|
We have beaten the hell out of the play. And now I think we all understand the whys and where 4s. Pete B. hit on something and then went right past it.
The mechanics. On our local email list this subject got beat up really good but the final answer was each man for himself. So what does a mechanics book say about Carl's POTEDO #2? Is it a no call? Is it a safe on the play wait for the proper appeal? Is it a safe on the play out call on the appeal? Is it a safe on the play safe on the appeal? (It wasn't really the POTEDO #2 it was the Mariners botched triple play on the missed first base. But the mechanics would be the same. I'm saving #2 until there's a couple of pitchers of beer at stake) rex |
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rex:
So what does a mechanics book say about Carl's POTEDO #2? Is it a no call? Is it a safe on the play wait for the proper appeal? Is it a safe on the play out call on the appeal? Is it a safe on the play safe on the appeal? (It wasn't really the POTEDO #2 it was the Mariners botched triple play on the missed first base. But the mechanics would be the same. I'm saving #2 until there's a couple of pitchers of beer at stake) rex<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Rex, The correct mechanic on missing Home Plate is "make no signal". [cf NAPBL Umpire Manual, Section 3.3] Then: (1)If the runner makes no attempt to return to correct the miss, any appeal should be upheld for the "Out!" [Relaxed action] (2)If the runner attempts to return within a reasonable time, even after entering the dugout, he must be tagged for the "Out!" [Unrelaxed action] The correct mechanic when the batter-runner misses 1st Base is to call and signal "Safe!" and prepare for a defensive appeal on the missed base. "Professional umpires are trained to render the "safe" signal and voice declaration at first base even though the batter-runner missed the base but is considered past the base when the tag of first base is made. This becomes an appeal play and the batter-runner would subsequently be called out for failure to properly touch the base. This is the proper mechanical procedure at all bases involving force plays." [Evans' Official Baseball Rules Annotated, Rule 2.00 Definition of SAFE] It can be clearly seen from these interpretations that the mechanics are distinctly different at 1st base vs home plate. Cheers, Warren Willson ------------------ Member and Co-Moderator, UT |
Uh-oh, Warren. I disagree with something you said.
(2)If the runner attempts to return within a reasonable time, even after entering the dugout, he must be tagged for the "Out!" [Unrelaxed action] Whether or not the runner must be tagged when returning, or whether the plate can be tagged, has nothing to do with a, "reasonable time." The question only comes down to whether the runner immediately returned to the plate or not. JEA - 7.10(d) PLAY: The runner slides wide of the plate and the catcher misses with his sweeping tag effort. The runner gets up and decoys that he is going to the dugout then reverses his path abruptly and dives for the plate. The catcher jumps on the plate with the ball held securely and appeals before the runner touches it. Is this a proper appeal or does the run count? RULING: This out stands since the runner did not make an "immediate effort to return." (Umpire's judgment) At one point, the catcher would have been required to leave the plate area to make the play. In the above example, the runner did not even reach the dugout, and still the plate could be tagged. Jim Evans also talks about, "leaving the plate area," and "making no effort to immediately return." His guidance is sound. Anytime a catcher must leave the area of the plate in order to tag the runner, the catcher may instead step on home plate. Be careful not to misinterpret J/R and their relaxed action versus unrelaxed action concept. Every time a runner is scrambling back to a base, this is not automatically unrelaxed action requiring a tag. If the runner has progressed far enough away from the base (or plate) to make any appeal an unmistakable act, then this is relaxed action. A tag of the base will do. Example: -R1 -Batter smacks a liner to right field. -R1 was off with the pitch. -F9 makes a diving catch. -R1 scrambles back to first. -F9 fires to F3, who catches the ball just ahead of R1. Obviously, when this happens, we all know R1 is out on the appeal. But he was scrambling back at the time of the appeal. He could even be so close that he missed beating the throw by a hair. But it matters not. R1 is out and all F3 had to do was tag the base, not R1. This appeal occurred under relaxed action. Unrelaxed or relaxed action describes the appeal, and not the playing action. This sets up a dynamic in which any appeal made during unrelaxed action can never be interpreted as an unmistakable act. Example: -B1 hits it to F6, who bobbles the ball. -B1 misses first base, but beats the throw by several steps. -F3 is already standing on the bag with possession of the ball. -B1 immediately tries to scramble back. -F3 announces, "I appeal," just before B1 touches the base. This appeal was made under unrelaxed action. The reason F3's appeal should be denied is that the act of tagging the base coupled with the verbal request must be unmistakable. Since there was no time between the attempt to put out B1 and his scramble back, it is uncertain whether F3's foot was on the base incidentally, or whether he intended an appeal. Therefore it is not unmistakable. Appeal denied. Time is of the essence. Timing is everything - including during an appeal. Example: -Same play. -This time B1 keeps over-running first base, by several steps. -The base coach yells out, "You missed first!" -F3 remains on the bag and then announces, "I appeal," just before B1 makes it back. In this example, it is relaxed action. B1 had progressed a distance away from first base, B1's return to first is unmistakable in itself, F3's foot remaining on the base is also unmistakable, and there is no doubt here that the appeal should be upheld. B1 is out. A scrambling runner does not always unrelaxed action make. It is the appeal which is the "action," and not the playing action. What J/R is teaching us makes good, solid sense. An appeal which starts and ends under unrelaxed action can never be an unmistakable act. There's too much happening for it to be unmistakable. There isn't enough time for it to be unmistakable, despite what the fielder says afterwards. There must be a relaxation of the action, from the time the miss of the base occurs (or failure to retouch,) to the time an appeal is made. Otherwise the appeal is not viable because it is not unmistakable. If you keep in mind that these principles were devised to help us determine whether an appeal is unmistakable or not, you shouldn't have a problem understanding why unrelaxed action requires a tag. It is because when an appeal is made and there has been no relaxing of the action, it is impossible to determine if an appeal attempt is unmistakable or not. I hope I've made some sense. Sincerely, Jim Porter |
Jim, I'm sure glad you answered as you did, as I had the same question, but not nearly as many examples to back up my question, and certainly not the depth of explanation that you made.
