Home run - missed the plate!!
 

14u Tournament final
Out of the park 2 run homer and BR is coming around 3rd to be greeted by his friends. Goes to step on the plate and makes NO contact with the white portion of the plate and barely the black. (which probably had about 1/2" showing) and leaves a big 'ol footprint. (just in case I needed some evidence)

Catcher looks at me and says "did he miss the plate?" I say nothing and throw out a new ball to the pitcher. Catcher then says something to someone in the stands about "missing the plate?". I get behind home plate to try and get things going so I won't have to make the call. Catcher gets in his position and someone yells out for him to make an appeal. I'm hoping the pitcher doesn't step off so I can call it a ball.. He steps off, throws to the catcher, he appeal, and I make the out call.

Then the "ruckus" begins. Though I have to say it was not the **** storm I expected. Both base coaches didn't say a thing. In fact the 1st base coach was chatting with the BU about how it looked like he missed home plate. HC comes out and pleads his case but he knows there is not much that can be done.

What was interesting was that the loudest complaints that I heard came from folks in the stands who complained about "taking the home run away from the player." And those complaints were NOT directed at me but at the other team. Go figure. I had one guy say "We have it on video. Do you want to see it." And to his credit, after the inning was over he apologized for trying to "show me up"

Rain came an inning later and they ended up winning 2 - 0.

We even got a compliment or two about how we were some of the best umpires they have had all year. I know, it's coming from the winners but I 'll take what I can get.

With respect to a runner touching the plate, the black portion is part of the plate. It is the side of the plate, just like all the other bases have a vertical side that rises up from the ground. If the runner had, say, kicked only the side of third base, would you say that he missed third base?

1.05 Home base shall be marked by a five-sided slab of whitened rubber. It shall be a 17-inch square with two of the corners removed so that one edge is 17 inches long, two adjacent sides are 8½ inches and the remaining two sides are 12 inches and set at an angle to make a point. It shall be set in the ground with the point at the intersection of the lines extending from home base to first base and to third base; with the 17-inch edge facing the pitcher’s plate, and the two 12-inch edges coinciding with the first and third base lines. The top edges of home base shall be beveled and the base shall be fixed in the ground level with the ground surface. (See drawing D in Diagram 2.)

So there are no vertical sides of the plate. So if the player doesn't step on a portion of the 216.75 square inch surface area, he technically did not touch home plate. Now since our fields are not maintained by MLB crews we see all kinds of anomalies the cause us to umpire, I would like to see dirt between the plate and the foot before I call it.

Just let things happen as they should and make the right call for the situation. If you don't want to deal with appeal plays - you should state that at the plate conference (this won't go over well).

Nice try. Wrong, but nice try. The plate is mounted flush to the ground so there is no legal vertical side.

If you're using the LL rule book they spell it out in 1.05 for the uninformed.

So if the runner does touch the black exposed part of home plate he still hasn't touched the plate?

What about that pitch that is "on the black"...is that really a ball?

Questions, questions.....

JJ

"The black" is not supposed to be visible if the plate is properly installed. However I will be the first to admit there are very few fields in my area in which home plate is installed in the correct fashion and I find it difficult to not call a strike when a pitched ball crosses "the black".

You're in the wrong profession if you are in need of, or are searching for, compliments; even if you are just "tak(ing) what (you) can get." The possible exception being an occassional compliment from a crewmate.

ok?

Wrong. Properly installed, the black does not show. Improperly installed, the black is still not part of the plate proper. Umpiring 101.

+1

I did game last week (11U, NFHS with some special modifications, namely "no stealing until the pitch crosses the plate") on a field where the plate was installed raised up over a full inch from the surrounding ground.

Naturally, at one point a pitched ball struck the front 'lip' of the plate and ricocheted back to the pitcher. R1 then tries for second, F1 throws the ball into CF. I kill the play and send R1 back to first. (no stealing till the pitch crosses the plate, dontcha know, and the pitch never 'crossed' the plate). Awarded a ball to the batter, chalked the whole experience up to "sometimes you just gotta umpire".

the ball never crossed the foul line, either. ;)

Exactly. And on the play described you would not have seen dirt between the foot and the plate. So I guess you wouldn't call it, even though the 216.75 square inch portion wasn't touched.

