The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 31, 2000, 06:14pm
rex rex is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 100
Post

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
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 31, 2000, 08:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 561
Post

quote:
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



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
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 01, 2000, 01:06am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 711
Send a message via ICQ to Jim Porter Send a message via Yahoo to Jim Porter
Post

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
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 01, 2000, 10:50am
Bob Bob is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14
Cool

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
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 01, 2000, 01:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Edinburg, TX
Posts: 1,212
Send a message via ICQ to Carl Childress
Post

[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
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 01, 2000, 02:03pm
Bob Bob is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14
Wink

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
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 01, 2000, 02:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 711
Send a message via ICQ to Jim Porter Send a message via Yahoo to Jim Porter
Post

quote:
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)


_______________

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
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 01, 2000, 02:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Edinburg, TX
Posts: 1,212
Send a message via ICQ to Carl Childress
Post

quote:
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


+++++++++++

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
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 01, 2000, 02:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Edinburg, TX
Posts: 1,212
Send a message via ICQ to Carl Childress
Post

quote:
Originally posted by Jim Porter:
[b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress:
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)


_______________

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
++++++++++

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
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 01, 2000, 04:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Edinburg, TX
Posts: 1,212
Send a message via ICQ to Carl Childress
Post

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).]
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 01, 2000, 05:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 711
Send a message via ICQ to Jim Porter Send a message via Yahoo to Jim Porter
Post

quote:
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




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
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 01, 2000, 05:48pm
Bob Bob is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14
Cool

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
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 01, 2000, 06:12pm
rex rex is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 100
Post

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).]
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 01, 2000, 06:32pm
Bob Bob is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14
Smile

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
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 01, 2000, 06:48pm
rex rex is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 100
Post

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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:41pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1