Twins/Mariners Ichiro play at 1B

[johnnyg08]

Anybody see the play today where Ichiro hits a high-hopper to F3...who attempts a tag of Ichiro as he runs to 1B...F3 misses the tag, Ichiro arches to the right of 1B, passes 1B, then attempts to dive back to 1B on the RF side of 1BL extended. Ichiro was tagged out on his dive attempt back to the base.

While Ichiro was tagged out on the play...what else did anybody else see on this play if anything?

1. Could F3 have simply tagged 1B and Ichiro would've been out assuming the tag beat the touch?
2. Could Ichiro have been ruled out for running out of his base path to 1B?
3. Who's call would that be? PU or U1?

I'm still looking for a video clip...others feel free to post the video clip if you find it.

Thanks!!!

[stratref]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

1. Could F3 have simply tagged 1B and Ichiro would've been out assuming the tag beat the touch?
2. Could Ichiro have been ruled out for running out of his base path to 1B?
3. Who's call would that be? PU or U1?

I'm still looking for a video clip...others feel free to post the video clip if you find it.

Thanks!!!

I watched this game and noted the following:

1. Very tough, epically based on Laz Diaz's signal of safe immediately after Ichrio ran passed first (also the same time as the missed swipe tag so the signal could be for a no tag as well). I would say yes (I will admit however to still learning OBR and not knowing it well enough to make a valid judgment) because Ichiro didn't try to touch the bag and miss it, he ran around the bag and tried to dive in and touch the back of it.

2. I don't think so, he was running way into foul territory on his way down the line, and when there was an attempt to tag he didn't go more than 3' away from his direct path to the base, he was 6 or 7 feet into foul territory but he was already at least 4 feet into foul territory when the "play began".

3. This is BU's call the whole way, the PU can help if asked but unless a play is missed that is so egregious that the blind guy in section 436, row W saw the play the PU is not saying anything unless the BU goes for help (with or without a request by a coach/manager to do so).

Jasper

PS I checked mlb.com but didn't find a highlight, however for those so inclined to watch the condensed game it was the first AB of the game and would be the first play of the game.

[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.

2) Didn't see the play, so can't comment

3) I don't do much 4 man, but this certainly sounds like U1's call... PU only has BR going back into first base if U1 goes out, if I'm not mistaken

[johnnyg08]

a video replay of this would be a good one...I could see a play like this actually happening in a game...I tried to do my best explaining it...cool that there's one other guy on here who saw the play

[DG]

1) read up on relaxed vs. unrelaxed.
2) yes if umpire ruled he ran out of his basepath to avoid tag
3) U1 unless he felt like he needed help from PU (rare)

[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.

[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 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.

[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.