Continuous action?

[umpjim]

From this MLB.com story:

Howard ruled safe despite missing plate | MLB.com: News

"According to Rule 7.10 (d), the play must be appealed "before the next pitch, or any play or attempted play." Posada's throw to second represented an "attempted play," and therefore eliminated the possibility for the Yankees to appeal the play. "

Actually, I think CC recovered the ball and threw to 2B. But why wouldn't continuous action apply here?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by umpjim

From this MLB.com story:

Howard ruled safe despite missing plate | MLB.com: News

"According to Rule 7.10 (d), the play must be appealed "before the next pitch, or any play or attempted play." Posada's throw to second represented an "attempted play," and therefore eliminated the possibility for the Yankees to appeal the play. "

Actually, I think CC recovered the ball and threw to 2B. But why wouldn't continuous action apply here?

It does apply, and CC's throw was certainly continuous action. I thought Everitt's casual "safe" signal was him ruling that Howard had touched the plate. It was casual because everyone could see the ball rolling loose. No need to sell that one.

If the Yanks had appealed (before the next post continuous action play or pitch) and Everitt had not allowed the appeal, I think it would have been protestable.

The quote in the article is not attributed to anyone, so I think it is just the writer quoting the rule, and then interpreting it wrong. That wouldn't surprise me at all.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by umpjim

From this MLB.com story:

Howard ruled safe despite missing plate | MLB.com: News

"According to Rule 7.10 (d), the play must be appealed "before the next pitch, or any play or attempted play." Posada's throw to second represented an "attempted play," and therefore eliminated the possibility for the Yankees to appeal the play. "

Actually, I think CC recovered the ball and threw to 2B. But why wouldn't continuous action apply here?

They got the "who threw the ball" wrong too.

[johnnyg08]

You are correct...this was an appealable play...but they didn't appeal and apparently PU covered his tracks w/ some type of safe signal that wasn't on camera.

[jkumpire]

You are the PU on this play, what do you call?

Without the benefit of hindsight or replay?

I am very tempted to call him safe anyway, but his arm and body is high enough over the plate a she goes over that I think I could see it. I'd call him out, and then eject about 3 guys who would argue the call.

However, a long time ago, there was a discussion about this on a list serve of umpires put together by Mr. Childress, that Tee and several others on this board were a part of.

As I remember the conversation, there was a consensus that if it is close, with very little space between the runner's arm or body and the plate, call him safe.

Comments?

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

You are the PU on this play, what do you call?

Without the benefit of hindsight or replay?

I am very tempted to call him safe anyway, but his arm and body is high enough over the plate a she goes over that I think I could see it. I'd call him out, and then eject about 3 guys who would argue the call.

By what rule would you call him out? He was not tagged and there was no appeal.

[jkumpire]

The question was, sir: If they appealed it, what would you have called?

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

The question was, sir: If they appealed it, what would you have called?

Sorry, I never saw that question in your post. Still don't.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Sorry, I never saw that question in your post. Still don't.

It's in the subject line.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

It's in the subject line.

Ahhhhh. Thanks. For some reason, I normally just read the posts. The subject lines are often little quips that don't affect content.

[SanDiegoSteve]

[PeteBooth]

You are the PU on this play, what do you call?

I call what I see. It's apparent from the replay that the PU did not SEE Howard touch home either OTHERWISE he would have signalled safe right away. It wasn't until Posada threw the ball that the PU gave a casual safe signal. I doubt you learn that kind of a safe signal in PRO school. It looked more like a first year LL umpire safe signal.

On a tag attempt at the plate where the runner misses the plate and the fielder misses the tag there is a NO call to make. At first that is EXACTLY what the PU did. He gave NO signal.

If you want to rule safe then SIGNAL safe 'right away". That is not what the home plate umpire did. The PU did not signal safe UNTIL Posada threw the ball to second base.

It would have been interesting to see what would have happend had the Yanks appealed the play.

Pete Booth

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

You are the PU on this play, what do you call?

I call what I see. It's apparent from the replay that the PU did not SEE Howard touch home either OTHERWISE he would have signalled safe right away. It wasn't until Posada threw the ball that the PU gave a casual safe signal. I doubt you learn that kind of a safe signal in PRO school. It looked more like a first year LL umpire safe signal.

On a tag attempt at the plate where the runner misses the plate and the fielder misses the tag there is a NO call to make. At first that is EXACTLY what the PU did. He gave NO signal.

If you want to rule safe then SIGNAL safe 'right away". That is not what the home plate umpire did. The PU did not signal safe UNTIL Posada threw the ball to second base.

It would have been interesting to see what would have happend had the Yanks appealed the play.

Pete Booth

Posada had the ball hit his glove but it dribbled away. THAT'S why U1 waited - to make sure where the ball was.

p.s. CC threw the ball.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Another well-micromanaged umpire call by this austute and august panel of experts.

[jkumpire]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Another well-micromanaged umpire call by this austute and august panel of experts.

I am confused by your post. Please try it again.