Appeal plays

[Guest Matt Nulton]

While an appeal of whether a runner left too soon is on-going, is it effectively a dead ball situation meaning that the baserunners can not advance at their own risk?  In other words, once the pitcher toes the rubber and steps off to throw to the bag in question, in this case first base, can the runner on third base attempt to advance?

[Mike Prince]

Dead-ball appeals are not possible in most rule sets (FED being the most obvious exception), so likely the answer to your question is no to the first one, yes to the second one.  What ruleset/level of play are we talking about?

[UmpJM]

Matt,

 

Yes, that is perfectly legal.

 

Why do you ask?

 

JM

[maven]

There is no such thing as "effectively a dead ball situation." If the ball is live, runners may advance at their own risk.

 

Also, if the ball is live, there is no need to send the ball to the pitcher first to make an appeal. Throw it to the base you want to appeal. The "get it to the pitcher and have him step off" thing is a myth: if the ball is dead, then your pitcher must have it before the umpire can make it live (and then you can appeal). It is part of the make-the-ball-live procedure, not the appeal procedure.

[noumpere]

While an appeal of whether a runner left too soon is on-going, is it effectively a dead ball situation meaning that the baserunners can not advance at their own risk?  In other words, once the pitcher toes the rubber and steps off to throw to the bag in question, in this case first base, can the runner on third base attempt to advance?

No only can the runner attempt to advance, if he does so and is played on, then that ends the defense's opportunity for an appeal, under OBR.  (Under FED and NCAA, a play initiated by the offense does NOT end the right to appeal.)

[Guest Matt Nulton]

Thanks to all for your input. Confirms my understanding. Unfortunately the appeal was mishandled by the umpire in our Cal Ripken U12 game. He claimed to have called time then allowed (and rejected)an appeal of a runner leaving a bag too early without putting the ball back in play. Not realizing that he had called time, I sent my base runner home from third base as the appeal went to first base. The run was disallowed because it was a dead ball situation (based on time being called), yet the defensive team got a no risk ruling on whether the runner had left early. Since the umpire did not rule in their favor, there was no need for them do so in a proper manner in a live ball situation, and I was denied the opportunity to potentially advance a runner. Fortunately, the play did not affect the outcome of the game.

[Jocko]

I bet the crew on the field would describe It VERY differently

[noumpere]

I bet the crew on the field would describe It VERY differently

And, while we'd like the (typical) 12U umpire to be perfect, it's not going to happen.  It's the level where all participants learn -- and sometimes the lessons are about more than baseball (for both umpires, players and coaches).

[Rich Ives]

Thanks to all for your input. Confirms my understanding. Unfortunately the appeal was mishandled by the umpire in our Cal Ripken U12 game. He claimed to have called time then allowed (and rejected)an appeal of a runner leaving a bag too early without putting the ball back in play. Not realizing that he had called time, I sent my base runner home from third base as the appeal went to first base. The run was disallowed because it was a dead ball situation (based on time being called), yet the defensive team got a no risk ruling on whether the runner had left early. Since the umpire did not rule in their favor, there was no need for them do so in a proper manner in a live ball situation, and I was denied the opportunity to potentially advance a runner. Fortunately, the play did not affect the outcome of the game.

 

You could have protested.  Rule misinterpretation that an appeal could happen with a dead ball.

[Dash Riprock]

 

Thanks to all for your input. Confirms my understanding. Unfortunately the appeal was mishandled by the umpire in our Cal Ripken U12 game. He claimed to have called time then allowed (and rejected)an appeal of a runner leaving a bag too early without putting the ball back in play. Not realizing that he had called time, I sent my base runner home from third base as the appeal went to first base. The run was disallowed because it was a dead ball situation (based on time being called), yet the defensive team got a no risk ruling on whether the runner had left early. Since the umpire did not rule in their favor, there was no need for them do so in a proper manner in a live ball situation, and I was denied the opportunity to potentially advance a runner. Fortunately, the play did not affect the outcome of the game.

 

You could have protested.  Rule misinterpretation that an appeal could happen with a dead ball.

 

And it should be a winner.

[SoCal Lurker]

 

 

Thanks to all for your input. Confirms my understanding. Unfortunately the appeal was mishandled by the umpire in our Cal Ripken U12 game. He claimed to have called time then allowed (and rejected)an appeal of a runner leaving a bag too early without putting the ball back in play. Not realizing that he had called time, I sent my base runner home from third base as the appeal went to first base. The run was disallowed because it was a dead ball situation (based on time being called), yet the defensive team got a no risk ruling on whether the runner had left early. Since the umpire did not rule in their favor, there was no need for them do so in a proper manner in a live ball situation, and I was denied the opportunity to potentially advance a runner. Fortunately, the play did not affect the outcome of the game.

 

You could have protested.  Rule misinterpretation that an appeal could happen with a dead ball.

 

And it should be a winner.