If you are asking me then my answer is I wouldn't call it unless I was sure. Seeing dirt would provide the certainty. I am not down there with a magnifying glass and micrometer, I'm maybe 4 or 5 feet away and I want to be sure

No, I wasn't asking you'd call. I was trying to clarify your own statements (which seem to conflict).

First you said that the runner had to touch the white, then you presented a scenario about "seeing dirt" whereby a runner could touch only the black and you wouldn't call that as missing the plate.

Not what he said (although it's possible that it is what he meant); he said he'd "like" to see dirt. We don't always get what we want, though.

Here is the bottom line for me: I see all kinds of home plates on the crappy high school fields on which I umpire adult ball. If the runner touches any portion of what is passing as home plate in a particular game, that runner has touched the plate, and you can stick your appeal directly. If he misses touching a part of the facsimile of home plate, he may be subject to an appeal.

I would think any umpire would have a difficult time explaining to a manager that the runner did not touch the plate because he only touched a black edge. Talk about OOO.

So how close is close enough? Do you carry a ruler to measure it?

Do you apply the same criteria to other bases?

If the catcher notices and appeals which team are you screwing?

I use the same criteria at all the bases -- if I don't see dirt between the foot and the base/plate, he touched it.

+1 and to +1 for Sandiego Steve. That is what I was getting at.

I am not sure I understand what you aren't getting. I am using the entire surface that is visible above ground, just as I would any other base. The "black" part of the plate is not to be used for judging balls and strikes (not supposed to be visible), but works quite well for touches (physically there on the field). Often there is no black left on the edges of some hard, slick, above-ground plates. Other times, the plate is old and chewed up, bordering on outright dangerous sometimes. Budget cuts and all, you know.

The black is not supposed to be sticking up to start with. If it is, however, I am treating it as part of the plate when incoming runners are trying not to trip and kill themselves on these treacherous slabs.

Here is what is not "close enough": Not touching the base, as in if I see the foot miss the base, he missed the base. The PHYSICAL base, which is what is on the field, just like I would rule on any any other physical part of the playing field.

And Rich, if you came out and argued very long with me about this at home plate, I would cheerfully jack your rat butt all the way back to New York.;)

The home plate at the high school field I worked today was white on the top surface. It had a black trim piece all around it. The black trim was maybe 3/8ths to 1/2 inch wide (looking down when I swept it.) Almost all of the black trim was visible. The park is one of the better ones in this part of paradise.

~Sigh~
 

Sorry, this enire thread made my skin crawl . . .

This would neverhave happened in my game . . . even if I took the BR and lead him to the plate.

Someone is proud of being an OOO.

Let them . . .

The rest of us will work real baseball.

I guess this mean you (and Steve) would cheat a defense out of a legitimate appeal? And Steve calls ME a rat? Horse****!

Sorry if you're offended. I'd be offended if you refused to call it so I guess we're even.

And Tim (and Steve) . I've had players miss a base. I've had players miss home. The times they got caught I got after them, not the umpire. Why? Because they missed the base. Their fault.

Just an observation/thought. If the runner touches only the black part of the plate and you absolutely know this as fact, what advantage has he gained by doing this?

What do you do on a game winning score where you have no idea if the runner touches the plate at all? You may scream and yell at the players but their excitement makes it impossible to see the touch. Can you or would you call him out without having any evidence that he didnt touch the plate?

I personally file this under the "sometimes you have to umpire" tab. As JJ likes to say, "dont go looking for buggers"!!!!!!!!

~Sigh~
 

Rich, there really is no hope for you. You truly are a rat (species name: 'ratusamongus').

What you see as cheating I see as "game management."

T

Whatever you do, don't bring up the black part of a plate on the softball board. I had a situation I posted a couple weeks ago over there where I mentioned the black part of the plate was exposed, and was told that the field was unplayable in that condition!

And denying the truth is called what?

You are truly arrogant.

All your "game management" does is change which team is ticked off at you. It doesn't manage feces.

If you do enough games, your going to eventually get the question, "Hey Blue , where is your strike zone, can you explain it?".

Legitimate question.

