Saw something on TV that Made Me Think!

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Dakota

bawls, you're adding things that are not being said to back your argument. I think we're all pretty close on this one, but here's the thing...

An appeal has to be made; it does not need to be verbal, but it must be an appeal. If the runner was forced to the base missed, and the stepping on the base is intentional, but close enough to the runner's having achieved the base, then the umpire is left unsure whether that was a late force out attempt or a live ball appeal. The umpire cannot recognize an appeal he is not sure is being made.

The classic live ball appeal, where everyone in the ball park knows what is happening, needs nothing other than the tagging of the runner or the base from the defense.

But, if there is doubt as to WHY the defense is intentionally touching the base, whether that be was this a force or an appeal, or was this the first runner or the second being appealed, the defense needs to tell the umpire what is being appealed. Merely touching the base, however intentionally, is not enough.

What about thios sequence - the fielder touches the base in an appeal situation, then the runner touches, then the fielder says some verbal indication of an appeal. All bang-bang of course, but also if not.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

What about thios sequence - the fielder touches the base in an appeal situation, then the runner touches, then the fielder says some verbal indication of an appeal. All bang-bang of course, but also if not.

I don't use "proper appeal" as a way of playing "gocha" or "20 questions" with the defense.

A live ball appeal by its nature must many times be made quickly with the defense concentrating on making the play, not communicating with the umpire.

If, in my judgment, the player was explaining what she just did and why, then I'd recognize the appeal as properly made.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I don't use "proper appeal" as a way of playing "gocha" or "20 questions" with the defense.

A live ball appeal by its nature must many times be made quickly with the defense concentrating on making the play, not communicating with the umpire.

If, in my judgment, the player was explaining what she just did and why, then I'd recognize the appeal as properly made.

Good, I hoped you would say that.

[blu_bawls]

[QUOTE=Dakota]A live ball appeal by its nature must many times be made quickly with the defense concentrating on making the play, not communicating with the umpire.

EXACTLY. So once the cathcer realizes that the base runner has missed the plate she can either touch the base OR tag the runner. Same thing and there is no requirement to communicate with the umpire because the umpire should understand the catchers intent because of experience, knowledge, and understanding of the game.

[SRW]

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by SRW

Especially when he only listens (apparently) to half of what you say.

[blu_bawls]

I have listened to what you have said and I don't agree with you.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by blu_bawls

I have listened to what you have said and I don't agree with you.

You keep insisting there is no need for any communication with the umpire, yet you refuse to address any of the situations where communication is required.

No one here said communication is always required, but as near as I can tell, you are the only one who keeps insisting that communication is never required, only intent.