Appeal a turn toward second.

[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 celebur

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.

But does that not apply anytime an active runner or batter-runner is tagged with the ball?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

But does that not apply anytime an active runner or batter-runner is tagged with the ball?

Not when you're Robinson Cano.

[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.

[ChampaignBlue]

Is he out yet?

No.

Is he out yet?

No.

Is he out yet?

NO!

Remember, some of you have to deal with AA players.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by shagpal

... 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.

So I'm not a senior UIC, but maybe if I restate your scenario in a little variation it'll help you see why this makes no sense. Here's what seems to me to be a very similar situation.

R1 on 3rd. Flyball and she clearly leaves early. Inexplicably, F8 throws to F4 who tags second while yelling to the BU that R1 left early.
Most everybody here wants the BU to just ignore that and do nothing as they didn't meet the threshhold for making an appeal.
You want the BU to point to the home plate umpire, and call out, "they're appealing R1 leaving early." Then you want the PU to signal safe.

If a player executes an appeal and it's not my call, I'll engage my partner. If a player does not execute an appeal but thinks he has and it's not my call, I'm certainly not going to make the situation more confusing by acknowledging it.

However, if my partner were to do so, then I'm not sure what the best thing to do is because I agree that it's just going to confuse people if my partner actively engages me and I try and ignore him. I can ignore nothing on the field but that's a little different than another umpire. My best guess is that in this situation a direct verbal response to my partner along the lines of:
We have no appeal.
is the only way that makes sense. But I'm not the fellow who knows the tough ones and the veteran folks may have a better approach on that.
________
Park Royal 3 Condominium Prathumnak

[shagpal]

I am merely throwing a book out. but yes, the best qualified umpire to answer the question would be the UIC. mike (irish) is adamant on the do nothing approach.

Originally Posted by youngump

So I'm not a senior UIC, but maybe if I restate your scenario in a little variation it'll help you see why this makes no sense. Here's what seems to me to be a very similar situation.

R1 on 3rd. Flyball and she clearly leaves early. Inexplicably, F8 throws to F4 who tags second while yelling to the BU that R1 left early.
Most everybody here wants the BU to just ignore that and do nothing as they didn't meet the threshhold for making an appeal.
You want the BU to point to the home plate umpire, and call out, "they're appealing R1 leaving early." Then you want the PU to signal safe.

If a player executes an appeal and it's not my call, I'll engage my partner. If a player does not execute an appeal but thinks he has and it's not my call, I'm certainly not going to make the situation more confusing by acknowledging it.

However, if my partner were to do so, then I'm not sure what the best thing to do is because I agree that it's just going to confuse people if my partner actively engages me and I try and ignore him. I can ignore nothing on the field but that's a little different than another umpire. My best guess is that in this situation a direct verbal response to my partner along the lines of:
We have no appeal.
is the only way that makes sense. But I'm not the fellow who knows the tough ones and the veteran folks may have a better approach on that.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Good way to put it, Youngump; I guess SRW has taught you a few tricks.

Shagpal, let me expand. You refer to the NFHS Umpire Manual, but have never quoted it. I don't believe it says that umpires must rule anytime a player requests it; my copy says "If the appeal is requested", nothing about wishing or wanting to appeal.

Let's be clear, an appeal is a defined term; included in that definition (Rule 2-1 Art 3) is "Methods by which an appeal may be made". If one of those methods is followed on a situation defined as a possible appeal, then we are certainly required to "make the safe or out call"; that is when it has been requested. We are directed to point to the responsible umpire and point out an appeal has been because the players aren't expected to know our mechanics; not because we rule "safe or out" on anything they ask at anytime.

If someone asks in an appeal situation but has not met the requirements of how an appeal is to be made, then that person is not making an appeal. She may be wanting to make an appeal, but she hasn't; and we cannot tell the player what to do. So, there is no discrepancy in the umpire manual, as nothing has been presented properly for any umpire to "make the safe or out call". Look further at the definition of an appeal; the umpire simply cannot rule unless appealed, and the methods to make that appeal are requirements, not suggestions. Granted the rule does not go further to say "EFFECT: If not made by one of the required methods, this is not an appeal", but wouldn't you think that should undersood already? Remember, we use defined terms by the definitions, not by any common usage. To be an appeal, requirements must be meet; if not met, then, not an appeal.

