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

[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.

[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.