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

[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?

[johnnyg08]

Isn't advancing passed a missed base an assumed touch until there's an unmistakable appeal...so in the play, since you didn't see it..."B/R hits a bouncer down the first base line...pithcer snags the ball, attempts a tag, tags the B/R, ball comes out, B/R falls completey over and past 1B...defense gets the ball and throws to 1B where F3 catches the ball with his foot on the base. The throw beats the runner to the base as B/R is crawling back to touch 1B"...no tag is attempted. Runner is not called out.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Isn't advancing passed a missed base an assumed touch until there's an unmistakable appeal...so in the play, since you didn't see it..."B/R hits a bouncer down the first base line...pithcer snags the ball, attempts a tag, tags the B/R, ball comes out, B/R falls completey over and past 1B...defense gets the ball and throws to 1B where F3 catches the ball with his foot on the base. The throw beats the runner to the base as B/R is crawling back to touch 1B"...no tag is attempted. Runner is not called out.

It is an assumed touch until a valid appeal is made. In the above op, if the defense made an unmistakable appeal, I would have recorded an out. If the toss to F3 was part of continuing action trying to retire the batter runner prior to reaching first, and not interpreted as an unmistakable appeal, I would simply give the "safe" sign and wait and see if a valid appeal is made.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by SAump

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?

Although 7.10 seems to be redundant, it clarifies what constitutes appeal plays and how they are to be handled. There are specific rules associated with appeal plays; what types, scoring a run and the like.

Once a baserunner has passed a base, whether touching it or not, he has "legally acquired" that base. If he missed the base, it is now an appeal play and he is subject to be called out on appeal although the has "legally acquired" the base. This is true even at home. The appeal procedures are different at home versus the other bases and are defined for missed home appeals. What I don't understand, is why people feel it correct to take the missed home appeal process and apply it to the other bases. If that was true, we would not have a rule specifically for home plate. If a runner misses a base, he can be called out on appeal by either being tagged, while off of the base, or the missed base being tagged, while he is off of the base.

[johnnyg08]

Okay, so are you saying that Diaz was wrong and he should've been called out? Based upon your above post...assuming all that all of your information is factual...then you should have an out there. No?

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Okay, so are you saying that Diaz was wrong and he should've been called out? Based upon your above post...assuming all that all of your information is factual...then you should have an out there. No?

You are correct. I would have an out, which would imply Diaz did get it wrong.

If this is a set-up question saying "how could you rule differently from a MLB umpire?" let it go. There have been more than a few times when MLB umps have totally screwed the pooch on, not only rule interps, but plain rules. I have done the same. With the literature that's out there and the training I have had, this is simply how I would have ruled. Until I see something different, I believe that my position is supported by the rule set and "official" interpretations.

[johnnyg08]

Lighten up Francis. I asked you a question and you answered it.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Lighten up Francis. I asked you a question and you answered it.

Just covering my bases. Looks like I missed one.

[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, ...