nothing so far as allowing an appeal here. Batter-runner missed 1B while passing & may thus be ruled out via proper appeal.

In this case it's unrelaxed action & a tag would be required. IMO this situation should be treated exactly the same way as a runner missing HP (Except we make a safe call when he passes 1B). Nothing more than a simple missed base.

7.08(c) protects a batter-runner who immediately returns to 1B. 7.08(a) does not apply & 7.08(j) Comment allows tag or base touched if no attempt to return.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by socalblue1

Tag attempts prior to batter-runner reaching/passing 1B mean nothing so far as allowing an appeal here. Batter-runner missed 1B while passing & may thus be ruled out via proper appeal.

In this case it's unrelaxed action & a tag would be required. IMO this situation should be treated exactly the same way as a runner missing HP (Except we make a safe call when he passes 1B). Nothing more than a simple missed base.

7.08(c) protects a batter-runner who immediately returns to 1B. 7.08(a) does not apply & 7.08(j) Comment allows tag or base touched if no attempt to return.

SoCal, you might be a little late to the party here and maybe skipped a few posts in the thread. 7.08 is not the rule relevant to missed-base appeals, 7.10 is.

The question concerns whether the appeal was properly constituted (fielder catches ball and tags base while the runner scrambles back). Two rules seem relevant:
7.10(b): either the runner or the base may be tagged
7.10(d): by implication, if the runner is scrambling back to home plate, he (and not the plate) must be tagged; by extension, since the runner may also run past 1B, some favor extending this ruling to 1B.

I have heard authorities in favor of both rulings. Diaz obviously voted with his ruling. I was wondering if this issue had been settled in some authoritative way.

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I was wondering if this issue had been settled in some authoritative way.

I think it has been settled by MLBUM 5.4(12):

"Batter-runner hits a ground ball and beats the play at first base but misses the bag.
Ruling: The proper mechanic is for the umpire to call the runner safe, indicating he beat the play. If the defense appeals by tagging the runner (or base) and appealing that the runner missed first base before the runner returns to first base, the batter-runner would be declared out. Note also OBR Rule 7.08(k) Casebook comment and Section 5.3."

The reference to 7.08(k) and Section 5.3 can only mean that the principle behind 7.10(d) should be taken into account. Here's 5.3 (which includes and restates all of 7.08(k), its Comment, and 7.10(d):

5.3 RUNNER MISSES HOME PLATE
Should a runner, in scoring, fail to touch home plate and continue on his way to the bench (making no effort to return), he may be put out by the fielder touching home plate and appealing to the umpire for a decision. However, this rule applies only 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 home plate).

The evidence for extending 7.10(d) to at least first base is:

1. A MLBUM interp specific to a missed first base situation directs the reader to note the interp for a missed home plate.
2. The PBUC interp given to Childress says extend 7.10(d) to all bases.
3. J/R also requires the effect of 7.10(d) at all bases.

I'm not aware of Evans directly addressing the issue. (Poo-poohing unrelaxed/relaxed as "not in the rule book" is both wrong and too terse to be of value.) The only known (at least to me) contrary opinion is from the Wendelstedt school.

[mbyron]

Great. I'm in. Thanks, Dave!