Appeal a turn toward second.

[shagpal]

how is a safe or out call a denial of an appeal? or coaching? it is explicitly an acknowledgment of an appeal as defined by the umpires manual. it's expressly defined as an appeal w/in the rulebook so as not to be ignored or confused.

if an umpire refuses to answer, that is a denial, because the umpires manual expressly states what an umpire is to do, acknowledge the appeal, and rule. it gives NO other choice other than safe or out call. if safe or out calls were coaching, would safe or out be the only choices allowable responses in the umpires manual? the umpires manual provides NO provision otherwise.

now, if an umpire wants to stretch the manual's intent and DELAY, then by choice that umpire would be willfully creating/forcing a do-nothing scenario, that is gaming the manual's intention set forth. that's why doing nothing is a cop-out.

Originally Posted by Dakota

I disagree it is a copout. It seems to me signaling "safe" does not communicate what you are trying to communicate. The problem I have with this is you are, it seems to me, denying the "appeal" - that is, signaling that there was no try for second, when in fact there was. If you signal "safe", it is pretty much impossible short of uttering the words "that is not a proper appeal" or some such to avoid telling the teams (however inadvertently and however much you know it to not be true) that the runner is not in jeopardy if she returns to 1B.

Doing nothing, OTOH, merely leaves the ball live and lets the teams decide what to do next.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by shagpal

how is a safe or out call a denial of an appeal? or coaching? it is explicitly an acknowledgment of an appeal as defined by the umpires manual. it's expressly defined as an appeal w/in the rulebook so as not to be ignored or confused.

if an umpire refuses to answer, that is a denial, because the umpires manual expressly states what an umpire is to do, acknowledge the appeal, and rule. it gives NO other choice other than safe or out call. if safe or out calls were coaching, would safe or out be the only choices allowable responses in the umpires manual? the umpires manual provides NO provision otherwise.

now, if an umpire wants to stretch the manual's intent and DELAY, then by choice that umpire would be willfully creating/forcing a do-nothing scenario, that is gaming the manual's intention set forth. that's why doing nothing is a cop-out.

Did I say anything about coaching? I'm talking about what the signal means and what it communicates to the players. Let me make this simpler: how is the signal "safe" (meaning that is not an appeal) different from the signal "safe" (meaning the runner did not try for 2B)? The umpire manual does not cover all possible situations.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Did I say anything about coaching? I'm talking about what the signal means and what it communicates to the players. Let me make this simpler: how is the signal "safe" (meaning that is not an appeal) different from the signal "safe" (meaning the runner did not try for 2B)? The umpire manual does not cover all possible situations.

Tom, you mean you don't give a safe signal every time a runner touches a base and is not retired so the defense knows that they are not out?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Tom, you mean you don't give a safe signal every time a runner touches a base and is not retired so the defense knows that they are not out?

Not Tom, but if there is an attempt at a put out, yes.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Not Tom, but if there is an attempt at a put out, yes.

But that isn't what I asked. There is not an attempt to put out the runner EVERY time. For that matter, there are even times when there may be an attempt that a call still may not be necessary/apppropriate (i.e., the ball is missed or dropped and rolling on the ground away from the attempted play; an obviously late tag, etc.)

[shagpal]

ah, you want to clarify the call? there is no provision for this, express or implied. you can do so if you personally prefer. you wanna call "SAFE, missed the TAG", that's your call, but the umpire's manual does not allow for it on appeals.

safe is a state of being. batter-runners are "SAFE" until properly retired. safe is infinite till an action makes it finite, a retirement of that player which would be a proper put out. appeals can be requested more than once, safe, still safe, and then still safe, safe until properly retired. as an umpire, you are give OUTS when you see it, UNLESS it is explicitly appeal play. NFHS allows for more than one appeal, but a guessing game is discouraged.

an umpire is denying nothing with a safe call on this appeal, and providing NO hints. an umpire would be simply affirming the batter-runners current state of being, that no proper retirement of that player has been presented, even if an anomaly is identified. if the umpire calls out, he/she is affirming that this appeal was properly requested AND the player was properly put out. the umpire needs all the appropriate elements of a put out, AND a proper request, not OR. both elements are needed. in the OP scenario, both elements are not properly presented, but a call IS required per the umpires manual.

a question for you might be, do you not wish to rule because an appeal was not properly requested, or the put out was not properly presented? there is a distinction. by all criteria, an appeal was properly requested, and I think that is the issue you have, but it is possible to muddle that with the properly presented put out. when you give the call, you are not affirming the anomaly you just saw and recorded. you are affirming the batter-runners present state, which is still SAFE, since "out" hasn't happened. the recorded the anomaly you identified and recorded in your mind, but didn't revealed is not what you are answering. I can sense you see it that way.

I understand you have an issue w/ the umpires manual as it is written. I am not defending the manual. I am merely adhering to what is written w/in.