Excellent work. Bob |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim Porter:
[b]Uh-oh, Warren. I disagree with something you said. (2)If the runner attempts to return within a reasonable time, even after entering the dugout, he must be tagged for the "Out!" [Unrelaxed action] Whether or not the runner must be tagged when returning, or whether the plate can be tagged, has nothing to do with a, "reasonable time." The question only comes down to whether the runner immediately returned to the plate or not. +++++++++ Jim: Your piece is great, and it reflects correctly the authoritative opinion of the J/R and the JEA. In this instance authoritative opinion has been superseded. As you may have forgotten, there is now an official ruling in that area from the PBUC, which says exactly what Warren wrote: The umpire is to judge how long the runner may tarry away from the plate before returning. It is entirely umpire discretion. (Cris Jones for the PBUC, eteamz, 5/2/00) ------------------ Papa C Editor, eUmpire |
So please clarify, if you would:
If the runner has tarried too long away from the plate but is now hustling cheek to get back, can an appeal be met by merely touching the plate, or must the runner be tagged? I can think of several different answers(yes, no, maybe, and depends(for old guys)). But if I wanted my answer I wouldn't ask you........ Bob |
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Carl Childress:
[b][QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim Porter: Uh-oh, Warren. I disagree with something you said. (2)If the runner attempts to return within a reasonable time, even after entering the dugout, he must be tagged for the "Out!" [Unrelaxed action] Whether or not the runner must be tagged when returning, or whether the plate can be tagged, has nothing to do with a, "reasonable time." The question only comes down to whether the runner immediately returned to the plate or not. +++++++++ Jim: Your piece is great, and it reflects correctly the authoritative opinion of the J/R and the JEA. In this instance authoritative opinion has been superseded. As you may have forgotten, there is now an official ruling in that area from the PBUC, which says exactly what Warren wrote: The umpire is to judge how long the runner may tarry away from the plate before returning. It is entirely umpire discretion. (Cris Jones for the PBUC, eteamz, 5/2/00) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> _______________ Boy, I didn't read anything about tag of runner versus tag of plate in that official ruling. As I recall, the ruling dealt specifically with the question of a runner returning from the dugout. Do you have it on file so that I may read it again? Sincerely, Jim Porter |
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob:
So please clarify, if you would: If the runner has tarried too long away from the plate but is now hustling cheek to get back, can an appeal be met by merely touching the plate, or must the runner be tagged? I can think of several different answers(yes, no, maybe, and depends(for old guys)). But if I wanted my answer I wouldn't ask you........ Bob<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> +++++++++++ Bob: The play probably happened once or twice in the history of baseball, so there are not a lot of data available. What would I do, armed with all I know about the play? Is punt an option? After the player entered the dugout, when he showed no intention of "immediately" returning, I would declare him out if appealed. That's the point of the rule that says the catcher doesn't have to chase him. When the catcher showed no intention of appealing, I would say to myself: "Well, that runner has been in the dugout long enough." If he tries to come back out, I won't permit it. How long is that? That's up to the catcher and any other plays he may be making. After continuing action stops, someone generally calls time. Again, I wouldn't let the runner return after time was out. Remember, though, I'm not going to call him out. I'm just not permitting him to retouch the base. If he should touch it anyway, I wouldn't recognize should the defense appeal. I'm taking issue only with one thing Jim said: "Immediately has everything to do with it." That's wrong, according to Cris Jones, who ruled officially that it was umpire discretion when to permit the runner to return from the dugout. It's a tiny little point about what is, essentially, merely a "talking" rule. Pete Booth said most umpires wouldn't permit a runner to return after he entered the dugout. I believe that once he's in the dugout, no runner would try to return. Still, these are fun to talk about since we realize the chances one will ever happen are slimer than a politician will stop talking during a campaign. ------------------ Papa C Editor, eUmpire |
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jim Porter:
[b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress: Quote:
Jim: That is the issue. The runner can return from the dugout. If he returns, he must be tagged. Even Warren agrees to that. If you'll check my original post on this thread, that's what I said: Simply throwing the ball to the base in advance of the returning runner won't get an out. If Warren didn't make that point, I apologize. As I read the discussion, you were focusing on "immediately return," whereas Warren focused on "umpire discretion." It may be we're all in agreement after all. ------------------ Papa C Editor, eUmpire |
Well, it helps if you look it up, as Casey Stengel said.
