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

[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.