Failure to Retouch Appeal
 

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | Must C Curious: Mets score a run on umps' ruling - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

How many appeals were made and does the order matter?

One.

(rendering the second question unnecessary). I can't even fathom what is indicating to you that there might have been more than 1 appeal. There's only 1 thing to appeal here.

In this case doesn't matter as long as R3 was never ruled out. Time play run scores. Good call even though he may never have touched 2nd in the first place, he passed it, and therefore much retouch on his last time by.

And on the time play, this run score because R3 crosses the plate before R1 touches first for the last time, correct? If R1 had retouched 1st before R3 crosses home, the run would not have counted. Just making sure!

No, the time aspect is the run scoring before the appeal at second was executed.

Incorrect.

On a timing play, the out occurs when the out occurs. When or where R1 / R3 were with respect to each other is immaterial. Where R3 was when R1 was appealed and called out is what matters.

Although I never want to support SAump in any way at any time I can see where his question comes from. It appears just after the run scores that the catcher looks like he throws the ball to FIRST BASE. Now we have no idea if they tried to appeal pagan at first or not . . . but I can see where the question came from.

I feel like a I need a long shower.

T

SO sorry. I know how that feels ... not with SA, but with others.

They threw to first because that's where Pagan was standing - at which point they tagged him, pointing at 2nd. Never saw on camera which umpire actually made the out call - but I'm assuming U2, especially since that's who Pagan went to discuss the call with between innings.

Neighborhood Play?
 

I posted the video here showing that Pagan did not pass 2nd base. The runner's actions contribute to the ruling that he failed to retouch 2B before going back to 1B. The Pirates benefit from the ruling.

JR pg 72 EG: R1, one out, hit and run. A fly is batted to left-center field and the ball is caught. R1 touches second while advancing past it, but misses second while returning to first: an appeal of second base is upheld, R1 is out.

The box score has the out as 8-2-3-6, so F3 threw the ball to F6 at 2B for U2 to rule on the appeal.

Intervening Play?
 

This situation happened 2 years ago in a MLB game. The refs made a phone call to NY. The run was added back an inning or 2 later.

The run should never never come off the board, without approval from NY's instant replay and local MLB supervisors.

This has to stop.

Huh?!?

Umpires.

What in the world are you talking about? I now find myself in Tim's camp. File SAump under Fanboy.

Get
Over
It

SAump half-remembered something.

Orioles 7, Indians 4 - MLB - Yahoo! Sports

I remember that - and while it was bizarre it is COMPLETELY unrelated to the OP.

Completely Unrelated, but Still as Sweet
 

Is it possible to throw a rising fastball 90 feet?
Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | NYM@ATL: Reyes retires Heyward with a nice play - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

Let me relate the two plays for you.

Pagan pivots over 2B while Tejada was smart enuf to pivot before reaching 2B.

Stated Pagan past 2B by a couple of steps. Fanboy here disputes that account.

Pagan states that he did not touch 2B. Still out for failure to retouch, if ump agrees w/ Pagan's statement?

Improper appeal?
 

Let's say that on the Pirate's catcher's throw to first the first baseman either tagged the runner while he was standing on the bag or stepped on first after catching the ball. That would clearly constitute an attempted appeal, but improperly done since the runner could not be called out either way. The appeal had to be made at second to register the out. But you are only allowed one attempt, so the second one should have been disallowed. However, if the throw went directly from catcher to first to second, with no attempt by the first baseman to render an appeal at first, then the appeal at second should be allowed to stand. I remember a play with Andy Pettitte pitching for the Astros. The batter hit a grounder and the throw got by first with the runner going on to second. However, the runner clearly missed first. Pettitte took his stretch and threw to first without stepping back off the rubber. He was called for a balk and the runner was sent to third. Pettitte got the ball back, stepped off the rubber and made another throw to first. The umps waved off that appeal because you are only allowed one appeal. I am surprised they didn't call him for yet another balk for throwing to an unoccupied base, even though he was off the rubber the second time.

On an apppeal you can tag the runner or the base so the appeal does not have to be made at 2B.

You can appeal each runner at each base. So if there's a runner who missed 2B on the way back to first you can appeal both the miss of 2B AND the failure to reach 1B in time.

The Pettitte play was called incorrectly. The MLBUM clearly states the pitcher can throw to an unoccupied base from the rubber to make an appeal,

Thanks Rich for correcting me. Here is an interesting link explaining the intricacies of making an appeal.

The Appeal Play

Pitchers are taught to step off the rubber to make an appeal to prevent the possibility of a balk call that would negate the appeal, but it is indeed not a requirement. Since dropping the ball is about the only way to balk in that situation (assuming Bob Davidson does not detect an irregular heart beat or an untimely drop of sweat), a pitcher does not risk much by doing it the way Pettitte did. Perhaps I missed something - maybe the Astros made a throw down to second, constituting an intervening play which would have negated a chance at a subsequent appeal on the runner missing the bag at first. Could that have done it? In my years of watching I have never seen an appeal by tagging the runner while he was standing on a base. It seems the throw is always made to the base in question.

I had forgotten that Steve Cutchen had that website and frankly am surprised that it is still up since I have not seen nor heard from him in over 10 years. He used to be a valuable contributor to the officiating board and lived just up the road from me.

Anyone here heard from him prior to the last decade?

Joel