Originally Posted by Dakota

Did I say anything about coaching? I'm talking about what the signal means and what it communicates to the players. Let me make this simpler: how is the signal "safe" (meaning that is not an appeal) different from the signal "safe" (meaning the runner did not try for 2B)? The umpire manual does not cover all possible situations.

[AtlUmpSteve]

There is a fallacy in your assertion; an appeal has not been properly presented. To make this particular live ball appeal, a defender with the ball must tag the runner. Until that happens, no appeal has been made, So far, we have a defender verbalizing a desire to make an appeal that hasn't been effected.

Consider this alternate play. F1 leaves first on a fly ball, and while attempting to return, F3 verbalizes "she left early" while the ball is in flight, and not possessed by F3 tagging either the base or the runner. Based on what you have stated, you believe that is an appeal that we are obligated to repond to, with the current status of "safe"??

I have no problem with the manual; I don't believe you are applying it correctly.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Consider this alternate play. F1 leaves first on a fly ball, and while attempting to return, F3 verbalizes "she left early" while the ball is in flight, and not possessed by F3 tagging either the base or the runner. Based on what you have stated, you believe that is an appeal that we are obligated to repond to, with the current status of "safe"??

You've changed my mind. During live ball, if a player makes an improper appeal, I keep my mouth shut, my arms down, and my eyes open.

I wouldn't give my quick safe in AtlUmpSteve's situation because all skill levels should know that a verbal appeal is not the correct procedure. Nor would I for a botched appeal on a missed base, because my safe signal might reasonably be misinterpreted as saying that I saw BR touch the base.

I'd still be tempted to give my quick safe signal in the OP sitch for the lower skill levels I'm used to, because not responding might cause F3 to pause while waiting for a response and allow R2 to race home from third, or BR to achieve second. But any reasonable player, regardless of skill level, would know that she's got to tag the runner off the base for an out. If F3 knows that an overrun followed by an attempt at second is an appeal situation, then she should know how to appeal properly. Even if F3 is thinking I missed an LBR violation (8-7-4-c, which is not the OP), same result. If F3 loses focus while awaiting a response, then it's a DMF3. Giving a safe signal might deprive the offense of a deserved opportunity.

Cecil? Shaggie?

[shagpal]

it does occur to me that the rulebook would define the OP scenario is an invalid attempt at an appeal. it also bothers me that the umpires manual is express in addressing that if an appeal is requested, the umpire must rule. the umpires manual does not make a distinction between a good appeal and a bad one. it bothers me that an advance attempt by batter-runner towards second is an "appeal" at all. but there is a disconnect between the rulebook and the umpires manual that requires some addressing.

if doing NOTHING was appropriate, the manual would have made it explicit so, perhaps w/ an exception. however, it is explicit in describing the opposite, and I am at odds with simply disregarding it's purpose.

it's apparent that this so-called "appeal" was designed to deter and batter-runner from drawing fielders & ball away from the infield so that the runner on 3B can score. but doing nothing accomplishes nothing, and changes nothing. the ruling body might as well have not put in the rule at all.

perhaps that's what we can all agree on.

Originally Posted by Paul L

You've changed my mind. During live ball, if a player makes an improper appeal, I keep my mouth shut, my arms down, and my eyes open.

I wouldn't give my quick safe in AtlUmpSteve's situation because all skill levels should know that a verbal appeal is not the correct procedure. Nor would I for a botched appeal on a missed base, because my safe signal might reasonably be misinterpreted as saying that I saw BR touch the base.

I'd still be tempted to give my quick safe signal in the OP sitch for the lower skill levels I'm used to, because not responding might cause F3 to pause while waiting for a response and allow R2 to race home from third, or BR to achieve second. But any reasonable player, regardless of skill level, would know that she's got to tag the runner off the base for an out. If F3 knows that an overrun followed by an attempt at second is an appeal situation, then she should know how to appeal properly. Even if F3 is thinking I missed an LBR violation (8-7-4-c, which is not the OP), same result. If F3 loses focus while awaiting a response, then it's a DMF3. Giving a safe signal might deprive the offense of a deserved opportunity.

Cecil? Shaggie?

[celebur]

Originally Posted by shagpal

it bothers me that an advance attempt by batter-runner towards second is an "appeal" at all.

Others have also brought this up earlier in this thread. In my opinion, it is listed as an appeal in order to emphasize that whether a runner is or is not in jeopardy after overrunning 1B is in the judgement of the umpire and the umpire is not to convey their judgement until and unless the defense tags the runner.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Paul L

I'd still be tempted to give my quick safe signal in the OP sitch for the lower skill levels I'm used to, because not responding might cause F3 to pause while waiting for a response and allow R2 to race home from third, or BR to achieve second. But any reasonable player, regardless of skill level, would know that she's got to tag the runner off the base for an out.

Or not be that smart and engage the umpire for calling the runner safe which to the defense, in an obvious misconception, believes they have caught the umpire in a mistake.