Apologies to Jim Porter. Warren, you and I are just flat wrong. Here's the relevant quote from Cris Jones: "[The runner may] come back out of the dugout to correct a baserunning mistake if he does it in a timely manner. Once he has walked away from the plate and/or gone into the dugout, the defense does not have to tag him. They need only appeal." I know why I missed this. I was so shocked the runner could return from the dugout, I simply did not imprint on my brain the fact that after he enters the dugout, 7.01(d) is no longer in effect. I have also gone back to read carefully the play Wendelstedt ruled on. In that play the writer is careful to say that the runner beat the ball back to the plate. Apparently, then, even in 1989 it was the same as the Jones' ruling. My last comment: How the heck did I miss this for 11 years? ------------------ Papa C Editor, eUmpire [This message has been edited by Carl Childress (edited September 01, 2000).] |
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob:
So please clarify, if you would: If the runner has tarried too long away from the plate but is now hustling cheek to get back, can an appeal be met by merely touching the plate, or must the runner be tagged? I can think of several different answers(yes, no, maybe, and depends(for old guys)). But if I wanted my answer I wouldn't ask you........ Bob<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just for clarification purposes: Anytime a runner leaves the, "plate area," and the catcher must chase him to make a tag, the catcher may step on home plate instead. This remains true even if the runner returns to the, "plate area." Once the runner leaves the, "plate area," the plate can be tagged forever. Sincerely, Jim Porter |
In your first example, Jim, F9 makes a diving catch of a line drive, R1 is off at the crack of the bat. The throw comes to first base to double him off as he hurries back. You call that an appeal? I would have called that just part of the play. What am I missing?
Now for the question: Your post implies, to me, quite strongly that once action has become relaxed in terms of an appeal it will stay relaxed, and never go back to unrelaxed. Is that correct? I'm a bit queasy about that position. Your comments, please. BTW, between you and Carl I think I got ol' Boots out. It now top of 9, we're ahead by one,... Bob |
BTW, between you and Carl I think I got ol' Boots out. It now top of 9, we're ahead by one,...
Bob ----------------------------------------- Don't srew us up now Bob. If you got Bootnose out who's catching? Or is he on first? rex [This message has been edited by rex (edited September 01, 2000).] |
Couldn't you tell that as many times as I got this wrong, I musta been on the other team? How else could you explain it?
Lame excuse #47. Bob |
Is ok Bob after this one I'm about ready to call any play at the plate an out just so #2 could never never happen to me. Can you see trying to explain this to someone that hasn't followed along with what has happened here the last few days.
rex |
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Carl Childress:
Well, it helps if you look it up, as Casey Stengel said. Apologies to Jim Porter. Warren, you and I are just flat wrong. Here's the relevant quote from Cris Jones: "[The runner may] come back out of the dugout to correct a baserunning mistake if he does it in a timely manner. Once he has walked away from the plate and/or gone into the dugout, the defense does not have to tag him. They need only appeal." I know why I missed this. I was so shocked the runner could return from the dugout, I simply did not imprint on my brain the fact that after he enters the dugout, 7.01(d) is no longer in effect. I have also gone back to read carefully the play Wendelstedt ruled on. In that play the writer is careful to say that the runner beat the ball back to the plate. Apparently, then, even in 1989 it was the same as the Jones' ruling. My last comment: How the heck did I miss this for 11 years? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, Carl, we may well have been just "flat wrong", but I'm not sure I'm ready to concede that quite yet, and here's why: 1. Cris Jones' PBUC ruling (reprinted above) was in two parts. Part (b) is that once the runner has left the plate area, or entered the dugout the defense doesn't have to tag him. They can tag the plate and appeal. That simply follows OBR 7.10(d) and I have no problem with it. 2. Part(a) of Jones' ruling was that having entered the dugout, the runner <u>is still allowed to return</u> if he does so within a reasonable time period. That is the part of the ruling that was "new" to me. It may or may not be consistent with Wendelstadt's Baseball America quote; I don't have that. The real issue is entwined with Part(a). We have discussed Relaxed vs Unrelaxed action on this and other boards many times before. I seem to remember one momentous discussion involving yourself and a number of other posters on one side, and Bob Pariseau and myself on the other. It goes to the question in one of the posts above of exactly when does Relaxed action ever become Unrelaxed action again? Bob Pariseau and I were aghast that a runner could run past a subsequent base (or two), and then turn around and attempt to return to a missed base and as long as the runner and the ball arrived in the vicinity of the "missed" base at approximately the same time, the action was UNRELAXED <u>regardless of how far ahead the runner had been</u>. The runner MUST BE TAGGED. In my post to which Jim objected, I simply applied this principle by saying that when the runner returns from the dugout with the obvious intention of correcting