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

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

Being a Tribe fan, and watching their bullpen go off like a Molotov Cocktail every night, I figured I would see another firebomb go off in Detroit. Lo and behold, I did. I was rained out again yesterday (for like the 290th time this season), so I saw the play and the game. Laz Diaz mostly handled the play right.

1. F3 Martinez had the ball and lost it as he was tagging the BR. NO OBS here.
2. BR jumped over and around the tag and tumbled to the ground, never hitting the base.
3. F1 Pavano got the ball, flipped it to F3 who touched the bag. All the while the coach is hustling the BR back to the bag, and he gets there safely.
4. Time was called, and there was the long-term discussion between the manager and Diaz and the crew chief.
5. The point is that the once the BR flipped over the bag, he was considered to have reached the bag for purposes of the play and had to be tagged to be called out. He was never tagged.

The only thing I did not see Diaz do is signal safe, or no tag, during the play, but he may well have been out of camera range when he made his signal. He did not signal safe when the BR touched 1B again.

After the play, the Indians' field staff had a meeting in the dugout where Eric Wedge explained the call to them. They probably had never seen this type of call before.

I feel your pain.

Here is the video of this play (first clip). I agree that there's no obstruction or interference on this play: ball, fielder, and batter-runner all happen to arrive at the same place at the same time, and the ball pops out.

The BR missed the base, and crawled back to tag it. The Indians played on as if tagging the bag were sufficient; the umpire ruled along the lines of J/R's "relaxed/unrelaxed" action.

For those who don't know that ruling: according to J/R, the BR has acquired the base when he passes it, even if he doesn't touch it. The missed-base appeal will then be ruled on depending on what the runner does:
1. if he is scrambling back to the base (as in this play) action is "unrelaxed," and the RUNNER must be tagged.
2. if he is not trying to get back to the base (wandering around down the baseline), then action is "relaxed," and either the runner or the base may be tagged.
In the OP, the only explanation for not calling the BR out is that Laz Diaz is applying this interpretation: the fielder clearly had the ball and tagged the base before the BR got his hand on it.

This interpretation is somewhat controversial, since the black letter text of 7.10(b) permits tagging either the runner or the base ("Any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when ... (b) With the ball in play, while advancing or returning to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he, or a missed base, is tagged.") I had heard that pro enforcement of this rule had dispensed with the J/R interpretation.

I guess Laz Diaz thinks otherwise. And I'll add, just for JK: another controversial play happens with the Indians on the field and — wait for it — goes against them.

[Lawrence.Dorsey]

I just watched the video as well. Let me say at outset that my first comment is really more a question because I am not sure if I am right in my thinking.

1) Once F3 boots the ball, in other words he had the opportunity to field it and does not, does he not lose protection and therefore may be in jeopardy of committing obstruction? What makes this play interesting to me is that runners are keyed in to staying in the running lane heading to 1B and so Anderson was doing what he supposed to. Had F3 been fielding on the initial attempt, I think Anderson would have been guilty of interference but that's not what happened.

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

[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?

[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!

[DG]

Originally Posted by Lawrence.Dorsey

I just watched the video as well. Let me say at outset that my first comment is really more a question because I am not sure if I am right in my thinking.

1) Once F3 boots the ball, in other words he had the opportunity to field it and does not, does he not lose protection and therefore may be in jeopardy of committing obstruction? What makes this play interesting to me is that runners are keyed in to staying in the running lane heading to 1B and so Anderson was doing what he supposed to. Had F3 been fielding on the initial attempt, I think Anderson would have been guilty of interference but that's not what happened.

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

1) F3 picked up the loose ball and tried to tag the runner but lost it in the attempt. There can't be Obstruction when he has the ball.

2) I expect the Indians and Detroit players went to school on this situation and now know what to do the next time this happens.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Lawrence.Dorsey

I just watched the video as well. Let me say at outset that my first comment is really more a question because I am not sure if I am right in my thinking.

1) Once F3 boots the ball, in other words he had the opportunity to field it and does not, does he not lose protection and therefore may be in jeopardy of committing obstruction? What makes this play interesting to me is that runners are keyed in to staying in the running lane heading to 1B and so Anderson was doing what he supposed to.

2) 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

1) F3 picked up the loose ball and tried to tag the runner but lost it in the attempt. There can't be Obstruction when he has the ball. I don't know why he would run the left edge of the running lane when that is where the tag is likely to be attempted, when he could be running farther right.

2) I expect the Indians and Detroit players went to school on this situation and now know what to do the next time this happens.

[Lawrence.Dorsey]

Don,

Good point on my first bullet. I guess I wasn't sure that he ever had the ball in his glove but on further review he did, albeit rather briefly.

Lawrence

[SAump]

Think of the missed base play in terms of an errant throw into DBT.

A) 1st play by an infielder, at TOP and prior to missed base.
1) Either a touch of 1B or a tag of the B/R is needed.

B) 2nd play by an infielder, at TOT or after base has been legally acquired by B/R.
2) F3 must tag the B/R and does not.

Sound good?

Edited for clarity.

[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.

[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.

[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.