I used to have a partner who always would reply, "It is whereever I say it is!"

You are paid to make professional determinations about strike zones, touching a base or plate and many other decision's. Based upon your experience you are to make the best decision you can.

Were becoming like the freaking media on this forum, always perfect crtics but, useless as human beings in real life.

If after several years of officiating you can't make a professional decision of when a player has touched a plate or not, sell your dam equipment and do the rest of us a favor and quit officiating.

This applies to new officials coming up also.

I don't get this back and forth. Really, I don't.

Either the player clearly missed the plate or he touched it. No umpire worth his position would uphold a missed base appeal on a runner that "might" have missed the plate.

A toe touching the black? To me, he may as well have placed his size 9 right in the freaking middle of the plate.

Let's Calm Down a Little
 

Rich I is not a rat here, and while he is tending to be a little OOO on this subject he has a point.

We do have too many umpires who are not enforcing rules, they are taking the easy way out, and teams will let them get away with it.

IMO, if he hits the black he scores, and in a perfect world the black shouldn't exist to be seen on a field. Rich believes that the runner did not score because he did not touch the plate, and strictly by rule we can all see he has a case, however tenuous you believe it to be.

If he is wanting to go to the mat with a team on an appeal of home because he makes that call, I can live with that. If he has to wack the manager and the player and one or two other guys for it, great. At least he has the guts to make and stick with the call he believes he should make in that situation. As a partner in the locker room I would tell him I disagree with his judgment, but on the field, I'd back him 100%.

Having said all that, I appeal to Rich I here, reconsider. If the black part of the plate is exposed, how can it not be part of the plate on that field? Your arguments about the base are weak IMO, since on any field (except for one I saw this summer where they were half buried), every field has a base that sits totally on top of the dirt of the infield. They don't move, they are anchored from underneath in an exposed position. There is no extra set of edges exposed. Home plates are a different matter entirely.

Just because somebody told you that doesn't mean that it is an official interpretation issued by any sanctioning body.

So, what I think you're saying is, if you need slow motion replay on a 72" HD screen to see he missed it, then he really didn't miss it.

+1

If it's there to be stepped on, I don't care what color it is. Sheesh.

Several points:

1) The catcher saw the miss. That's why he appealed. He knows the runner didn't touch the plate.

2) The base coaches (runner's own team) saw the miss. That's why they didn't go nuts. They know their runner didn't touch the plate.

3) The black isn't part of the plate because the rule defining the plate says it's only the white part.

Now we have a bunch of folks saying "close enough". Really? "Close enough"? Right coach, the throw was almost in time and your runner only barely beat it so it was close enough and your runner is out.

For the play at hand:

So if you call "safe" the defense manager is in your face.

And if you call "out" the offense manager is in your face.

So your only choice is "which manager do I want in my face".

Who screwed up - the catcher or the runner?

Why on earth do you want to reward the runner for a screwup and punish the catcher for wanting a legitimate out?

Call it right.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

The problem is this: If he touches the black, there's no way to tell if a small portion of his foot also touched the white. There's gotta be visible dirt between the foot and the plate before I call this cause then I *know* he missed the plate.

And I've called this in the past. I ejected the batter and his manager afterwards, too. But I'm not making the call based on "I think he missed it."

I get that you don't get that, but all the umpires here get it.

Case in point was Domonic Brown "missing" second last night in the Phillies/Marlins game. A terrible call by Kerwin Danley -- replays show that Brown actually touched second base, but not on the front corner of the base, like a runner normally would. Danley upheld an appeal and replays showed he looked at the "touch" from behind and guessed at a missed base. We shouldn't be guessing if someone missed -- we need to know (100%) someone missed or they touched.

that is the word of the rat know go in peace

I thought Brown said that he missed the base after the game. The replay showed the umpire looking directly at the base as Brown rounded it. It was far from a terrible call and there wasn't much of an argument from the Phillies. I thought the replay showed Brown missed the bag, but he might have just clipped it with his heel.

Brown said he wasn't sure. The Phillies replay showed the heel hitting the base. If it's that inconclusive, it's a terrible call. That's the point I've been trying to make in this thread.