Yes, it is a DMF, and is more likely to happen at the lower levels. However, the team believes it just successfully executed what they believe to be a legitimate play. IMO & experience, giving that non-play credence by making a call is going to be more disruptive to the game than just staying with the play as instructed. As previously noted, they can question the lack of a call after the play.

[shagpal]

mike, you seem to be missing the point why paul might want to give the safe call. it may be far more simple and straightforward to do nothing and to prepare in advance that doing nothing will draw questions by coaches later. but how do you reconcile the discrepancy between rulebook and umpires manual? do you simply disregard the manual? I realize you being a UIC with experience, will insist that there is no discrepancy so any concerns can be simply dismissed, but it might not be so simple.

let's say during live play, this player asks the wrong umpire (plate) for an appeal (yeah, it happens). the umpires manual states, that umpire should point to the responsible umpire, call the umpires name, and indicate that the defense "wishes to make an appeal". given your desire to do nothing, I see a possible fiasco in the making. plate, simply redirecting the request as the manual says, would point to the responsible umpire (base), and base umpire in the do nothing camp would freeze, do nothing and say nothing. we can't stop players on the field from making requests, good or bad, and bad requests do happen. the umpires manual explicitly addresses the "wish" to make requests. it addresses the intention and desire to make an appeal, not the validity of an appeal. it makes no distinction between a good or bad request, and makes no provision to ignore a bad request. since it merely addresses the "wish" to make a request, not the completeness of a request, we can infer that it's instructing umpires NOT to do nothing, that you gotta do something, and it tells us what umpires would do. it does not assume a team should or should not know how an appeal can be made, nor assume higher level of players and coaches should know better. the umpires manual seems to address all levels of play, and all possibilities which a good manual would do.

now, for arguments sake, lets say the base umpire calls safe, which you detest. that call to me does far less less damage than a frozen umpire, and looks far more professional. it puts a clamp on further confusion and guessing that the rulebook discourages. later, when a coach questions that umpire on the call, the explanation can simply be, the batter-runner remains safe until the proper retirement is applied.

if umpires are in synch (assuming 2 or 3 man crew), doing nothing looks sharp, but applying the umpires manual which should not be ignored, it won't happen that way. the disconnect between the rulebook and umpires manual is there in our face begging for clarification. the responsible umpire, frozen and doing nothing, will appear either inept, or arrogant, or both. it's not just players and coaches. fans that know even less about the rules will see a frozen, poker faced umpire.

I apologize in advance for being the troublemaker in challenging the simplicity and elegance of doing nothing. as the senior UIC arguing for the do nothing camp, your comments are requested.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Or not be that smart and engage the umpire for calling the runner safe which to the defense, in an obvious misconception, believes they have caught the umpire in a mistake.

Yes, it is a DMF, and is more likely to happen at the lower levels. However, the team believes it just successfully executed what they believe to be a legitimate play. IMO & experience, giving that non-play credence by making a call is going to be more disruptive to the game than just staying with the play as instructed. As previously noted, they can question the lack of a call after the play.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by shagpal

ah, you want to clarify the call? there is no provision for this, express or implied. you can do so if you personally prefer. you wanna call "SAFE, missed the TAG", that's your call, but the umpire's manual does not allow for it on appeals.

safe is a state of being. batter-runners are "SAFE" until properly retired. safe is infinite till an action makes it finite, a retirement of that player which would be a proper put out. appeals can be requested more than once, safe, still safe, and then still safe, safe until properly retired. as an umpire, you are give OUTS when you see it, UNLESS it is explicitly appeal play. NFHS allows for more than one appeal, but a guessing game is discouraged.

an umpire is denying nothing with a safe call on this appeal, and providing NO hints. an umpire would be simply affirming the batter-runners current state of being, that no proper retirement of that player has been presented, even if an anomaly is identified. if the umpire calls out, he/she is affirming that this appeal was properly requested AND the player was properly put out. the umpire needs all the appropriate elements of a put out, AND a proper request, not OR. both elements are needed. in the OP scenario, both elements are not properly presented, but a call IS required per the umpires manual.

a question for you might be, do you not wish to rule because an appeal was not properly requested, or the put out was not properly presented? there is a distinction. by all criteria, an appeal was properly requested, and I think that is the issue you have, but it is possible to muddle that with the properly presented put out. when you give the call, you are not affirming the anomaly you just saw and recorded. you are affirming the batter-runners present state, which is still SAFE, since "out" hasn't happened. the recorded the anomaly you identified and recorded in your mind, but didn't revealed is not what you are answering. I can sense you see it that way.

I understand you have an issue w/ the umpires manual as it is written. I am not defending the manual. I am merely adhering to what is written w/in.

Okay, Tom, now I know why you're cursing at us.
I agree that neither the umpire's manual or any other authority requires a response to an improperly-constituted appeal, and you are far more experienced than me, but I stll favor giving a quick safe signal.