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

[_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.

[swkansasref33]

if you go below to the list of video clips its the 2nd row, 3rd column maybe?

[johnnyg08]

Yep, there it is...thanks. Looks like F3 has the ball at the point of the tag so I don't have OBS...B/R misses 1B, but then F3 loses the ball after the tag, B/R makes it back to 1B w/o a tag attempt. safe at 1B

[johnnyg08]

Based upon the MLBUM p 35 we have an attempted play where the defense has attempted to retire the runner by attempting a tag. MLBUM also suggests using 7.08(k) as a reference. So I agree with the posters that this play is similar to a play at the plate where the runner misses the plate, in this case 1B, but immediately tries to get back to the base so this is a tag play. Are we in agreement here on a tag play or do some think that this should not have been a tag play, but a tag the base appeal?

[Dave Reed]

mbyron,
Regarding the "status of the J/R "relaxed/unrelaxed" interp in pro ball", those terms do not appear in OBR. But as UmpJM points out in the no-tag thread, MLBUM 5.3 clearly employs the idea. (It's worth reading that thread: JM quotes 5.3 from the MLBUM, and a poster named mbyron make some good points.) Additionally, we know that an appeal "must be made before the next pitch, or any play or attempted play", yet the MLBUM says that if an appeal is interrupted to make a play or attempted play which occurs as part of continuous action, then the defense may subsequently renew the appeal (5.4 1, 2, and 3). On the other hand, the appeal is no longer possible after a play following a "definite break in the action." Official OBR interps certainly use the general idea of "relaxed/unrelaxed", even though that terminology isn't invoked.

However, I haven't seen any discussion of 7.10(b) vs. 7.10(d) in the MLBUM, so it's not obvious that the J/R interp would stand.

About "literal reading" of 7.10(b): By literal, I intend just that-- "touch" means touch, not pass close to. I think trying to use "missing a turn" while driving as an apt analogy for missing a base is abusing the many meanings of the word "missed". Perhaps a better analogy would be 9 ball billiards, in which the cue ball must strike the lowest numbered ball on the table before it can strike any other. The cue ball isn't deemed to have struck the balls out of order until it actually strikes a wrong ball. Or consider a sick person who needs to visit the lab, a doctor, and a pharmacy--in that order. Even if he drives most of the way to the doctor's office before returning to visit the lab, he still can do things in the proper order, and hasn't yet done them in the wrong order.

Of course, we don't employ a literal reading of 7.10(b); it is just one of the "234" errors in OBR. So using the letter of 7.10(b) as a reason for not extending 7.10(d) has a dubious basis: the rule is already wrong, in the sense that we don't interpret it literally.

Childress comments: "The Committee intended the material quoted above ['while advancing or returning to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he, or a missed base, is tagged'] to cover a runner who left too soon on a caught fly ball. The ambiguity of the language forced the interpreters to 'revise' the ruling....."

Finally, I got carried away in suggesting that there is a time frame for announcing an appeal (aside from the trivial before the next pitch, etc.). You're right; the requirement is simply that the appeal be unmistakable.

[Dave Reed]

Well, johnnyg08's post made me look at 5.4 (12) in the MLBUM.

"Batter-runner hits a ground ball and beats the play at first base but misses the bag.
Ruling: The proper mechanic is for the umpire to call the runner safe, indicating he beat the play. If the defense appeals by tagging the runner (or base) and appealing that the runner missed first base before the runner returns to first base, the batter-runner would be declared out. Note also OBR Rule 7.08(k) Casebook comment and Section 5.3." [My bolding of "or base."]

Why didn't they just write "If the defense appeals by tagging the runner (or base) before the runner returns to first base, the batter-runner would be declared out", leaving out and appealing that the runner missed first base? And why drag in 7.08(k) and 5.3, both of which refer only to a missed base at home?

So take your pick: it's OK to just tag the base, but apparently the appeal process entails first tagging the runner or base, and then "appealing that the runner missed first base before the runner returns to first base." Or maybe the umpire should use 7.10(d) extended, which is what 7.08(k) and 5.3 are about.

I'm sticking with extending 7.10(d) (at least until tomorrow)

[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.