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

Tigers are up to bat. Anderson hits it to the first baseman. It hits off of his leg or glove or something and bounces back toward homeplate. There is a collision right in front of first base after the 1st baseman failed to retrieve the ball.

Anderson(the BR) went flipping into the air and landed HARD on the ground behind first base. This was one of the strangest plays I have ever seen. he then dives back to first as the pitcher threw to the first baseman(or visa versa) The throw clearly beat him.

I think the BU was Laz Diaz. I am still waiting for a safe signal. He never made any signal at all.

I have mostly umpired FED in my life and do not know the MLB rules as well as really old guys from San Diego....

My questions:

1) Was no signal was the correct way to handle this?
2) Would the 1B be guilty of OBS since he blocked the BR's access to 1B
3) What would be the proper way to appeal the miss of 1B in this instance?


Joe in Missouri

If the ball had bounced away from F3, then it was likely obstruction. Since the BR would be awarded first on the obstruction, there's really no way to appeal it (since the obstruction was the *cause* of the miss of first base).

Do the MLB guys have a sign for OBS? Laz did nothing that I could see.

I saw the play in real time last night
 

Being a Tribe fan, and watching their bullpen go off like a Molotov Cocktail every night, I figured I would see another firebomb go off in Detroit. Lo and behold, I did. I was rained out again yesterday (for like the 290th time this season), so I saw the play and the game. Laz Diaz mostly handled the play right.

1. F3 Martinez had the ball and lost it as he was tagging the BR. NO OBS here.
2. BR jumped over and around the tag and tumbled to the ground, never hitting the base.
3. F1 Pavano got the ball, flipped it to F3 who touched the bag. All the while the coach is hustling the BR back to the bag, and he gets there safely.
4. Time was called, and there was the long-term discussion between the manager and Diaz and the crew chief.
5. The point is that the once the BR flipped over the bag, he was considered to have reached the bag for purposes of the play and had to be tagged to be called out. He was never tagged.

The only thing I did not see Diaz do is signal safe, or no tag, during the play, but he may well have been out of camera range when he made his signal. He did not signal safe when the BR touched 1B again.

After the play, the Indians' field staff had a meeting in the dugout where Eric Wedge explained the call to them. They probably had never seen this type of call before.

To your specific Question
 

In OBR and NCAA, you point to the play, yell "That's Obstruction", and let the play go. You don;t have to look like a moving mailbox with your arm sticking out.

I feel your pain.

Here is the video of this play (first clip). I agree that there's no obstruction or interference on this play: ball, fielder, and batter-runner all happen to arrive at the same place at the same time, and the ball pops out.

The BR missed the base, and crawled back to tag it. The Indians played on as if tagging the bag were sufficient; the umpire ruled along the lines of J/R's "relaxed/unrelaxed" action.

For those who don't know that ruling: according to J/R, the BR has acquired the base when he passes it, even if he doesn't touch it. The missed-base appeal will then be ruled on depending on what the runner does:
1. if he is scrambling back to the base (as in this play) action is "unrelaxed," and the RUNNER must be tagged.
2. if he is not trying to get back to the base (wandering around down the baseline), then action is "relaxed," and either the runner or the base may be tagged.
In the OP, the only explanation for not calling the BR out is that Laz Diaz is applying this interpretation: the fielder clearly had the ball and tagged the base before the BR got his hand on it.

This interpretation is somewhat controversial, since the black letter text of 7.10(b) permits tagging either the runner or the base ("Any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when ... (b) With the ball in play, while advancing or returning to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he, or a missed base, is tagged.") I had heard that pro enforcement of this rule had dispensed with the J/R interpretation.

I guess Laz Diaz thinks otherwise. And I'll add, just for JK: another controversial play happens with the Indians on the field and — wait for it — goes against them. ;)

I just watched the video as well. Let me say at outset that my first comment is really more a question because I am not sure if I am right in my thinking.

1) Once F3 boots the ball, in other words he had the opportunity to field it and does not, does he not lose protection and therefore may be in jeopardy of committing obstruction? What makes this play interesting to me is that runners are keyed in to staying in the running lane heading to 1B and so Anderson was doing what he supposed to. Had F3 been fielding on the initial attempt, I think Anderson would have been guilty of interference but that's not what happened.