The following is from a Philly report on the game:

Brown says gaffe cost Phillies in extra-inning loss

“I did not,” Brown said when asked if he touched the base. “I just got to go back and take the double. I don’t know what I was thinking about there – too aggressive, I guess. Right there it cost us the game. You live and learn. That’s all I can say.”

Again, it was far from a terrible call. It turns out the runner confirmed it was the right call. The umpire looked to be in perfect position to call it. Charley Manual handled his brief discussion with dignity as did the ump (?Charley Relliford?) and the game went on without all the show and bluster we usually get. Imagine that!

Sorry, the tip of the cap goes to Kerwin Danley who was U2.

Hey, I always call you a rat. You're just now getting offended? Perhaps you missed the winking smiley I put in there.

What makes you think a player that touched a visible portion of home plate is subject to being put out on appeal? Not in the real world. Not a legitimate appeal.

Whenever a player actually does not touch a base, and the defense appeals, I always, 100% of the time, call the runner out on appeal. Any coach who argues vociferously that a players foot only touched the black part of the exposed plate is a total douche, and being a rat would be the least of their worldly troubles.

"I was trying to go so fast, all I was thinking was getting to third," Brown said. "I might have touched it with my heel, but I couldn't tell. I think I missed it, though. It cost us the game."

He *did* touch it with his heel. It was a brutal call to make in that situation. You don't guess at a missed base and you certainly don't take the word of a player over a replay that clearly shows the heel hitting the back side of the base, regardless of what the homer announcers say. There is no "right" way to touch a base, either.

MLB.com Gameday | MLB.com: Gameday

The replay isn't here, either. The good replay was from the Phillies broadcast and they showed it over and over and over again. And because Danley was on the back side of the base and had to look over the base, he guessed at the miss. I don't get why anyone would choose the dirty end of that stick.

I think there is a right way to leg out a triple. Doesn't it make sense to touch second on the inside corner with your right foot? Brown messed up his running cadence by looking at the ball roll to the wall. He had the entire play directly in front of him for the 90 feet from first to second to watch it all he wanted. The right way to leg out a triple is to make a good, strong turn at second and pick up your third base coach. Since Brown didn't, he lost his proper stride where the best he could do was to catch the bag with his left heel. The rear spike on your heel catching on the bag could easily turn an ankle or cause you to trip and fall. Live and learn indeed.

Brutal call? It came in the 6th inning of a game where the Phillies blew leads of 4-0 and 5-3. It's not like it was a walk-off balk or a walk-off missed call at the plate.

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!

Well, actually, it's completely different. There's a rule that tells us what to do if the base becomes dislodged, and that runner you describe IS safe ... by rule. There is no such rule regarding the plate.

How many non-umpires do you think know that the black edge around the plate isn't part of the plate? Very few is the answer. Every swinging Richard in the non-umpire world would see a runner touch the edge of the plate, irrespective of its color, and say, "that runner touched the plate." Real world application. Call it any differently and you are grabbing the dark brown end of the stick. The world to which Mike is referring does not exist at the level of ball most of us work, and does not include the fields on which many of us must umpire.

Last I checked, ignorance of the rules by the participants involved doesn't change the way we officiate a sport.

Using your logic, we should go ahead and consider the hands part of the bat.

Oh, that's not a leap in logic in itself. Spare me.:rolleyes:

If it were the only rule that ever got bent on a regular basis, this argument might have a chance (if you left out the asinine part about the hands and bat). Umpires routinely "just umpire" and the letter of the rule is often neglected, even by such sticklers for the rules as yourself. I have never heard of such a ridiculous argument, and I will say again that if you would honor an appeal when the runner touched an exposed part of the installed plate, then you would be wrong.

Do you call a major league strike zone in your games? There you go.

Also, look at rule 1.05 closely. It does not one time mention either "black" or the edges not being part of the plate. In fact it says that the "top edges of home base shall be beveled," which clearly identifies the edges as being part of the plate, and if they happen to be above the ground, they are going to be used as "plate."

If you want to adjust whatever rules you want to adjust, do so. But don't do it under the guise of ignorance by the participants. Said another way: the perceived intelligence of everyone should have no impact of how you interpret and enforce the rules.