Dave, what do you suppose is the reasoning for including the parenthetical statement "or a base" in the above passage? Would it be in the case that the action is relaxed?

All in all, I do like your analysis.

I would say that in this case, he didn't simply beat the play...this play is similar to a play at home plate where the runner slides, misses the base, catcher misses the tag, now it's a race to the base...runner to touch it before he's tagged out.

We can't realistically call an out here by F3 simply touching 1B on this play. This has to be a tag play. That's how I'm interpreting Dave's posts.

I think so. The OBR way of phrasing "relaxed" seems to be "not scrambling back."

I have not seen OBR use "relaxed/unrelaxed" in any of their interpretations. The runner is either making an attempt to get back or he isn't. And this is only discussed when a runner misses home plate.

Runner misses first, second or third.
Scrambles back to missed base.
F* touches bag before runner gets back, "he missed (the base)"
Me, BU, "you're right. HE'S OUT."

I do not subscribe to the J/R interps concerning this.

If there is an official OBR or PBUC interp, please let me know.

The MLBUM seems to support this by saying either the base or runner needs to be tagged. If they wanted to distinguish between "relaxed/unrelaxed" actions, I would think they would have addressed this in their ruling such as they did with plays at the plate.

So are you saying Diaz got the play wrong?

I did not see the play or the video, however I would say he used incorrect mechanics based on today's interpretations. If the tag of first was not deemed an "unmistakable appeal" then I can see how it was not upheld. There are still too many differing interps considering missed base appeals. The only ones in print, that I know of are: MLBUM, which seems pretty clear to me, Wendelstedt and J/R, both of which are contradictory. I have always viewed J/R as AN interpretation, not an OFFICIAL interpretation.

Conflicts w/ OBR
 

Another Wendelstedt interpretation? Pardon me but the runner must be tagged.

Directly from OBR, "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."

Directly from MLBUM, "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."

MLBUM's play at the plate is directly supported by OBR.

In the above rule, it says the runner touches the base. If it is a missed base, this rule does not apply and the runner or the base can be tagged on appeal. Since it was a missed base appeal, runs can legally be taken off of the board.

This is for a play at the plate. This rule does not carry over to first, second, or third.

7.10 redundant?
 

OBR 7.10 is supposedly a reclarification of 7.08. See 7.08 for the same rulings. The appeal interpretations come from OBR 7.08. Take calling a baserunner scrambling back to a missed base out by "tagged" base. Would someone provide one example of a MLB umpire who has recently made that same decision?

The conflict resides in a runner who "legally" acquires the right to a base upon passing it and a runner who does not "legally" acquire the right to a base upon passing it. Tagging a base applies applies to a) "force" plays, b) a runner's failure to immediately return to a base, c) a runner's failure to immediately retouch a base, and d) a runner who cannot legally return to retouch, ala running the bases in legal order. Add another runner advancing on the same OP play and ask if a proper appeal would be granted to F3 if he tags the base, failed to tag B/R, and then immediately threw the ball to catch another runner off a base?

Isn't advancing passed a missed base an assumed touch until there's an unmistakable appeal...so in the play, since you didn't see it..."B/R hits a bouncer down the first base line...pithcer snags the ball, attempts a tag, tags the B/R, ball comes out, B/R falls completey over and past 1B...defense gets the ball and throws to 1B where F3 catches the ball with his foot on the base. The throw beats the runner to the base as B/R is crawling back to touch 1B"...no tag is attempted. Runner is not called out.

Good question.
 

Would it be in the case that the action is relaxed? No. It may apply to relaxed/unrelaxed action. It may not. There is no definitive OBR/MLBUM caseplay. Forget the J/R interp for a moment. It does not "exist" and it cannot be used to justify any valid ruling.

Would it be in the case that some action may prevent the defense from completing a legal "tag" appeal? Yes. For example, the runner is standing on the base. The defense may still appeal that the runner missed the base. The umpire may rule the runner out

What is definitive? It applies to the case where a runner cannot legally return to the missed base as a result of HIS continuous action. There is no disputing this fact. When the defense cannot tag the runner because he is not there or he standing on the base; the only other viable option is to make a verbal appeal and tag the base. The out may still be recorded in this manner which is by rule one of the "unmistakable appeals" accepted by MLB.

I like this post. Makes way more sense than calling him out by simply tagging the base.

It is an assumed touch until a valid appeal is made. In the above op, if the defense made an unmistakable appeal, I would have recorded an out. If the toss to F3 was part of continuing action trying to retire the batter runner prior to reaching first, and not interpreted as an unmistakable appeal, I would simply give the "safe" sign and wait and see if a valid appeal is made.

Although 7.10 seems to be redundant, it clarifies what constitutes appeal plays and how they are to be handled. There are specific rules associated with appeal plays; what types, scoring a run and the like.

Once a baserunner has passed a base, whether touching it or not, he has "legally acquired" that base. If he missed the base, it is now an appeal play and he is subject to be called out on appeal although the has "legally acquired" the base. This is true even at home. The appeal procedures are different at home versus the other bases and are defined for missed home appeals. What I don't understand, is why people feel it correct to take the missed home appeal process and apply it to the other bases. If that was true, we would not have a rule specifically for home plate. If a runner misses a base, he can be called out on appeal by either being tagged, while off of the base, or the missed base being tagged, while he is off of the base.

Okay, so are you saying that Diaz was wrong and he should've been called out? Based upon your above post...assuming all that all of your information is factual...then you should have an out there. No?