his baserunning error, the action again becomes UNRELAXED and the runner must be tagged. This is the same principle, as I understand it, that would be applied at a missed 2nd base if the runner was between 3rd and 2nd on his way back. Now, allow me first to say that my views on this subject aren't set in stone. I too have read the JEA on the question. As you correctly point out, however, the Jones PBUC ruling about returning from the dugout clearly supercedes that position. What we have been trying to do in this thread is to come to grips with two different yet complimentary principles; relaxed vs unrelaxed action and tag plays vs appeals at home plate after the runner has left the plate area. Can UNRELAXED ACTION be reinstated by the actions of the runner, after the runner has passed a succeeding base? Earlier concensus on McGriff's and UT (with Pariseau and Willson dissenting) was YES! Can UNRELAXED ACTION be reinstated by the actions of a runner, after the runner has missed home plate and entered the dugout? Apparently NO, according to you and Jim Porter in this thread (with Willson no longer dissenting, just confused). I think you will agree that this is a discussion worthy of this board, and of great value to all umpires who must decide when to allow an appeal for a missed base vs when to require a tag on a returning runner. In the case of the play at home plate, I would have said that if you will allow the runner to return, and require the defense to tag him, any time until he enters the dugout, then you must also allow the runner to return and require the defense to tag him when he leaves the dugout on his way back to the plate. This is clearly UNRELAXED ACTION in both cases! However, anytime the runner is actually IN the dugout, or is moving away from the plate and showing no intent to return, then an appeal can be allowed. This is clearly RELAXED ACTION in both cases! I don't see this interpretation of relaxed vs unrelaxed action as inconsistent with Jones' PBUC ruling. The wording isn't obviously inconsistent with OBR 7.10(d) or the JEA on the subject either. What do you say Papa C and Jim? Have I made the source of my statement and the reasons for my disagreement clear enough to debate? http://www.umpireforum.com/ubb/smile.gif If unrelaxed action can be reinstated at 2nd base by the actions of a baserunner, why not at home plate? After all, Papa, you have told us many times that this play was transmuted from home plate to ALL of the bases by the MLU's. What about applying the principles of relaxed vs unrelaxed action at the base which sparked it for all other bases? Cheers, Warren Willson ------------------ Member and Co-Moderator, UT [This message has been edited by Warren Willson (edited September 01, 2000).] [This message has been edited by Warren Willson (edited September 01, 2000).] |
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jim Porter:
[snip] Be careful not to misinterpret J/R and their relaxed action versus unrelaxed action concept. Every time a runner is scrambling back to a base, this is not automatically unrelaxed action requiring a tag. If the runner has progressed far enough away from the base (or plate) to make any appeal an unmistakable act, then this is relaxed action. A tag of the base will do. [snip] Unrelaxed or relaxed action describes the appeal, and not the playing action. This sets up a dynamic in which any appeal made during unrelaxed action can never be interpreted as an unmistakable act. [snip] A scrambling runner does not always unrelaxed action make. It is the appeal which is the "action," and not the playing action. What J/R is teaching us makes good, solid sense. An appeal which starts and ends under unrelaxed action can never be an unmistakable act. There's too much happening for it to be unmistakable. There isn't enough time for it to be unmistakable, despite what the fielder says afterwards. There must be a relaxation of the action, from the time the miss of the base occurs (or failure to retouch,) to the time an appeal is made. Otherwise the appeal is not viable because it is not unmistakable. If you keep in mind that these principles were devised to help us determine whether an appeal is unmistakable or not, you shouldn't have a problem understanding why unrelaxed action requires a tag. It is because when an appeal is made and there has been no relaxing of the action, it is impossible to determine if an appeal attempt is unmistakable or not. I hope I've made some sense. Sincerely, Jim Porter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jim, You have made EXCELLENT sense, and this is EXACTLY the position that both Bob Pariseau and I took on Relaxed vs Unrelaxed action in an earlier discussion on McGriff's and [UT1]. My recollection is that the opposing view was Unrelaxed action could be <u>reinstated</u> after a period of Relaxed action IF the ball and the runner arrived in proximity to the base at about the same time. I disagreed with that principle, as apparently do you from reading your wonderful post. Do you have anything to quote from Jaksa/Roder which clearly supports your interpretation that Unrelaxed action can't be reinstated if it is followed by a period of Relaxed action? If so, I will cheerfully revise my post, and my views, to concur with your interpretation, and enjoy the apparent vindication of Bob Pariseau's and my views on the subject expressed elsewhere quite some time ago. Cheers, mate. Warren ------------------ Member and Co-Moderator, UT |
<QUOTE>Originally posted by Warren Willson:
