Twins/Mariners Ichiro play at 1B

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by bossman72

1) The interpretation to this is debatable, but the one I go by is to treat every base like it was home plate per 7.08k, so he would have to be tagged.

Originally Posted by DG

1) read up on relaxed vs. unrelaxed.

Hmmmmmmm ..... should I or shouldn't I .......

POI

In OBR on a missed bag appeal other than home plate, the runner while off of the base, or the base can be tagged for the out. There is no relaxed/unrelaxed action. I could care less what J/R has to say about it. There is only one interp I will accept, and until I get it, PO J/R.

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

Hmmmmmmm ..... should I or shouldn't I .......

POI

In OBR on a missed bag appeal other than home plate, the runner while off of the base, or the base can be tagged for the out. There is no relaxed/unrelaxed action. I could care less what J/R has to say about it. There is only one interp I will accept, and until I get it, PO J/R.

Yes, the exact difference!

Some believe that when a base (other than home) is missed, the base can be tagged when the runner is scrambling back to the bag if it's unmistakable that an appeal is being made.

Others believe that a runner, who misses a bag and is scrambling back to touch it, must be TAGGED to get the out (as DG writes, this is known as the concept of appeals during unrelaxed action- this is in the J/R manual).

It's different in every rule code, and nothing has been put in stone. I use the J/R interp (simply because that's the answer I get the most when I ask about this philosophy), but I'm not set in stone with it.


The problem with the J/R interp I never understood was that when a runner leaves early and the D tries to "double him up," the runner is always scrambling back to the bag, yet he doesn't have to be tagged to get an out on this appeal. Yet, if it's a missed base, he needs to be tagged. I never understood that...

[UmpTTS43]

I know what you mean. I was going to delete the can o' worms post I put up due to lack of interest discussing it again adnausium. Maybe everyone will just pass it up and ignore it.

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by bossman72

The problem with the J/R interp I never understood was that when a runner leaves early and the D tries to "double him up," the runner is always scrambling back to the bag, yet he doesn't have to be tagged to get an out on this appeal. Yet, if it's a missed base, he needs to be tagged. I never understood that...

It's just practicality. In the great majority of retouch appeals, it is obvious to everyone that tagging the base is an appeal. In fact it usually has been obvious for a second or two before the base is tagged, while the throw is made to the base. And, the runner is returning because he knows he didn't retouch. Otherwise he typically would be trying to reach the next base.

It is the opposite with most missed base appeals when the runner is scrambling back. Let's take a play at second base, which the runner has rounded and is now scrambling back to. If the runner believes that he did touch second, he is scrambling back because he can't safely reach third, and he is liable to be put out until he reaches second. However, he's liable to be put out whether he touched the base or not. So the runner behaves in the same way whether he thinks he missed the base or touched it.

Similarly, the fielder may believe the runner missed the base, but he usually can't know if the umpire has seen it. So he needs to act in the same way, whether the base was missed or not. Usually, when the runner is close by and scrambling back, the appeal of a missed base is not unmistakable.

In summary, 99% of retouch appeals are obvious, scramble back or not. Scramble back missed base appeals very seldom are obvious. That's why the two situations are treated differently.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

It's just practicality. In the great majority of retouch appeals, it is obvious to everyone that tagging the base is an appeal. In fact it usually has been obvious for a second or two before the base is tagged, while the throw is made to the base. And, the runner is returning because he knows he didn't retouch. Otherwise he typically would be trying to reach the next base.

It is the opposite with most missed base appeals when the runner is scrambling back. Let's take a play at second base, which the runner has rounded and is now scrambling back to. If the runner believes that he did touch second, he is scrambling back because he can't safely reach third, and he is liable to be put out until he reaches second. However, he's liable to be put out whether he touched the base or not. So the runner behaves in the same way whether he thinks he missed the base or touched it.

Similarly, the fielder may believe the runner missed the base, but he usually can't know if the umpire has seen it. So he needs to act in the same way, whether the base was missed or not. Usually, when the runner is close by and scrambling back, the appeal of a missed base is not unmistakable.

In summary, 99% of retouch appeals are obvious, scramble back or not. Scramble back missed base appeals very seldom are obvious. That's why the two situations are treated differently.

