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

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

I think it has been settled by MLBUM 5.4(12):

"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)

Dave, what do you suppose is the reasoning for including the parenthetical statement "or a base" in the above passage? Would it be in the case that the action is relaxed?

All in all, I do like your analysis.

[johnnyg08]

I would say that in this case, he didn't simply beat the play...this play is similar to a play at home plate where the runner slides, misses the base, catcher misses the tag, now it's a race to the base...runner to touch it before he's tagged out.

We can't realistically call an out here by F3 simply touching 1B on this play. This has to be a tag play. That's how I'm interpreting Dave's posts.

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Dave, what do you suppose is the reasoning for including the parenthetical statement "or a base" in the above passage? Would it be in the case that the action is relaxed?

I think so. The OBR way of phrasing "relaxed" seems to be "not scrambling back."

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

I think so. The OBR way of phrasing "relaxed" seems to be "not scrambling back."

I have not seen OBR use "relaxed/unrelaxed" in any of their interpretations. The runner is either making an attempt to get back or he isn't. And this is only discussed when a runner misses home plate.

Runner misses first, second or third.
Scrambles back to missed base.
F* touches bag before runner gets back, "he missed (the base)"
Me, BU, "you're right. HE'S OUT."

I do not subscribe to the J/R interps concerning this.

If there is an official OBR or PBUC interp, please let me know.

The MLBUM seems to support this by saying either the base or runner needs to be tagged. If they wanted to distinguish between "relaxed/unrelaxed" actions, I would think they would have addressed this in their ruling such as they did with plays at the plate.

[johnnyg08]

So are you saying Diaz got the play wrong?

[UmpTTS43]

I did not see the play or the video, however I would say he used incorrect mechanics based on today's interpretations. If the tag of first was not deemed an "unmistakable appeal" then I can see how it was not upheld. There are still too many differing interps considering missed base appeals. The only ones in print, that I know of are: MLBUM, which seems pretty clear to me, Wendelstedt and J/R, both of which are contradictory. I have always viewed J/R as AN interpretation, not an OFFICIAL interpretation.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by SAump

OBR Rule 7.08(e) ... The force is removed as soon as the runner touches the base to which he is forced to advance, and if he overslides or overruns the base, the runner must be tagged to be put out.

In the above rule, it says the runner touches the base. If it is a missed base, this rule does not apply and the runner or the base can be tagged on appeal. Since it was a missed base appeal, runs can legally be taken off of the board.

Directly from MLBUM, "It does not apply to the ordinary play where the runner misses the plate and then immediately makes an effort to touch the plate before being tagged. In that case, the runner must be tagged."

This is for a play at the plate. This rule does not carry over to first, second, or third.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

In the above rule, it says the runner touches the base. If it is a missed base, this rule does not apply and the runner or the base can be tagged on appeal. Since it was a missed base appeal, runs can legally be taken off of the board.

This is for a play at the plate. This rule does not carry over to first, second, or third.

OBR 7.10 is supposedly a reclarification of 7.08. See 7.08 for the same rulings. The appeal interpretations come from OBR 7.08. Take calling a baserunner scrambling back to a missed base out by "tagged" base. Would someone provide one example of a MLB umpire who has recently made that same decision?

The conflict resides in a runner who "legally" acquires the right to a base upon passing it and a runner who does not "legally" acquire the right to a base upon passing it. Tagging a base applies applies to a) "force" plays, b) a runner's failure to immediately return to a base, c) a runner's failure to immediately retouch a base, and d) a runner who cannot legally return to retouch, ala running the bases in legal order. Add another runner advancing on the same OP play and ask if a proper appeal would be granted to F3 if he tags the base, failed to tag B/R, and then immediately threw the ball to catch another runner off a base?

[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, ...

[SAump]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

I have not seen OBR use "relaxed/unrelaxed" in any of their interpretations. The runner is either making an attempt to get back or he isn't. And this is only discussed when a runner misses home plate.

Runner misses first, second or third.
Scrambles back to missed base.
F* touches bag before runner gets back, "he missed (the base)"
Me, BU, "you're right. HE'S OUT."

I do not subscribe to the J/R interps concerning this.

If there is an official OBR or PBUC interp, please let me know.

The MLBUM seems to support this by saying either the base or runner needs to be tagged. If they wanted to distinguish between "relaxed/unrelaxed" actions, I would think they would have addressed this in their ruling such as they did with plays at the plate.

Another Wendelstedt interpretation? Pardon me but the runner must be tagged.

Directly from OBR, "The force is removed as soon as the runner touches the base to which he is forced to advance, and if he overslides or overruns the base, the runner must be tagged to be put out."

Directly from MLBUM, "It does not apply to the ordinary play where the runner misses the plate and then immediately makes an effort to touch the plate before being tagged. In that case, the runner must be tagged."

MLBUM's play at the plate is directly supported by OBR.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Dave, what do you suppose is the reasoning for including the parenthetical statement "or a base" in the above passage? Would it be in the case that the action is relaxed?

All in all, I do like your analysis.

Would it be in the case that the action is relaxed? No. It may apply to relaxed/unrelaxed action. It may not. There is no definitive OBR/MLBUM caseplay. Forget the J/R interp for a moment. It does not "exist" and it cannot be used to justify any valid ruling.

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 is definitive? It applies to the case where a runner cannot legally return to the missed base as a result of HIS continuous action. There is no disputing this fact. When the defense cannot tag the runner because he is not there or he standing on the base; the only other viable option is to make a verbal appeal and tag the base. The out may still be recorded in this manner which is by rule one of the "unmistakable appeals" accepted by MLB.

[johnnyg08]

I like this post. Makes way more sense than calling him out by simply tagging the base.

[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."