Part(a) of Jones' ruling was that having entered the dugout, the runner <u>is still allowed to return</u> if he does so within a reasonable time period. That is the part of the ruling that was "new" to me. It may or may not be consistent with Wendelstadt's Baseball America quote; I don't have that.</quote> Childress: Warren, you have it because it's the first post in the thread "My Answer POTEOD #12." <quote>Willson: The real issue is entwined with Part(a). We have discussed Relaxed vs Unrelaxed action on this and other boards many times before. I seem to remember one momentous discussion involving yourself and a number of other posters on one side, and Bob Pariseau and myself on the other. It goes to the question in one of the posts above of exactly when does Relaxed action ever become Unrelaxed action again? Bob Pariseau and I were aghast that a runner could run past a subsequent base (or two), and then turn around and attempt to return to a missed base and as long as the runner and the ball arrived in the vicinity of the "missed" base at approximately the same time, the action was UNRELAXED <u>regardless of how far ahead the runner had been</u>. The runner MUST BE TAGGED.</quote> Childress: Yes, though I don't remember Pariseau. I hold with the point that -- regardless of how far a runner goes toward the next base -- the defense must tag him if he's trying to return to a missed base. For example, that could happen often in a rundown: Play: 2 outs. A slow R1 goes to third on a single while a speedy B1 has rounded second without touching it. The defense is keeping R1 (now at third) close while trying to tag out B1 between second and third. If he is finally tagged out heading back to second, the pro umpire will not allow an appeal. If the runner at third managed to get home before B1 was tagged out trying to return to his missed ball, that run will count. <quote>Willson: In my post to which Jim objected, I simply applied this principle by saying that when the runner returns from the dugout with the obvious intention of correcting his baserunning error, the action again becomes UNRELAXED and the runner must be tagged. This is the same principle, as I understand it, that would be applied at a missed 2nd base if the runner was between 3rd and 2nd on his way back.</quote> Childress: In my post (where I agreed with you and Jim corrected me) I made it clear I believed the action became unrelaxed when the runner comes out of the dugout. That was my impression of what Cris Jones had ruled. I agree with you it is the most reasonable way to approach that situation, if it should ever occur again. It is, after all, consistent with play at the other bases! <quote>Willson: Can UNRELAXED ACTION be reinstated by the actions of the runner, after the runner has passed a succeeding base? Earlier concensus on McGriff's and UT (with Pariseau and Willson dissenting) was YES!</quote> Childress: Isn't the point, rather, that when a runner is still circling the bases, the action cannot be relaxed: If he can be tagged out, that means the participants (defense/runner) never "relaxed." Consequently, there is no reinstatement since it was never "uninstated." (Is that a word?) <quote>Willson: Can UNRELAXED ACTION be reinstated by the actions of a runner, after the runner has missed home plate and entered the dugout? Apparently NO, according to you and Jim Porter in this thread (with Willson no longer dissenting, just confused). </QUOTE> Childress: I think that Cris and Wendelstedt simply recognize that when a runner returns from the dugout, all action concerning him had ceased; it has by definiton become "relaxed." In other words home plate, like the very rich, is different. ------------------ Papa C Editor, eUmpire [This message has been edited by Carl Childress (edited September 01, 2000).] |
Warren and Papa C,
I think you're both right. Jaksa/Roder separates first and home from second and third in regards to appeals and relaxed versus unrelaxed action. Because of the different dynamics set up at those bases, the principles have to be a little different. We've been talking so much about home plate, I neglected the other bases completely. When first base is missed while the BR is over-running it, according to J/R, that would be handled the same way as a play at home plate. Since we know from Jones's ruling and JEA that once a player leaves the vicinity of home plate, the plate can be tagged even if the fielder comes back. According to J/R, that's how first is handled when a BR is over-running, the same as home plate. But first (when there is no over-run), second, and third are handled differently. At those bases, during a scramble back to a missed base while the ball is approaching the vicinity of the play, only a tag of the runner will do. I do not believe there is any such thing as "reinstated" unrelaxed action. It's either unrelaxed or it's not. At the time of the appeal, if the runner and ball are approaching the vicinity of the base, it is unrelaxed action. If the runner is far removed from the base, or standing idly at another base, it is relaxed action. A dose of common sense helps here. When a runner misses a base, he does one of two things. He either scrambles immediately back to touch the missed base, or he acts as though he touched it and continues on. If he scrambles back, he will either be right there with no time for anything but a tag of the runner (unrelaxed), or he will be far removed trying to get close enough to scramble back (relaxed). As far as the runner who reached an advance base, when an appeal is made, this runner will either remain on his advance base and hope the umpire didn't see him miss it, or he will try to get back. But since he has reached an advance base, he is far removed from the base he missed. A tag of the runner isn't necessary