Yankees @ Blue Jays

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Let's say there was exactly the same play but with R3, same two out situation. The run would still not count, correct?

What does 4.09(a)(1) say?

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

What does 4.09(a)(1) say?

True that. Rule 7.08(e) says the runner is out if he OR the base is tagged BEFORE he touches the base. It was confusing why Angel Hernandez did not signal out when Posada made a clear and distinct tag of first while looking at him. Things like "attained base", "relaxed action", "continuous action" are not mentioned in the rule book.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

True that. Rule 7.08(e) says the runner is out if he OR the base is tagged BEFORE he touches the base. It was confusing why Angel Hernandez did not signal out when Posada made a clear and distinct tag of first while looking at him. Things like "attained base", "relaxed action", "continuous action" are not mentioned in the rule book.

Does every posted legal speed sign say "if you get caught exceeding this speed limit in excess of a certain amount of mph (as determined by the local authorities), then you may receive a ticket, fine, etc."

Someday or one day, or if ever the world gets perfect, were just going to have to go back and rewrite everything so it is crystal clear for everyone. Then again everything will be perfect and everyone will know everything and we won't have to.

Sometimes you just have to umpire. You should try it first and quit being a pain in the arse because you have no life.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

True that. Rule 7.08(e) says the runner is out if he OR the base is tagged BEFORE he touches the base. It was confusing why Angel Hernandez did not signal out when Posada made a clear and distinct tag of first while looking at him. Things like "attained base", "relaxed action", "continuous action" are not mentioned in the rule book.

One cannot possibly hope to learn American law if one only studies constitutions, statutes and regulations. In fact, the majority of American law is learned from judicial cases (aka "case law") which interpret the statutes, constitutions, regulations, etc.

Likewise, if one only studies the rule book one is missing all of the interpretations (official and otherwise) of those rules found in the various umpire's manuals. (see major league baseball umpire's manual (MLBUM), PBUC Manual, J/R, JEA, etc.)

[Larry1953]

So Angel Hernandez made the proper call when he did not signal the runner who had "attained" first base but had not touched it when Posada stepped on the bag? A literal reading of the rules says a runner can be retired that way by either the "force mechanic" or an appeal. But I get your point.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

So Angel Hernandez made the proper call when he did not signal the runner who had "attained" first base but had not touched it when Posada stepped on the bag?

That is what is being debated on this and other internet boards. Someone on one of the boards posted an approved ruling from the MLBUM that I believe (but others disagree) covers this situation. Personally, as a result of reading that section of the MLBUM I have changed my initial opinion that "yes" is the correct answer to your question quoted above to "no".

However, my opinion did not change because of the rulebook, it changed because of the language from the MLBUM that was posted.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

So Angel Hernandez made the proper call when he did not signal the runner who had "attained" first base but had not touched it when Posada stepped on the bag? A literal reading of the rules says a runner can be retired that way by either the "force mechanic" or an appeal. But I get your point.

I do not think signalling nothing was correct. I think he should have signalled "safe". I also think that *if* F3's actions were an appeal, he should have had an out then.

So, it's possible that he did it correctly (either the process has changed *or* what I (and others) read in MLBUM somehow doesn't apply -- and it has to do with some timing issue), or it's possible that he did it incorrectly. Some would say that given the umpire involved, one of those is more likley than the other.

Unless MLB comes out with something, or until another (nearly) identical play happens, we probably won't know.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I do not think signalling nothing was correct. I think he should have signalled "safe". I also think that *if* F3's actions were an appeal, he should have had an out then.

So, it's possible that he did it correctly (either the process has changed *or* what I (and others) read in MLBUM somehow doesn't apply -- and it has to do with some timing issue), or it's possible that he did it incorrectly. Some would say that given the umpire involved, one of those is more likley than the other.

Unless MLB comes out with something, or until another (nearly) identical play happens, we probably won't know.

Your last sentence is so true, and actually a bit of a shame. I fully understand why umpires don't want to be quizzed on their calls, but it would certainly be helpful. With all the games being televised with high scrutiny replay, MLB needs to understand, as you said, that some of these strange calls set a precedent. I don't think it would hurt for ESPN to have the chance to interview an umpire supervisor to ask some of these questions. Otherwise it is just high priests and tabernacles and secret knowledge.

[Larry1953]

OK, really, I am not trying to be annoying (yeah, right) but here goes. I had proposed an R3 situation with 2 outs. I understand that, by rule the run would not have counted after all the confusion at first. However, the B/R could have made a break for 2B after AH failed to signal an out when Posada distinctly stepped on the bag (darn well knowing that he missed it, that would have been his only chance to stay alive). That probably would have made Posada throw down to second to get the out. If the third out was made at 2B, then I guess the run should count?? The Yankees would have then had to get a "fourth out" appeal at 1B to negate the run, right? Obviously that would not have been necessary if AH had signalled out with the tag of the bag - which he probably should have anyway.