Was this an appeal play?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Had it mattered (2 outs, R3 for example), I'm sure it would have popped into his (and PU's) mind slightly after the call that it was not a force, and was a timing play.

Mike, I'm sure you know that (a) the BR attempting to acquire 1B is never technically a force play, and (b) this is not a time play, and no run could have scored had there been R3 and this the 3rd out (4.09(a)).

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I know that it is supposed to be a missed base appeal but I think the U1 simply judged it as a normal "force" play at first.

I was under the impression that with unrelaxed action, the runner had to be tagged. Or is that specific only to plays at the plate?

It could not have been any kind of force play, since the BR is never forced to 1B. Moreover, it couldn't be a normal play on the BR, because he had already acquired the base by passing it. Had he touched the base on the way by, he would have been safe.

This looked like relaxed action to me: the runner was not attempting to return when the base was tagged.

[Mrumpiresir]

Originally Posted by mbyron

It could not have been any kind of force play, since the BR is never forced to 1B. Moreover, it couldn't be a normal play on the BR, because he had already acquired the base by passing it. Had he touched the base on the way by, he would have been safe.

This looked like relaxed action to me: the runner was not attempting to return when the base was tagged.

I gotta disagree. It looked to me like the runner was trying to get back to the bag. I still think he needs to be tagged.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by mbyron

It could not have been any kind of force play, since the BR is never forced to 1B.

We both know that...hence why I put force in quotes. I said it merely to be expedient.

Moreover, it couldn't be a normal play on the BR, because he had already acquired the base by passing it. Had he touched the base on the way by, he would have been safe.

I agree but I am wondering if that is how the U1 ruled.

This looked like relaxed action to me: the runner was not attempting to return when the base was tagged.

I disagree, the BR seems to be coming back to the bag to me. Regardless, say that in your opinion the action were unrelaxed, would you still consider a tag of the base to be enough for the appeal?

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

This looked like relaxed action to me: the runner was not attempting to return when the base was tagged.

The runner turned, headed for the bag, stumbled and gave up when the bag was touched.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Regardless, say that in your opinion the action were unrelaxed, would you still consider a tag of the base to be enough for the appeal?

The reason for making the relaxed/unrelaxed distinction is that the BR is permitted by rule to overrun 1B without liability to be put out. So we allow a missed base appeal by just tagging the base during unrelaxed action because the BR is making no attempt to correct his mistake. It speeds things up.

I have heard that MLB is moving away from relaxed/unrelaxed, but I like it. It makes sense to me. So, to answer your question, no: I would require that the runner be tagged.

[Welpe]

OK, thanks.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Mike, I'm sure you know that (a) the BR attempting to acquire 1B is never technically a force play, and (b) this is not a time play, and no run could have scored had there been R3 and this the 3rd out (4.09(a)).

A) Yes ... just using shorthand. B) good point. My bad.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by mbyron

So we allow a missed base appeal by just tagging the base during unrelaxed action because the BR is making no attempt to correct his mistake. It speeds things up.

I'm sure you meant "during relaxed action".

[UmpTTS43]

A couple of things concerning this sitch and pro rules:

a: there is no relaxed/unrelaxed terminology
b: although some things are the same, missed home plate and a missed base are two different senarios and fall under different rules
c: the appeal process is treated differently when a player misses a base he was forced to or the BR missing first base versus a non force missed base, tag play.

If a player misses the base he is forced to or the BR misses first, the fielder can either tag the runner or the base regardless if the runner is attemping to return during the appeal attempt. This is a force play situation.

When a runner misses a base in a non force situation (tag play), if the runner is attemping to get back, this is still considered a tag play and the player must be tagged. This is a tag play situation. If the runner advances or is not trying to correct his missed base error, then the base may be tagged in lieu of tagging the runner.

I know what JR says. I don't care and neither does MLB.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Honestly, I doubt he thought about the reason for calling the out at all. Had it mattered (2 outs, R3 for example), I'm sure it would have popped into his (and PU's) mind slightly after the call that it was not a force, and was a timing play. Since it didn't matter, I'm sure he just called what he saw - and perhaps mused on it between innings.

PU-Danley
1B-Bucknor

[jkumpire]

TT,

I believe you work somewhere in pro ball.... So, under MLB/MiLB as constituted, if F3 dives back to the bag, when the BR misses the bag, it is considered an appeal, vocal or not. And if he hits the bag before the BR, he's out. And it must be an intentional act, not an unintentional act.

Is this correct?

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

A couple of things concerning this sitch and pro rules:

a: there is no relaxed/unrelaxed terminology
b: although some things are the same, missed home plate and a missed base are two different senarios and fall under different rules
c: the appeal process is treated differently when a player misses a base he was forced to or the BR missing first base versus a non force missed base, tag play.

If a player misses the base he is forced to or the BR misses first, the fielder can either tag the runner or the base regardless if the runner is attemping to return during the appeal attempt. This is a force play situation.

When a runner misses a base in a non force situation (tag play), if the runner is attemping to get back, this is still considered a tag play and the player must be tagged. This is a tag play situation. If the runner advances or is not trying to correct his missed base error, then the base may be tagged in lieu of tagging the runner.

I know what JR says. I don't care and neither does MLB.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

TT,

I believe you work somewhere in pro ball.... So, under MLB/MiLB as constituted, if F3 dives back to the bag, when the BR misses the bag, it is considered an appeal, vocal or not. And if he hits the bag before the BR, he's out. And it must be an intentional act, not an unintentional act.

Is this correct?

Yes it is an appeal. However, if no verbal indication is given, F3's actions must be judged to be "an act that unmistakably indictes an appeal to the umpire."

I know you know this, but, if a runner beats the throw to first and subsequently misses it, F3's touch of first as a result of the attempted play to initially retire the BR is not considered an appeal and an out is not recorded. A simple "safe" mechanic is used.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

Yes it is an appeal. However, if no verbal indication is given, F3's actions must be judged to be "an act that unmistakably indictes an appeal to the umpire."

I know you know this, but, if a runner beats the throw to first and subsequently misses it, F3's touch of first as a result of the attempted play to initially retire the BR is not considered an appeal and an out is not recorded. A simple "safe" mechanic is used.

OK I can buy that, thanks.

Does the MLBUM or PBUC Manual discuss this situation?

[UmpJM]

Welpe,

The 2009 MLBUM covers it in play #12 of Section 5.4.

JM