in this case. Tagging the base will do. But if he reaches an advance base and somehow has the time to get close enough to scramble back while the ball is reaching the vicinity, then it is unrelaxed action. The key is what is happening at the time of the appeal. From the throw to the suspect base, to the tag of the base, where the runner is during those moments is all that matters in determining relaxed versus unrelaxed action. With unrelaxed action, the entire appeal process lacks the time to make an appeal unmistakable. The runner is there, the ball is there, and only after the completion of the play can a determination be made of what exactly the fielder intended. But after the play is too late. It can't be unmistakable then. In summation: 1. Home and first (when over-run) have slightly different dynamics. Once the runner leaves the vicinity, a tag of the base (unmistakable act of appeal) is all that is necessary for the appeal to be viable, even if the runner subsequently scrambles back. 2. First (when not over-run,) second, and third have no such limit on how far away the runner may run before scrambling back. All that matters here is, at the time of the appeal, how far removed the runner is from the suspect base. So I say you're both right, depending on the base and situation. I hope we can all find some agreement here. Sincerely, Jim Porter |
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jim Porter:
Warren and Papa C, I think you're both right. Jaksa/Roder separates first and home from second and third in regards to appeals and relaxed versus unrelaxed action. Because of the different dynamics set up at those bases, the principles have to be a little different. [huge snip of quality explanation] In summation: 1. Home and first (when over-run) have slightly different dynamics. Once the runner leaves the vicinity, a tag of the base (unmistakable act of appeal) is all that is necessary for the appeal to be viable, even if the runner subsequently scrambles back. 2. First (when not over-run,) second, and third have no such limit on how far away the runner may run before scrambling back. All that matters here is, at the time of the appeal, how far removed the runner is from the suspect base. So I say you're both right, depending on the base and situation. I hope we can all find some agreement here. Sincerely, Jim Porter <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jim, I'm sure we can agree, on the principles at least. I don't have a copy of J/R, and all efforts to obtain one have so far been frustrated by the exchange rate for the $AUD1.00 and the tyranny of distance. I can readily accept that home plate [ OBR7.10(d)] and first base when overrun [OBR 7.10(c)] are quite properly treated differently from 1st base (not overrun), 2nd base and 3rd base [OBR 7.10(b)] for the purpose of appeal plays vs tag plays. The explanation you have given makes good sense to me. I am only sorry that there appears to be no definitive J/R quote on the status of Relaxed vs Unrelaxed action that covers the inability to restore Unrelaxed status at 1st base (overrun) and home plate, once it has been given up either by leaving the cutout area (home plate) or failing to "immediately" correct the miss (1st base). Typical Porter politicking! http://www.umpireforum.com/ubb/smile.gif Able to easily find the middle ground between me and Papa C. Cheers, mate. Warren Willson ------------------ Member and Co-Moderator, UT |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress:
[b]<QUOTE>Originally posted by Warren Willson: Part(a) of Jones' ruling was that having entered the dugout, the runner <u>is still allowed to return</u> if he does so within a reasonable time period. That is the part of the ruling that was "new" to me. It may or may not be consistent with Wendelstadt's Baseball America quote; I don't have that.</quote> <quote>Childress: Warren, you have it because it's the first post in the thread "My Answer POTEOD #12."</quote> *** Thanks, Carl. I will now save that thread for the Baseball America quote. <quote>Willson: The real issue is entwined with Part(a). We have discussed Relaxed vs Unrelaxed action on this and other boards many times before. I seem to remember one momentous discussion involving yourself and a number of other posters on one side, and Bob Pariseau and myself on the other. It goes to the question in one of the posts above of exactly when does Relaxed action ever become Unrelaxed action again? Bob Pariseau and I were aghast that a runner could run past a subsequent base (or two), and then turn around and attempt to return to a missed base and as long as the runner and the ball arrived in the vicinity of the "missed" base at approximately the same time, the action was UNRELAXED <u>regardless of how far ahead the runner had been</u>. The runner MUST BE TAGGED.</quote> <quote>Childress: Yes, though I don't remember Pariseau. I hold with the point that -- regardless of how far a runner goes toward the next base -- the defense must tag him if he's trying to return to a missed base. For example, that could happen often in a rundown: Play: 2 outs. A slow R1 goes to third on a single while a speedy B1 has rounded second without touching it. The defense is keeping R1 (now at third) close while trying to tag out B1 between second and third. If he is finally tagged out heading back to second, the pro umpire will not allow an appeal. If the runner at third managed to get home before B1 was tagged out trying to return to his missed ball, that run will count.