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?

[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.

[Kevin Finnerty]

The thing that kills me is how the longest guy on the club literally passed over the plate from the tips of his fingers to the tips of his toes without ever touching it. It's supposed to be impossible.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

The thing that kills me is how the longest guy on the club literally passed over the plate from the tips of his fingers to the tips of his toes without ever touching it. It's supposed to be impossible.

I would have called him safe too. Close enough for government work.

[victory]

What about the malicious contact? Howard missed the plate cause he was throwing a flying elbow at Posada.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by victory

What about the malicious contact? Howard missed the plate cause he was throwing a flying elbow at Posada.

What about it?

Find the malicious contact rule in OBR and see what it says about this type of collision.

[victory]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

What about it?

Find the malicious contact rule in OBR and see what it says about this type of collision.

No have... I can't read the rule but it seems clearly in slowmo that Posada is clear of the plate without the ball but Howard is intent on contacting the catcher no matter what. I understand the freedom to mow down the catcher blocking the plate but is it legal to mow down the catcher without the ball, or in the process of catching the ball, when he is clearly not blocking access to the plate or attempting a tag?

[UmpJM]

victory,

I believe Seth's point is that there is no "malicious contact" rule in the text of the OBR.

While there is some language in the Major League Baseball Umpire Manual (Section 6.1, 3rd paragraph) that suggests that there are, at least hypothetically, some actions the runner could take which could be considered malicious contact - penalized as intentional interference - under the "custom and practice" of MLB, Howard's actions were completely permissible and "not even close" to an infraction under MLB rules and interpretations.

JM