Was this an appeal play?
 

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | OAK@TEX: Davis makes a nice play in the fourth - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

Was this an appeal play?

Thanks.

These videos don't work on some browsers. What happened? I see the caption that Davis missed a tag and then dove to tag the bag before the baserunner... but I don't know anything else. What happened?

The Oakland BR, Suzuki, avoided a swipe tag by Davis who was off the base towards home. Suzuki then ran wide by the bag by a few feet up the first base line and was diving back to reach it when Davis tagged the bag. The U1 ruled the BR out.

Suzuki seemed to be clearly past the bag to me but the action was unrelaxed so maybe tagging the base is good enough in this situation.

I would say, then, that technically this WAS an appeal play, even though it likely looked like a force to everyone else. Was there another runner in the equation that made the difference relevant?

bases empty, zero out,

night game :-)

No other runners, the bases were empty at the time.

Well ... it's an appeal play. But does it matter to anyone other than you, me, Johnny, and the wall?

I expected to see a safe signal by U1 for passing the base, but no signal, then the out on the appeal...have read about the play many, many times, but haven't seen the appeal executed in that manner before.

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.

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

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...

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.

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)).

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.

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

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

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?

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

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.

OK, thanks. :)

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

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

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.

PU-Danley
1B-Bucknor

So....
 

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.

OK I can buy that, thanks.

Does the MLBUM or PBUC Manual discuss this situation?

Welpe,

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

JM

Thanks, John.

Thanks John as well.
 

Since I assume your name is John, thanks. You are correct about what I know on the play, and I am glad that I have been teaching people the right way to make this call.

Let me bring something to your attention, for your comment: Earlier in the thread you said that MLB and MiLB do not care or use the terms "relaxed or unrelaxed action." However, when the concept was first pushed, it was my impression that it was professional baseball who had it as an interpretation, not just J/R.

If you, or some of the other long term vets can recall differently where the concept first came from, and got put into popular usage, I would appreciate it.

Not John, thats JM, however:

In all of my teachings, the terms relaxed/unrelaxed have never been used. Runners are either trying to touch a base or they aren't. Sematics, probably. When it comes to appeals on missed bases, excluding home plate, you first have to determine if it is a force play or a tag play. Then you can determine the correct way for appealing the infraction. J/R uses the rule for missed home plate and applies that standard for all other bases. Not entirely true since the appeal of a missed base in which runner was forced or on BR missing first is treated differently as stated prior. First base is probably the only base you are going to have to treat that way since a runner who is forced and overruns 2nd or 3rd and misses the base will be able to correct his mistake immediately or continue to advance. These appeals are usually after continuing action has stopped. First is different in the fact that the BR is allowed to overrun 1st without penalty in and of itself.

There, now I really confused the issue.

Not confused at all here, great explanation.

In the replay did you find that as F3 dives back to the back he was attempting to appeal or was he just trying to beat the runner to the bag? I'm going to guess that many if not most MLB players don't really know this rule. I find it a little odd that the same action by the defender (touching the bag with his glove) my or may not be an out depending on whether the ump thinks he is making an on-the-fly appeal. Quite a heads-up play by F3 if he is thinking about an appeal during live action.

If there was deemed to be no appeal during the action can there be a dead ball appeal once the runner is declared safe?

Sven K,

There are no dead ball appeals of baserunning infractions under OBR rules.

Further, if the initial appeal is denied during the continuous action of the play - whether because the umpire judges the appeal not properly constituted or simply that the runner "beat" the appeal - there is no further appeal to be made because the runner will have corrected his baserunning infraction and there is nothing left to appeal.

JM

JM, No You didn't.
 

With respect, that is how I was taught the rule and it was explained at pro school in 1985. How can reality be confusing?

I don't know the technically correct answer, but it just "seems" like the BR should be out here. Between going so far out to avoid the tag and missing the base by a mile, he's out. The BR didn't even think to argue it, and I doubt anyone else did. Just we umpires who want to know every jot and tittle of the rules.

Umpires are allowed to rule on situations not covered by the rules. I don't think the practice of considering a runner to have "acquired" 1st base by running past it was meant to cover a situation where he misses it by 3 feet while avoiding a tag. The spirit of the rules was upheld here, and I like the call, regardless of the reasoning behind it.

To me, it's an obvious and unmistakable appeal. Since the B/R is well past the bag, there is no reason for F3 to dive and tag the base unless he believed the B/R missed it. I also think it is highly likely (approaching a certainty) that F3 does not know the rule. I think CB got it right.