Was this an appeal play?

[johnnyg08]

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

Was this an appeal play?

Thanks.

[MD Longhorn]

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?

[Welpe]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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?

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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 :-)

[Welpe]

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

[MD Longhorn]

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

[StLouBlue]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

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

Was this an appeal play?

Thanks.

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.