So, what's an umpire to do? In the strictest of games, you can do nothing. You should not rule when no play or appeal has been made, and you certainly cannot coach them how to make a proper appeal that must be answered. Since you can say "missed tag" or "pulled the foot" without it being coaching, I submit you can say "that's not an appeal" to indicate why you cannot rule.

The player asking without effecting an appeal has no more legal standing than asking you after she swings at a pitch if it would have been a strike. If you want to answer, go ahead; if you want to ignore, you can. Most times, it is best to tell them what they expect to hear, so you can move on.

[shagpal]

I don't quote the manual in whole, because everyone has one, or should, and it all is the same.

the thread has already established that the OP appeal is improperly made. that's not at issue. the do nothing camp has dismissed this appeal because it does not meet the criteria of the appeal, so a reiteration is moot, and not my question.

my question, directed to mike, is why the sanctioning body would have a manual contain language that would suggest umpires not responsible for the appeal be in the position to predetermine for the responsible umpire what is or is not a good appeal given different sets of eyes in game situations. as it reads, it says their responsibility is to redirect, not to predecide, and let the responsible umpire make his/her call. it's the last paragraph in the umpires manual regarding appeals on p13.

steve, I appreciate your clarification, but I believe mike can address and justify this himself, as he should without help, as I am purposefully asking.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Good way to put it, Youngump; I guess SRW has taught you a few tricks.

Shagpal, let me expand. You refer to the NFHS Umpire Manual, but have never quoted it. I don't believe it says that umpires must rule anytime a player requests it; my copy says "If the appeal is requested".

Let's be clear, an appeal is a defined term; included in that definition (Rule 2-1 Art 3) is "Methods by which an appeal may be made". If one of those methods is followed on a situation defined as a possible appeal, then we are certainly required to "make the safe or out call". We are directed to point to the responsible umpire and point out an appeal has been because the players aren't expected to know our mechanics; not because we rule "safe or out" on anything they ask at anytime.

If someone asks in an appeal situation but has not met the requirements of how an appeal is to be made, then that person is not making an appeal. She may be wanting to make an appeal, but she hasn't. So, there is no discrepancy in the manual, as nothing has been presented properlyfor any umpire to "make the safe or out call". Look further at the definition of an appeal; the umpire simply cannot rule unless appealed, and the methods to make that appeal are requirements, not suggestions. Granted the rule does go further to say "EFFECT: If not made by one of the required methods, this is not an appeal", but wouldn't you think that should undersood already? Remember, we use defined terms by the definitions, not by any common usage. To be an appeal, requirements must be meet; if not met, then, not an appeal.

So, what's an umpire to do? In the strictest of games, you can do nothing. You should not rule when no play or appeal has been made, and you certainly cannot coach them how to make a proper appeal that must be answered. Since you can say "missed tag" or "pulled the foot" without it being coaching, I submit you can say "that's not an appeal" to indicate why you cannot rule.

The player asking without effecting an appeal has no more legal standing than asking you after she swings at a pitch if it would have been a strike. If you want to answer, go ahead; if you want to ignore, you can. Most times, it is best to tell them what they expect to hear, so you can move on.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by shagpal

...but I believe mike can address and justify this himself, as he should without help, as I am purposefully asking.

If you want to have a private conversation with Mike, try a PM. If you post publicly, well, it's public.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Good way to put it, Youngump; I guess SRW has taught you a few tricks.

He catches on fast.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by shagpal

mike, you seem to be missing the point why paul might want to give the safe call.

Shagpal, I would not want to give a safe signal; I was trying to explain why I would be tempted to do so. AtlUmpSteve has it exactly right: a purported appeal is not necessarily an appeal, and if it is not, then the umpire manual does not require a response. I like his suggestion of saying "That is not an appeal" without a signal in lower-skilled games (say mediocre high school JV and lower).

If you have specific language in the umpire manual to back up your position that a response is required, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, citing the entire manual doesn't work; I looked and did not find pertinent language other than what Steve quoted. I did find "Umpires must guard against rendering decisions prematurely." (Section 1-Other Prerequisites-2)