2) I can't figure out the J/R interpretation. Either you touched the bag or you didn't and if you didn't, the force should still be on. If Laz has no OBS or INT, then the runner should be out because the base was tagged prior to the runner legally acquiring it. I don't fall out very often on the players side when it comes to the rules but there is no way any player will know in a situation like this when to tag the bag or runner .

Lawrence

MByron
 

I grew up in Cuyahoga Falls, BTW.

I am glad there are other long suffering Cleveland fans willing to come out of the closet, sans bag over their head. How many umpiring dates have you lost this year?

I agree on no OBS...When I saw the original play and replays, I did not realize that the 1B had the ball. I thought he had booted it a second time. In that case-1B boots the ball then, without the ball flips the runner....THAT would be OBS, right? I cannot see putting that runner in jeoipardy if he only missed the base because of a mugging by a fielder without the ball. Furthermore, it was an Injuns player and most of those are flat out bad people anyway.

Joe In Missouri

1) F3 picked up the loose ball and tried to tag the runner but lost it in the attempt. There can't be Obstruction when he has the ball.

2) I expect the Indians and Detroit players went to school on this situation and now know what to do the next time this happens.

1) F3 picked up the loose ball and tried to tag the runner but lost it in the attempt. There can't be Obstruction when he has the ball. I don't know why he would run the left edge of the running lane when that is where the tag is likely to be attempted, when he could be running farther right.

2) I expect the Indians and Detroit players went to school on this situation and now know what to do the next time this happens.

Don,

Good point on my first bullet. I guess I wasn't sure that he ever had the ball in his glove but on further review he did, albeit rather briefly.

Lawrence

~Cripes~
 

Mr Washburn you should be ashamed.

Using the politically incorrect term of "Injuns" in the title.

I am sure the righteous PC group oin this board are spinning in their seats.

Made Up 2nd Bullet
 

Think of the missed base play in terms of an errant throw into DBT.

A) 1st play by an infielder, at TOP and prior to missed base.
1) Either a touch of 1B or a tag of the B/R is needed.

B) 2nd play by an infielder, at TOT or after base has been legally acquired by B/R.
2) F3 must tag the B/R and does not.

Sound good?

Edited for clarity. ;)

Video doesn't really show it but he should have made a call of some kind. Either safe or out. Looks like he just did nothing even from the different angle.

Thanks
David

Lawrence, I'm sure you know that a runner who runs past 1B before he or the base is tagged is SAFE and is deemed to have acquired the base pending a missed-base appeal.

This is true at every level. The proper mechanic in a HS game would be to signal and verbalize "Safe" as usual and continue to observe in case of an appeal.

As for Diaz's call, I can see only 2 possibilities to explain his calling the runner safe:
a) he judged (incorrectly, as the replay demonstrates) that the runner touched the base with his hand before the fielder tagged the base while securely holding the ball.
b) he applied the J/R concept of "unrelaxed action" and required the fielder to tag the runner rather than the base for the missed-base appeal.

If the MLBUM sticks to the letter of 7.10(b), he's made a mistake either way.

I've had Falls 4 times this season. They lost every time; seems like a young team, and the pitching is not deep.

I actually haven't lost many games. I've been so busy at work that I haven't had many to lose!

No, at least to me.

LEt's ignore the contact and the missed base for a minute -- the ball is on the ground and the runner passes the base -- would a call be needed? Maybe not in MLB.

That's the same mechanic that should be used on the play described.

I see your point, especially for MLB. Everyone could see the ball on the ground etc.,

Thanks
David

2nd bullet
 

Forget the J/R "appeal" interp for a moment. Take the play.
Imagine the same situation at the plate, runner sliding into a tag and knocking the ball loose from the catcher. F1 hands the ball to F2 who steps on the plate. Runner then crawls back to the plate and touches it before being tagged out.

