From a coaching perspective, sure. From an umpiring perspective, I don't care if he crawls on his belly and touches the bag with his tongue as he goes by.

The next batter hit a home run. The call took a run off the board.

RichMSN, in response to your edit, I think Danley was in the proper position to watch where a runner *should* be expected to touch the bag. It is hard to fault him for not being on the other side so he could see Brown's heel graze the third base side of the bag which hardly ever happens. And I don't think a base height of what, 2 inches, is that much of an obstacle to peer over from his vantage point.

I guess from an umpiring perspective, Danley was just supposed to assume that Brown might have brushed the "wrong" side of the bag when he screwed up his stride and stagger-stepped across the bag, leaving even the runner unsure if he touched it (to one account) and admitting that he missed it in another.

As an aside, I've never been one to subscribe to the "die are cast" concept of baseball causality of outcome. Yeah, I know it is done with earned runs and all, but that's not the way life is. So who is to say that Mayberry, with one out and R3 isn't called on to put on a squeeze - and he pops up into a DP and the Phillies "lose" a run? The HR was not a given - the pitcher goes from the stretch instead of the windup, chooses a different pitch and location; the batter has a different stroke in a sac fly situation versus bases empty. If you can't "assume the double play" when it comes to officially scoring errors, you surely can't assume a HR in an entirely different matrix.

I'm in agreement with those who say that if you don't KNOW he missed the base, then he didn't miss it. However, in the OP, the umpire KNEW he stepped on black. All comments about dirt aside - if you KNOW the player stepped only on black - are some of you really saying you'll not allow the appeal - and worse (apparently) eject the coach for arguing when YOU are the one that is wrong? That's awful. It's not game management. It's cheating.

Seems to me it's pretty easy for a guy to step on home plate during a dead ball - we shouldn't reward him for being lazy about it and missing, however narrowly.

ô!ô
 

Mike:

Many years ago on this same site PapaC brought up this exact situation.

Carl's take was "what advantage was gained by the batter when on an "over the wall" home run was hit when he "just missed" touching the plate."

The same arguements were given then as now.

When I was first taught umpiring I was taught "the first pitch of the game is ALWAYS a strike".

Was it -- of course not -- but I did miss a few "first pitches."

To say an umpiring is a "cheat" because of this specific situation is unfair.

Some of us have a "different" sensibility to the game and how it is officiated.

BTW, I have never been called a "cheat" before . . . I can now add that to my list.

T

I would note that I did not call you, specifically, anything.

The action, however, of seeing one thing and ruling that you didn't see it is ... well, there's no other word for it.

ô!ô
 

Mike we obviously have different values.

Best to you,

T

That's not what I'm ruling, Mike. If the plate is properly buried, then no black is available to be stepped on, and this problem doesn't arise. If black is visible, I'm not holding the runner responsible for flaws in the field: everything that can be stepped on is the plate, so if he steps on any of it he's good.

To me this is no different from when 2B comes loose when R1 slides in hard but safely, and the base ends up in left field, 5 feet from the runner. But you're banging that runner out because he's not touching the base, right? Anything else would be cheating. :D

Turn it around the other way. Say the bases are loaded and the batter hit a slow infield roller to F6 who throws home. The throw sails and F2 has to stretch for it. Problem is, he is only touching the exposed black edge of the plate with the toe end of his shoe to gain traction. He catches the throw and his momentum carries him of the edge after the apparent force out is made. Should R3 be called safe since F2 never had contact with the white part of the plate?

Geez Louise, will it never end?

Maybe the late Lee Weyer could weigh in before it does. This is from his Wikipedia entry:

"Weyer was widely regarded as having one of the largest strike zones in baseball, which was partially attributed to his size at 6'6"[1]; when teaching umpiring, he stated, "Don't be afraid to call strikes. A big strike zone gets the hitters swinging, making for more outs and a quicker game." He often liked to dig trenches on either side of home plate to expose the black portions, which are often borderline pitches between balls and strikes.[3] He wore uniform number 23 when the NL adopted uniform numbers in the 1960s, and was the only umpire to wear a white chest protector,[3] which was prominent because Weyer almost always wore his blazer when calling balls and strikes, even on hot days.

This post started with a Q about whether one would uphold an appeal because a batter who hit a home run touched only the black when crossing, into a debate about whether the black was part of the plate

Two entirely different subjects. For those that uphold this appeal, yee shall never call a borderline pitch a strike and be doomed to long games.

You can't get more apples and oranges than this. The original discussion and your situation have NOTHING to do with each other. The rules specify what to do when a base becomes dislodged, and I'm sure you're well aware of such.

The same people point a strike with the same finger they pick boogers with on forums...........:rolleyes:

Finally a relevant reply!