</quote> *** If I remember correctly, Carl, the two plays that caused the most discussion were (a)R2 misses 3rd and reaches home, before retouching and heading back to 3rd, arriving with the ball at the base and F5 proclaiming "He missed the bag!" - TAG PLAY REQUIRED (Unrelaxed Action), and (b) R3 leaves early and reaches home, before retouching and heading back to 3rd, arriving with the ball at the base and F5 proclaiming "He left early!" - APPEAL PLAY (Relaxed action, unmistakable act of appeal). I never quite gathered the difference. Now I believe I do. <quote>Willson: In my post to which Jim objected, I simply applied this principle by saying that when the runner returns from the dugout with the obvious intention of correcting his baserunning error, the action again becomes UNRELAXED and the runner must be tagged. This is the same principle, as I understand it, that would be applied at a missed 2nd base if the runner was between 3rd and 2nd on his way back.</quote> <quote>Childress: In my post (where I agreed with you and Jim corrected me) I made it clear I believed the action became unrelaxed when the runner comes out of the dugout. That was my impression of what Cris Jones had ruled. I agree with you it is the most reasonable way to approach that situation, if it should ever occur again. It is, after all, consistent with play at the other bases! </quote> *** I thought so too, Carl. It did seem to fly in the face of Evans' on OBR 7.10(d), however, which allowed an appeal any time after the runner leaves the home plate cutout. From Jim's explanation I can now see that this should NOT be applied the same at all of the bases. I just wish he had come up with a J/R quote in support of that position on Relaxed vs Unrelaxed action, even if the distinction now seems obvious when read in conjunction with OBR 7.10! <quote>Willson: Can UNRELAXED ACTION be reinstated by the actions of the runner, after the runner has passed a succeeding base? Earlier concensus on McGriff's and UT (with Pariseau and Willson dissenting) was YES! Childress: Isn't the point, rather, that when a runner is still circling the bases, the action cannot be relaxed: If he can be tagged out, that means the participants (defense/runner) never "relaxed." Consequently, there is no reinstatement since it was never "uninstated." (Is that a word?)</quote> *** Of course I understand the distinction you are making, Carl. The question Pariseau and I posed was at what point did the action ever become Relaxed? After the next base was reached? After a subsequent base? If the batter-runner had missed 1st base (no overrun) on his way to 3rd, and being reminded of his error by the 3rd base coach heads back in the direction of 1st, when does the defensive right to appeal the miss during live action cease? When the B-R passes 2nd on his way back? When he reaches the cutout at 1st? When? If he is between 3rd and 2nd, would you deny a live action appeal and require the defense to tag the runner, simply because the runner was still circulating? Suppose it was 2nd base that was missed by R1, and he had reached and passed home plate before returning to the base path; would you allow an appeal at 2nd on R1 now retreating but still between 3rd and home? Would you require a tag if R1 got back past 3rd on his way to correct the error? Or would you allow an appeal right up until R1 and the ball were together in the 2nd base cutout area and then require a tag? These are some of the questions that Pariseau and I posed in the original discussion. On my reading of your statement above you would never allow a live action appeal under OBR while ever the subject runner was off a base and circulating in either direction! Is that the case? <quote>Willson: Can UNRELAXED ACTION be reinstated by the actions of a runner, after the runner has missed home plate and entered the dugout? Apparently NO, according to you and Jim Porter in this thread (with Willson no longer dissenting, just confused). Childress: I think that Cris and Wendelstedt simply recognize that when a runner returns from the dugout, all action concerning him had ceased; it has by definiton become "relaxed." In other words home plate, like the very rich, is different.</QUOTE> *** Accepted and agreed, Carl. I think we are now also entitled to use Evans' finer distinction of the edge of the home plate cutout as a guide for determining an "immediate" return to a missed home plate under Unrelaxed action, don't you? I now believe that there is no conflict between this delimiter and the Jones PBUC ruling about returning from the dugout. I think we are almost there, except for deciding the question of a delimiter on Relaxed vs Unrelaxed action on the base paths at 1st (not overrun), 2nd and 3rd. Correct me if I'm wrong, Papa C, but I believe your position is that distance isn't really an issue, and no matter how far the runner has advanced from the missed base, as long as he is attempting to advance or return the action will always be UNRELAXED. On the other hand, I believe Jim is interpreting J/R as saying action is RELAXED and will STAY RELAXED once the runner has left the vicinity of the missed base, irrespective of how far they get and <u>whether or not the runner is returning</u> UNLESS the runner again reaches the vicinity of the missed base (ie the cutout area) as the ball arrives. In that latter case the action reverts to UNRELAXED action requiring a tag out, but only at 2nd and 3rd base or 1st base (when not a simple overrun). Please, either Papa C or JimP, correct me if I am misreading your positions here. I should add, BTW, that my personal leaning is strongly toward the second position, out of pure "gut instinct" because I don't have the J/R to interrogate on the subject for myself! <IMG SRC="http://www.u |
|
Ok, Carl and Jim, NOW I think I've got it!