I disagree. The distinction between retouch and missed base appeals has nothing to do with how obvious the appeal is.

The two appeals are governed by different rules. 7.08(d) and 7.10(a) for retouch appeals, and 7.10(b) and 7.10(d) for missed base appeals.

Especially extending 7.10(d) to all bases makes a difference since it includes the expression "makes no attempt to return." That expression does not appear in the rule for retouch appeals.

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I disagree. The distinction between retouch and missed base appeals has nothing to do with how obvious the appeal is.

The two appeals are governed by different rules. 7.08(d) and 7.10(a) for retouch appeals, and 7.10(b) and 7.10(d) for missed base appeals.

I agree with you. I was just indulging in contemplating why there are two different rules.

[RogersUmp]

It was obvious he ran out of the basepath TO AVOID A TAG. Once he had both feet clearly on the turf between the coach's box and the dirt he was out. The running lane is three feet from 1B and there is another three feet of dirt to the turf. That means he was laterally 6 feet away from the bag.

[socalblue1]

Originally Posted by RogersUmp

It was obvious he ran out of the base path TO AVOID A TAG. Once he had both feet clearly on the turf between the coach's box and the dirt he was out. The running lane is three feet from 1B and there is another three feet of dirt to the turf. That means he was laterally 6 feet away from the bag.

Sorry Mr Rogers, that is not a correct statement. Runner must stay within a 6ft lane (3 ft either direction), directly toward the base from the point a tag attempt is made (IE: when F3 made the tag attempt).

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

I agree with you. I was just indulging in contemplating why there are two different rules.

Gotcha. Good question.

My surmise: in a missed base appeal, the runner's coming; in a retouch appeal, he's going.

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I disagree. The distinction between retouch and missed base appeals has nothing to do with how obvious the appeal is.

The two appeals are governed by different rules. 7.08(d) and 7.10(a) for retouch appeals, and 7.10(b) and 7.10(d) for missed base appeals.

Especially extending 7.10(d) to all bases makes a difference since it includes the expression "makes no attempt to return." That expression does not appear in the rule for retouch appeals.

So in the play discussed in the following thread (Tigers vs Injuns 5-1-09 Laz Diaz? no-call), would you call this an "unmistakable" appeal by the defense?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bossman72

So in the play discussed in the following thread (Tigers vs Injuns 5-1-09 Laz Diaz? no-call), would you call this an "unmistakable" appeal by the defense?

Yes, though we concluded in that thread that the appeal was not properly constituted for a different reason.

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Yes, though we concluded in that thread that the appeal was not properly constituted for a different reason.

Ok, i see what you're saying.

I read another thread mentioned in the Laz Diaz thread which also confirmed that if the D does something 'unmistakable' that you should award the appeal and call him out.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I disagree. The distinction between retouch and missed base appeals has nothing to do with how obvious the appeal is.

The two appeals are governed by different rules. 7.08(d) and 7.10(a) for retouch appeals, and 7.10(b) and 7.10(d) for missed base appeals.

Especially extending 7.10(d) to all bases makes a difference since it includes the expression "makes no attempt to return." That expression does not appear in the rule for retouch appeals.

Most umpires would argue 7-10(b) isn't about a missed base appeal. They would state, "It's an appeal by the defense about a requirement to run the bases in legal order." Most umpires believe the runner must be tagged if he is forced to return to touch a missed base.

In advancing, a runner shall touch first, second, third and home base in order. If forced to return, he shall retouch all bases in reverse order, unless the ball is dead under any provision of Rule 5.09.

It is clear when a runner is forced to advance that a tag of the base is allowed.
It is not so clear when he is forced to return that the base can be tagged for the out.
Ex. Two runners on 3rd base. One is forced back to second. Tag of base still okay?
Ex. Runner passes 2nd base without touching it, is it a missed base or is the runner forced to return to touch the base before he can continue his advance to the next base?

(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.

Why does 7-10(b) exist?
To keep the baserunner from cutting across the diamond from 3rd to 1st. Period!
Does anyone remember the first time it was used in a MLB ballgame?
I bet our most famous historian does.