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

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

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?

You are correct. I would have an out, which would imply Diaz did get it wrong.

If this is a set-up question saying "how could you rule differently from a MLB umpire?" let it go. There have been more than a few times when MLB umps have totally screwed the pooch on, not only rule interps, but plain rules. I have done the same. With the literature that's out there and the training I have had, this is simply how I would have ruled. Until I see something different, I believe that my position is supported by the rule set and "official" interpretations.

[johnnyg08]

Lighten up Francis. I asked you a question and you answered it.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Lighten up Francis. I asked you a question and you answered it.

Just covering my bases. Looks like I missed one.

[johnnyg08]

not an unmistakable appeal in this case :-) there are a few on here who dare not disagree w/ MLB...which is fine...it allows for pretty good discussion

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SAump

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!? If a runner is standing on a base, and then the defense appeals that the runner missed that base, the umpire will NOT affirm the appeal (unless, maybe, the umpire is from San Antonio).

[johnnyg08]

so he's standing on the base that they're appealing that he missed. safe unless he doesn't have retouch privileges right?

[SAump]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

so he's standing on the base that they're appealing that he missed. safe unless he doesn't have retouch privileges right?

I agree with this statement, although {legally acquired} retouch "privileges" must be defined for clarification. Wait, those privileges already exists within the rules. The umpire MAY correctly rule on the actual plays which do not allow the runner to return to the base after it has been tagged, ala 1) grounded into an out at 1B or force play from the TOP or 2) thrown out after a caught fly prior to retouch from the TOT. The out is recorded and the runner is simply removed from the base when that happens.

"No son, your not safe because you retouched the missed base before an unmistakeable appeal."

[SAump]

For posting 7,777 times.

I salute all of the umpires who have made half as much of a contribution or more to this website.

Happy Mothers Day Weekend and Cheers!

[SAump]

Rule 6.08(c) Comment: If catcher’s interference is called with a play in progress the umpire will allow the play to continue because the manager may elect to take the play. If the batter-runner missed first base, or a runner misses his next base, he shall be considered as having reached the base, as stated in Note of Rule 7.04 (d).

I am not the rulebook writing guru, but it belongs immediately after the exception to rule 7.08(c).
6.08(c), what a place to hide this gem.

Well Johnnyg08, my venture in this thread has come about full circle.
I do hope someone will answer your questions soon. I will now retire from this thread.
I'm not holding my breath any longer for a more "authoritative" opinion than 6.08(c) and 7.04(d).
Good luck getting the guys to spill the beans! Ump153 and SethPDX have nothing.
Laz was right. We knew that in the OP. It was fun. Tick, Tick, Tick, ...