For the benefit of the other posters, I'd like to re-iterate the clarified position to see if I have both Jim Porter's and Carl Childress' agreement with my understanding of missed base appeals vs tag plays when using the Relaxed / Unrelaxed Action concept of Jaksa/Roder for clarity. 1. Missed base 1st base (rounded in direction of 2nd base), 2nd base and 3rd base - Runner has left the immediate vicinity of the base and makes no effort to return: Relaxed action - Defense may appeal the missed base by tagging the base only. 2. Missed base 1st base (rounded), 2nd base and 3rd base - Runner has NOT left the immediate vicinity of the base and is scrambling to return: Unrelaxed action - Defense must tag the runner for the out! 3. Missed base 1st base (rounded), 2nd base and 3rd base - Runner HAS left the vicinity of the base but IS attempting to return: (a) IF the runner HAS made it back to the immediate vicinity of the base (eg the cutout), then Unrelaxed action - Defense must tag the runner for the Out! (b) IF the runner HAS NOT made it back to the immediate vicinity of the base (eg the cutout), then Relaxed action - Defense may appeal the missed base by tagging the base only. 4. Missed 1st base (overrun only - no attempt to advance) or home plate - runner HAS left the immediate vicinity of the base and makes no effort to return: Relaxed action - Defense may appeal for the out by simply tagging the base/plate. 5. Missed 1st base (overrun) or home plate - runner HAS NOT left the immediate vicinity of the base and is scrambling to return: Unrelaxed action - Defense must tag the runner to gain the Out! 6. Missed 1st base (overrun) or home plate - runner HAS left the immediate vicinity of the base but is attempting to return: (a) Home Plate: Relaxed action regardless of the proximity of the runner to home plate - the Defense may still simply tag the plate to gain the Out! Runner could not return "immediately" having already left the immediate vicinity of the base. [cf OBR 7.10(d) Note and Evans' Official Baseball Rules Annotated Rule 7.10(d)] (b)1st Base: May apparently be either Relaxed or Unrelaxed action, depending upon exact location and actions of the runner - BUT EITHER WAY the Defense should STILL be permitted simply to tag the base and make an obvious attempt to appeal, because there can be no other reason for tagging the base and making the obvious appeal attempt. This is especially true following the UDP's obligatory "Safe!" call mechanic when the runner first beat the ball to the base, even though the runner failed to touch the base in passing. If the runner did NOT beat the ball, then the "Out!" would already have been awarded under OBR 6.05(j) without the requirement to appeal. Cases 3. and 6. above give the more contentious interpretations we have been dealing with in this thread. I hope I have clarified them accurately and we now have complete agreement on the end result as stated here. Cheers, Warren Willson ------------------ Member and Co-Moderator, UT |
Warren -
Can you have that printed on a laminated card that we can carry with us http://www.umpireforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif I think that covers all the situations (now that I've said that, somebody will come up with another one. -Kono |
This is my opinion, but, logically it all seems to make sense.
My Grandfather (Bless his soul) once told me, "Jimmy, if all the pieces of the puzzle fit together, you got yerself the whole picture." It seems the authorities are telling us exactly what you have written, Warren. We also have this from Cris Jones: On appeals for a missed first base by batter-runner QUESTION: Batter hits a grounder in the infield. The throw pulls F3 off the base, but he catches the ball. He is pulled to the infield side of first in fair territory. BR avoids F3's tag attempt legally, but in doing so, misses first base as he overruns it down the right field line. BR makes no attempt to advance and immediately turns around to head back to first base. F3 after missing on the first tag attempt, starts to run after BR but, stops and turns around and runs back and touches first base, but says nothing. What is the call? Is BR out or safe. Is this an unmistakable appeal or not? ANSWER: Umpire's judgment. If you believe he was appealing. Call the runner out. This, I think, simply helps our theories along. Sincerely, Jim Porter |
I have enjoyed this series, and did not review it until just now, so I am sorry for posting on this so long after the fact, but I am wondering how this applies to Federation rules. According to the Federaton Rule 8.4.1i, if the batter on a dropped third strike gives up by entering the bench or dugout area he is out. So, it would seem that the same would apply to a runner who misses home plate. If the runner misses home plate and reaches his dugout he is out and cannot attempt to return to touch home plate. The 2000 case book section 8.2.2c-comment states that "if the runner attempts to return before the defense initiates appeal action, he must be touched, except on a force." The question I have is according to Federation rules, how far beyond home plate can the runner be and still attempt to return? Can he be at any point beyond the plate up to just entering his dugout and attempt to return, or is there another standard that would govern? In Federation, the umpire is to call the runner out for missing a base. So, if the runner misses home plate and reaches his dugout, it seems that that is the point that he is to be called out (and the point to call campus security as well). What do you think?
|
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob Kennedy:
The question I have is according to Federation rules, how far beyond home plate can the runner be and still attempt to return? Can he be at any point beyond the plate up to just entering his dugout and attempt to return, or is there another standard that would govern? In Federation, the umpire is to call the runner out for missing a base. So, if the runner misses home plate and reaches his dugout, it seems that that is the point that he is to be called out (and the point to call campus security as well). What do you think?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bob: This is one of those answers where "opinions" don't count. The FED rule and interpretation for many years has been that when all play is over, he shall call time and declare out any runners guilty of baserunning infractions. R2 scores, misses the plate, B1 stops at first, and the ball comes back into the infield. Unless R2 is headed back for the plate, the umpire doesn't care where he is. He could picking up a bat, bragging to the on-deck hitter about how easily he scored, or drinking Gatorade in the dugout. When all play stops, he's out in FED rules. Now, we enter the realm of "opinion" here. (Since it's my opinion, it's authoritative. (grin) Let's assume that B1 gets trapped in a rundown between first and second, and the coach signals to B1 to return to touch the plate. Like the OBR, there is no FED rule that prevents the runner from returning from the dugout. If there is continuing play, I suggest he could return to the plate, even from the dugout. FED is silent, and by analogy we use the OBR rule or interpretation in that instance. ------------------ Papa C Editor, eUmpire |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:46am. |