Appeal play in Texas
 

Rulebook shows umpire made correct call in controversial softball game | wfaa.com Dallas - Fort Worth

Thoughts?

"Stupidist rule ever"? The news crew admit they dont want the umpire to tip the defense, but they want no call on that type of play which would tip off the runner hadnt touched. And, by rule, once past the base the runner is assumed to have touched it until properly appealed, so, safe would be the correct call.

With that being said, if the umpire isnt suppose to tip the defense, maybe he shouldnt have made the safe call and then stood there staring at home plate. (Even though she did actually touch it in replay)

That is an extremely observant coach.

It doesn't matter what the umpire did or did not call: someone was going to be upset about it.

I did not know that was the proper mechanic at the plate. I would have likely made a no call.

The umpire involved is an excellent umpire, and was merely following the protocol as set forth by NFHS.

From the camera's angle, it's hard to tell if she touched it, even in slo-mo. I think she missed it. The ump had a much better angle on whether she touched.

At 1:54 it looks pretty clear to me that the runner touched the plate. Remember, though, this is a real slow replay that the umpire did not have.

Though I would have liked to have seen the umpire a little closer to the 1BLE, he didn't seem to have that poor a look.

i have it stopped at 1:03 on my computer and i think the play

player's body blocks the umpire from seeing the runner touch the plate. if he had started at point of plate and moved left, he would not have missed the call. i had this same play ocurr when i played and the ump blew that call. uh i was pissed.:eek:

Yeah, he probably should have retreated from the holding zone a little earlier.

How about 3BLE? He would have to have been much closer and looking over the top to have from 1BLE to see the touch and/or swipe tag.

Skahtboi - Following protocol is fine, but getting the call right is what he's there for. Looks like a late read, late movement, or both.

May not have made a difference, but maybe a verbal "no tag" along with the safe signal? Seems more correct for this play IMO.

I think I'm more bothered by the stare-down of home plate after the play appeared to be over.

Excellent way to describe it. +1

Not a favored mechanic and is only applicable when the runner comes wide and the catcher draws the tag directly to the plate. In this case, it may have helped him see the plate better, but as an overall mechanic, you have just a good a chance of being blocked out by the catcher as an umpire late to retreat from the holding zone could be by the runner. Over the past couple of years, I've even noticed some MLB moving away from that angle as the standard. If the catcher drops to block the plate and you can only see part of the plate from behind the catcher, you would be guessing. I prefer being between the two players. I will start around the back of the RHBB and then adjust as the throw, runner and catcher converge to the point of where the tag will most likely take place.

If the ball had beat the runner and the catcher just missed the tag, I agree. But I don't think that was the issue with the play as I think it was obvious the tag (had there been one) was chasing the runner and would have been late.

IMO, that's what took place here. Based on the position of the catcher up into the infield a step or two and the position of the runner when the throw was made, I wouldn't have read a play involving the plate as much as a hook-slide/swipe tag play. That's what would have lead me to 3BLE.

And I agreed...for this play, but the umpire doesn't know then when he moves away from the plate. Considering he had a full crew, don't know why he went anywhere.