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

[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."

[SAump]

For posting 7,777 times.

I salute all of the umpires who have made half as much of a contribution or more to this website.

Happy Mothers Day Weekend and Cheers!