NFHS Awarded base...then an appeal?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Blueplate

R1 on 3rd. Batter hits grounder to SS. SS throws to catcher who is 2-3 feet up the 3rd base line with a knee on the ground(blocking the plate).

R1 slides into the catcher before she has the ball. After catching the ball she tags R1 who hasn't made it to home,because of her obstruction. Both are now laying on the ground. No malicious contact.

PU calls time and awards the runner home on the obstruction call. R1, hearing she is safe, runs towards her dugout(she never touched the plate).

The peanut gallery shouts that she never touched home. Then... the defensive team coach asks the PU "Did she touch the plate?" Never said he was appealing her missing the plate.

As such this was not a proper appeal...or was it?

Questions:
Would R1 be called out or remain safe? If it had been a proper appeal.

We can debate semantics and what is in and not in the Rules Book, but this is not a "proper appeal". The DHC's question is telling me that he does not know if R1 did or did not touch HP, at least that is how we, as umpires, should be interpreting his question. And believe me, I have had HCs in both softball and baseball come out and ask me the wrong question because they did not have a clue as to what happened more times than I care to admit.

I think that the proper response (and some might think it is a little cheeky) to the DHC's question is: "Coach, are you telling me that you do not know if R1 did or did not touch HP?" Hopefully, the DHC will understand what he has been asked and either get help from one of his ACs or make the proper appeal.

Because I can guarantee everybody reading my post if you answer the DHC's question with a "no" followed by the DHC appealing R1's not touching HP, you will most likely be writing a game report regarding the OHC's ejection because he/she vigorously objected to you telling the DHC that R1 did not touch HP thus enabling the DHC to appeal the play at HP.

MTD, Sr.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

...Because I can guarantee everybody reading my post if you answer the DHC's question with a "no" followed by the DHC appealing R1's not touching HP,...

Did anyone suggest that was the proper response?

[Altor]

And my comment even touched on that.

If you aren't going to tell the coach "No" (and I don't think you should), then should you tell him "Yes"? If not, are you really going to make him go through the rigamarole of phrasing a "proper appeal" just so you can rule the runner safe? I highly doubt it. Just rule on the appeal.

[jmkupka]

Tell him "yes", and you'll still be ejecting the OC (when the DC tells F2 "tag her anyway, just to make sure", and you say "out!").

[Altor]

Let me rephrase. If she had touched the plate, would you answer the coach with "yes" when he asked his question, or would you make him rephrase his question in the form of an appeal...just so you can rule safe?

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Tell him "yes", and you'll still be ejecting the OC (when the DC tells F2 "tag her anyway, just to make sure", and you say "out!").

This better not happen. If the coach is on the field time out should have been called. Tagging a runner is a live ball appeal process, so if F2 tags someone during a dead ball appeal and the umpire says "out!"...

That's just wrong on many levels.

I don't do NCAA, but I'm clear that this is one of those subtle differences between ASA (coach cannot appeal during a dead ball) and NFHS (coach can appeal during a dead ball).

After time out is called:
Coach: "Blue, did she touch the plate?"
Me: "Coach, you'll need to appeal to find out."

There's no penalty for an appeal. Once S/he goes back to the dugout and (depending upon sanction) a proper appeal is made, I'll rule on it.

Sheesh!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

This better not happen. If the coach is on the field time out should have been called. Tagging a runner is a live ball appeal process, so if F2 tags someone during a dead ball appeal and the umpire says "out!"...

That's just wrong on many levels.

I don't do NCAA, but I'm clear that this is one of those subtle differences between ASA (coach cannot appeal during a dead ball) and NFHS (coach can appeal during a dead ball).

After time out is called:
Coach: "Blue, did she touch the plate?"
Me: "Coach, you'll need to appeal to find out."

There's no penalty for an appeal. Once S/he goes back to the dugout and (depending upon sanction) a proper appeal is made, I'll rule on it.

Sheesh!

Or, for ASA...
After time out is called:
Coach: "Blue, did she touch the plate?"
Me: "Catch, what did your coach say?"
Catcher: "Did she touch the plate."
Me: "Out"!

[jmkupka]

my bad... brain cramp... totally forgot about the dead ball due to OBS in the OP.

In a dead ball sit, their question is good enough for me as an appeal.




(live ball, no answer whatsoever)

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

"Did she touch the plate"

Tell him "yes", ... snip ... and you say "out!").

Huh?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

We can debate semantics and what is in and not in the Rules Book, but this is not a "proper appeal". The DHC's question is telling me that he does not know if R1 did or did not touch HP, at least that is how we, as umpires, should be interpreting his question. And believe me, I have had HCs in both softball and baseball come out and ask me the wrong question because they did not have a clue as to what happened more times than I care to admit.

I think that the proper response (and some might think it is a little cheeky) to the DHC's question is: "Coach, are you telling me that you do not know if R1 did or did not touch HP?" Hopefully, the DHC will understand what he has been asked and either get help from one of his ACs or make the proper appeal.

Because I can guarantee everybody reading my post if you answer the DHC's question with a "no" followed by the DHC appealing R1's not touching HP, you will most likely be writing a game report regarding the OHC's ejection because he/she vigorously objected to you telling the DHC that R1 did not touch HP thus enabling the DHC to appeal the play at HP.

MTD, Sr.

There is no debate, the definition of appeal requires the manager/coach/player to ask the given question. The umpire is forbidden from ruling on the violation until the question is asked. IMO, this is a perfect example of a proper appeal.