F3 fielded the ball and made an attempt to tag the runner. The ball comes loose and F1 retrieves it and gives it back to F3 who touches 1B. F1 did not retrieve a batted ball, or a deflected ball. He retrieved a loose or dropped ball after an errant tag attempt. F1 tossed the ball to F3 before B/R touched 1B. F3, incorrectly believing he was on the receiving end of a batted or deflected ball that had been fielded then tagged the base, not the runner. The umpire recognized the correct "play" and called the runner safe.

Sound better?

In attempting to pick up the ball the second time, the ball flies out of the glove towards the dugout, so you do not have to make a call in the first place. When the runner immediately returned to first base and no tag attempt was made, you now have a runner on first just like normal and no call is needed for that either, (when the pitcher throws to the first baseman on a pick-off and the 1st baseman makes no attempt whatsoever to tag the runner, no call by the umpire needs to be made). So, it is a weird play that technically needs no calls for either part of the play.

This play goes to show how great an umpire Laz Diaz is.

As an umpire, one feels that you have to make a call on a play. He realized that on the tag/ball coming loose, that there was no call. When the player was going back to touch first base and there is no tag attempt, there isn't a need for a call. But put them together in sequence as they happened, every player and coach out there was looking for a call because they didn't know the rule. Simply put, there is no need for a call to be made.

To further prove Laz Diaz's worth, he calmly explained the hard to understand situation to Wedge. That dude is always wound up tight. He was ready to explode but Laz diffused the situation right off the bat.

The idea that no signal is needed here assumes that the BR touched the base on the first time by. Otherwise, you'd need a signal for the missed-base appeal.

I guess the explanation could be as simple as a missed call. :shrug: 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.

My post was elliptical, omitting the qualifying "If the MLBUM sticks to the letter of 7.10(b)..." I admit that I don't know the status of the J/R "relaxed/unrelaxed" interp in pro ball. I remember Jim Evans poo-pooing it as "not in the rule book," and somehow came to think that pro ball doesn't use it.

That's a literal reading of "touch each base in order?" I don't think so: it's highly interpretative, since it depends on the assumption that a runner hasn't missed a base until he's touched the next base. That's like saying that when I'm driving I can't fail to make a turn until I make the next turn. But that's just wrong: I can fail to make a turn by driving past my street.

I agree with your tacit definition of a missed base, which is consistent with common sense but contradicts your "literal" reading. Also, we're not going to replace "touch" with "acquire," because that would make the rule wrong: a runner who misses a base has NOT failed to acquire the base. No reinterpretation of 7.10(b) is required with this tacit definition, since the concept of acquiring a base is not relevant to the missed-base appeal.

This might be the right ruling, but for the wrong reason. Your ruling assumes that the announcement of the appeal must occur before the runner returns to the bag.

Nothing in the rules supports requiring the announcement of an appeal before the runner touches the base (or at any other specific time). As a practical matter, the announcement would have to come at approximately the same time as the play. But we're not denying the appeal because the fielder announced it too late.

Rather, if the runner is safe, it's because the fielder had to tag him and not the base (if we're extending 7.10(d) to the other bases).

OK, that's a plausible explanation: he's using 7.10(d) instead of 7.10(b), even though the former is explicitly restricted to home plate. It's worth recognizing that this is NOT literal, but an interpretative "extension" of one rule in contradiction of the black letter text of itself AND another rule. If that's in the MLBUM, that would be good to know.

The issue here concerns what you're calling an "effective appeal," whether the fielder must tag the runner or not. I think that your reference to the idea that "appeals need to be unmistakable, and there isn't time for F5 to announce an appeal" is off topic. The rules specify no time frame for the announcement, which could happen well after the play is over.

I am still wondering how that poor guy didn't break his neck when he flipped like that. YEOUCH~!

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

Do we have a new video clip? The link now shows an Inge homerun.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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:cool:)

Perhaps because you're a nice guy who wants Laz Diaz to turn out to be correct. ;)

I would agree with your MLBUM example, except there was an attempted tag play prior to B/R simply missing 1B...in this example, B/R didn't necessarily beat the play at 1B because there was already a tag attempt on him.

Does that have anything to do with the type of call here?, that's the only reason I have for referencing a play at home plate where this happens most often.

