Appeal a turn toward second.

[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.