Jump to content

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
Sign in to follow this  
goody14

Odd appeal play

Recommended Posts

Had someone in my association call me with this one. College fall ball (but I think it would be the same in all codes).

R3 0 outs.

Fly ball to LF. Runner leaves early as seen by the PU. Throw goes to the catcher.

R3 gets part way home and retreats back to third. Catcher throws the ball to F5 who is standing on the base. The ball clearly beats runner back.

F5 attempts to apply a tag and misses. Umpire in the middle (who has no responsibility in watching the tag) rules the runner safe on the missed tag.

Argument for out:

The ball beat him back to third. F5 does not have to state he is appealing since the nature of this play is by itself an appeal. If this is the case, the plate guy would grab it.

Argument for safe:

F5 did not necessarily know the guy left early. His attempt to put down a tag means he was not appealing a missed base. The act of touching a base by itself is not an appeal.

I think I have an out, but I would not bet @maven 's mortgage on it.

So what do you have from a rule and also a mechanic perspective?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register or Sign In to remove these ads

I've got safe. An appeal of this type has to be unmistakeable. This sounds like it was a play on R3 going back to the bag. F5 touching 3B seems only coincidental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, goody14 said:

R3 gets part way home and retreats back to third. Catcher throws the ball to F5 who is standing on the base. The ball clearly beats runner back.

To me, F5 on the base is evidence of an unmistakable appeal. Fielders (at this age) tagging a runner off base don't stand on the base. Do we ask more from F3 standing on 1B on a retouch appeal?

 

54 minutes ago, goody14 said:

F5 attempts to apply a tag and misses. Umpire in the middle (who has no responsibility in watching the tag) rules the runner safe on the missed tag.

You fooled me here: I thought that the 3 appearances of 'tag' were the same, but you mean 'retouch' by the second one. BU would have (tag) plays on R3 back into 3B.

I'd guess that F5 was surprised when nobody called R3 out after the successful appeal at the base, so he tried to tag him and missed.

With no other runners and the BR out on the catch, if I were PU I might jump in to rule on the appeal immediately and nip the craziness in the bud.

54 minutes ago, goody14 said:

F5 did not necessarily know the guy left early. His attempt to put down a tag means he was not appealing a missed base.

This is a retouch appeal, not a missed base appeal. I'd have to see video to rule confidently, but if he's standing on the base, that's usually enough evidence for me.

I agree that there are no accidental appeals, and video of F5 playing on the runner could convince me otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, maven said:

To me, F5 on the base is evidence of an unmistakable appeal. Fielders (at this age) tagging a runner off base don't stand on the base. Do we ask more from F3 standing on 1B on a retouch appeal?

 

You fooled me here: I thought that the 3 appearances of 'tag' were the same, but you mean 'retouch' by the second one. BU would have (tag) plays on R3 back into 3B.

I'd guess that F5 was surprised when nobody called R3 out after the successful appeal at the base, so he tried to tag him and missed.

With no other runners and the BR out on the catch, if I were PU I might jump in to rule on the appeal immediately and nip the craziness in the bud.

This is a retouch appeal, not a missed base appeal. I'd have to see video to rule confidently, but if he's standing on the base, that's usually enough evidence for me.

I agree that there are no accidental appeals, and video of F5 playing on the runner could convince me otherwise.

HTBT, College, a throw going home means a not obvious leaving earlier except possibly to F5 and onlookers not involved on the field. So F5 gloving a throw standing on the base and looking at the umpire would indicate an appeal to me. F2 might not have been appealing but F5 still could glove the throw and make an unmistakeable appeal. Not sure he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call the runner out. The offense screwed up by not tagging up. The defense threw the ball to 3rd and the 3rd baseman was standing on the base. That’s an appeal whether the 3rd baseman knows it or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, MidAmUmp said:

Call the runner out. The offense screwed up by not tagging up. The defense threw the ball to 3rd and the 3rd baseman was standing on the base. That’s an appeal whether the 3rd baseman knows it or not. 

Who screwed up does not matter. What the umpire judges as an unmistakeable appeal does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jimurray said:

HTBT, College, a throw going home means a not obvious leaving earlier .

I disagree with that.  The first action should be to play on the runner -- then get the appeal if that action fails.  The team can't be sure that the umpire saw / agrees with the runner leaving early so take the two attempts at retiring the runner.

 

BTW, I agree with the out call, as I envision the play in my mind's eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MidAmUmp said:

Call the runner out. The offense screwed up by not tagging up. The defense threw the ball to 3rd and the 3rd baseman was standing on the base. That’s an appeal whether the 3rd baseman knows it or not. 

Taken literally, as an expression of the old "accidental appeal" interpretation, I disagree with this.

Taken as a philosophy appropriate for higher levels, as an expression of who gets the benefit of the doubt (the team that didn't screw up) on calls like this, I agree with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll explain in detail later today or tonight but I’ll simply say right now - the offense screwed up so the defense is afforded any benefit of the doubt on this play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, MidAmUmp said:

That’s an appeal whether the 3rd baseman knows it or not. 

That's an interesting assertion. Can another fielder's (F2) intent to appeal a retouch satisfy the requirement that the appeal be mistakable, when the fielder "doing the deed" (F5) does not have the intent to appeal ?

Though F5's attempt to tag the returning runner might be evidence that he didn't intent to appeal the retouch, or he ?might? be trying to cover both scenarios (umpire will/won't grant the appeal). Benefit of that doubt (IMO) goes to the defense.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

That's an interesting assertion. Can another fielder's (F2) intent to appeal a retouch satisfy the requirement that the appeal be mistakable, when the fielder "doing the deed" (F5) does not have the intent to appeal ?

Strictly speaking, no. The appeal is constituted by the act of the player making the tag (of runner or base), so his intention is operative.

But as I've said (and his subsequent post supported), I'm reading Jason as saying that he would interpret the act described in the OP as an appeal under the circumstances. I don't believe that he's advocating a return to the "accidental appeal," and I would not try to apply his remarks more broadly than the case described in the OP.

He has said he would say more later when time allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jimurray said:

HTBT, College, a throw going home means a not obvious leaving earlier 

You always throw home first then do any appeal at 3B.  Can't risk having the umpires miss the leave early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay...I need to revise my initial post. When I read the play I missed where it said that the throw went to the plate. I thought the throw from the outfield went to 3rd and was having a hell of a time wondering why you guys didn’t think that was an appeal with R3 retreating and F5 catching the ball in contact with the base. 

I went back and re-read the original post and now see...

I agree that it’s a Had To Be There situation. I’d want to see how the 3rd baseman reacted when he caught the ball in contact with the base. I would agree that the act of catching in contact in that situation does not, in and of itself, constitute an appeal.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

You always throw home first then do any appeal at 3B.  Can't risk having the umpires miss the leave early.

I agree. I was envisioning an obvious left early as in a bonehead or forgot the outs move where the runner is returning to 3B. The throw would then go to 3B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheRockawayKid said:

What's wrong with NOT making the call? If I have F5 telling me "he left early!" I can say that the appeal was unmistakable (retroactively) and apply the out. 

If this info was in the OP, then I would 100% agree with you. We have witnessed F3's tagging the BR multiple times for missing the base and then telling the BU he missed for the appeal out... But in the OP this data is not there, so although something that could occur, this, without additional information was not in the cards.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×