Was this an appeal play?

[Welpe]

I don't think the U1 called him out for the appeal, I think he called him out because he had F3 tagging the base before the BR, ie a normal play.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I don't think the U1 called him out for the appeal, I think he called him out because he had F3 tagging the base before the BR, ie a normal play.

It's a missed base appeal. The runner acquired the base before being tagged because he passed it. Since he missed the base, he was liable to be put out on appeal, which F3 accomplished by tagging the base.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by mbyron

It's a missed base appeal. The runner acquired the base before being tagged because he passed it. Since he missed the base, he was liable to be put out on appeal, which F3 accomplished by tagging the base.

And, the appeal was obvious (i.e., F3's glove didn't land on the base accidentally while trying to make the play).

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by mbyron

It's a missed base appeal. The runner acquired the base before being tagged because he passed it. Since he missed the base, he was liable to be put out on appeal, which F3 accomplished by tagging the base.

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?

[johnnyg08]

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?

This is one of the reasons why I posted the question...wondering if it turned into a tag play...

[Mrumpiresir]

I was thinking the runner needed to be tagged if he is attempting to return to a base he missed. The rule book addresses a runner missing the plate but I don't see anything about other bases. I still think he would need to be tagged.

[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?

[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.

[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".

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I don't think the U1 called him out for the appeal, I think he called him out because he had F3 tagging the base before the BR, ie a normal play.

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.

[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)).