HUH? BR reached (passed) 1B safely & that's how the call is made. An attempted tag of BR before he reaches 1B means nothing here - a proper appeal is required to obtain an out.

Okay, that's what I was asking...that's why I asked if it made a difference or not.

If it does, then it seems as though his mechanics were incorrect based on the post by Dave Reed.

thx socalblue

Means nothing
 

F3 missed 2 opportunities to tag B/R. Rulebook aside, an appeal would not be recognized.

A) Does this apply?
Rule 7.10(c) He overruns or overslides first base and fails to return to the base immediately, and he or the base is tagged;
The Indians argued in favor of 7.10(b/d and c) with no luck.

B) Does the exception to Rule 7.08 (c) below apply to the OP?
Rule 7.08 (c) He is tagged, when the ball is alive, while off his base. EXCEPTION: A batter-runner cannot be tagged out after overrunning or oversliding first base if he returns immediately to the base;
The EXCEPTION means nothing in the OP. The exception which protects the batter-runner at 1B is immediately removed once 1B is passed untouched.

C) Does this apply?
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. ...
First base is treated no differently than any other base. Best explanation I have!

Tag attempts prior to batter-runner reaching/passing 1B mean nothing so far as allowing an appeal here. Batter-runner missed 1B while passing & may thus be ruled out via proper appeal.

In this case it's unrelaxed action & a tag would be required. IMO this situation should be treated exactly the same way as a runner missing HP (Except we make a safe call when he passes 1B). Nothing more than a simple missed base.

7.08(c) protects a batter-runner who immediately returns to 1B. 7.08(a) does not apply & 7.08(j) Comment allows tag or base touched if no attempt to return.

SoCal, you might be a little late to the party here and maybe skipped a few posts in the thread. 7.08 is not the rule relevant to missed-base appeals, 7.10 is.

The question concerns whether the appeal was properly constituted (fielder catches ball and tags base while the runner scrambles back). Two rules seem relevant:
7.10(b): either the runner or the base may be tagged
7.10(d): by implication, if the runner is scrambling back to home plate, he (and not the plate) must be tagged; by extension, since the runner may also run past 1B, some favor extending this ruling to 1B.

I have heard authorities in favor of both rulings. Diaz obviously voted with his ruling. I was wondering if this issue had been settled in some authoritative way.

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) 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."

The reference to 7.08(k) and Section 5.3 can only mean that the principle behind 7.10(d) should be taken into account. Here's 5.3 (which includes and restates all of 7.08(k), its Comment, and 7.10(d):

5.3 RUNNER MISSES HOME PLATE
Should a runner, in scoring, fail to touch home plate and continue on his way to the bench (making no effort to return), he may be put out by the fielder touching home plate and appealing to the umpire for a decision. However, this rule applies only where a runner is on his way to the bench and the catcher would be required to chase the runner. 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. In such cases, base path rules still apply to the runner (i.e., he may not run more than three feet from the "baseline" between him and home plate).

The evidence for extending 7.10(d) to at least first base is:

1. A MLBUM interp specific to a missed first base situation directs the reader to note the interp for a missed home plate.
2. The PBUC interp given to Childress says extend 7.10(d) to all bases.
3. J/R also requires the effect of 7.10(d) at all bases.

I'm not aware of Evans directly addressing the issue. (Poo-poohing unrelaxed/relaxed as "not in the rule book" is both wrong and too terse to be of value.) The only known (at least to me) contrary opinion is from the Wendelstedt school.

Great. I'm in. Thanks, Dave!

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.

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.

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.

So are you saying Diaz got the play wrong?

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.

Conflicts w/ OBR
 

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.

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.

7.10 redundant?
 

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?

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.

Good question.
 

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Just covering my bases. Looks like I missed one. :)

not an unmistakable appeal in this case :-) there are a few on here who dare not disagree w/ MLB...which is fine...it allows for pretty good discussion

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).

so he's standing on the base that they're appealing that he missed. safe unless he doesn't have retouch privileges right?

MLB Retouch Privileges?
 

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."

Congratulations Bob
 

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!

Error Mr. Robinson
 

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, ... :D