 

 

Would it?  The appel was rejected, so there is no out to reverse.  Time was out, so the runner couldn't advance, nothing to fix there.  Effectively, what the umpire did was gratuitously provide information to the defense that meant they didn't need to actually appeal.  So granting the protest would put the game exactly where it was anyway -- no score, no out, and the defense already knowing that there was no point in doing a proper appeal.  I confess to not being an expert on baseball protests, but I thought they would only be granted if they would change something -- seems like this is just an umpire mistake that can't be fixed.

[Chip]

Was this game being played on 60 foot or 70 foot bases? If the Cal Ripken Special Base Running Rule for 60 foot bases was in effect, it adds another twist, especially because some leagues tack on some unique local rules to extend its meaning.

[Just-Call-It]

Doesn't the Little League rulebook state that an appeal can be 'physical or verbal'? If so, does that mean that in Little League the defense does not have to physically tag or touch a base for the infraction and can just verbally ask for the appeal?

[Larry in TN]

Doesn't the Little League rulebook state that an appeal can be 'physical or verbal'? If so, does that mean that in Little League the defense does not have to physically tag or touch a base for the infraction and can just verbally ask for the appeal?

 

 

7.10 - Any runner shall be called out on appeal if--

[...]

NOTE 2: If a pitcher makes an illegal pitch (a balk in Intermediate (50-70) division/Junior/Senior/Big League Baseball) when making an appeal, such as shall be a play.  An appeal should be clearly intended as an appeal, either by a verbal request by the player or an act that unmistakably indicates an appeal to the umpire.  A player, inadvertently stepping on the base with a ball in hand, would not constitute an appeal.  The ball must be alive and in play.

 

I don't think it is saying that the normal appeal mechanics can be replaced by a verbal appeal.  It is saying that the appeal must be clearly intended as an appeal, not just a player touching the base with the ball.  The touching the base, or runner, with the ball is still required.

 

OBR has essentially the same language:

 

7.10 - Any runner shall be called out on appeal if--

[...]

An appeal should be clearly intended as an appeal, either by a verbal request by the player or an act that unmistakably indicates an appeal to the umpire. A player, inadvertently stepping on the base with a ball in his hand, would not constitute an appeal. Time is not out when an appeal is being made.

[Rich Ives]

 

 

 

Thanks to all for your input. Confirms my understanding. Unfortunately the appeal was mishandled by the umpire in our Cal Ripken U12 game. He claimed to have called time then allowed (and rejected)an appeal of a runner leaving a bag too early without putting the ball back in play. Not realizing that he had called time, I sent my base runner home from third base as the appeal went to first base. The run was disallowed because it was a dead ball situation (based on time being called), yet the defensive team got a no risk ruling on whether the runner had left early. Since the umpire did not rule in their favor, there was no need for them do so in a proper manner in a live ball situation, and I was denied the opportunity to potentially advance a runner. Fortunately, the play did not affect the outcome of the game.

 

You could have protested.  Rule misinterpretation that an appeal could happen with a dead ball.

 

And it should be a winner.

 

 

Would it?  The appel was rejected, so there is no out to reverse.  Time was out, so the runner couldn't advance, nothing to fix there.  Effectively, what the umpire did was gratuitously provide information to the defense that meant they didn't need to actually appeal.  So granting the protest would put the game exactly where it was anyway -- no score, no out, and the defense already knowing that there was no point in doing a proper appeal.  I confess to not being an expert on baseball protests, but I thought they would only be granted if they would change something -- seems like this is just an umpire mistake that can't be fixed.

 

 

It would have taught the umpire the rule.

 

AND, somewhat far fetched, the protest committee could decide that as the ball was supposed to be live so the run scores.

[Chip]

 

 

 

 

Thanks to all for your input. Confirms my understanding. Unfortunately the appeal was mishandled by the umpire in our Cal Ripken U12 game. He claimed to have called time then allowed (and rejected)an appeal of a runner leaving a bag too early without putting the ball back in play. Not realizing that he had called time, I sent my base runner home from third base as the appeal went to first base. The run was disallowed because it was a dead ball situation (based on time being called), yet the defensive team got a no risk ruling on whether the runner had left early. Since the umpire did not rule in their favor, there was no need for them do so in a proper manner in a live ball situation, and I was denied the opportunity to potentially advance a runner. Fortunately, the play did not affect the outcome of the game.

 

You could have protested.  Rule misinterpretation that an appeal could happen with a dead ball.

 

And it should be a winner.

 

 

Would it?  The appel was rejected, so there is no out to reverse.  Time was out, so the runner couldn't advance, nothing to fix there.  Effectively, what the umpire did was gratuitously provide information to the defense that meant they didn't need to actually appeal.  So granting the protest would put the game exactly where it was anyway -- no score, no out, and the defense already knowing that there was no point in doing a proper appeal.  I confess to not being an expert on baseball protests, but I thought they would only be granted if they would change something -- seems like this is just an umpire mistake that can't be fixed.

 

 

It would have taught the umpire the rule.

 

AND, somewhat far fetched, the protest committee could decide that as the ball was supposed to be live so the run scores.

 

 

That does seem pretty far-fetched. The protest committee should be reviewing the application of the rules, not effective game management by the umpire. Had the umpire granted the appeal, that would seem to be reversible by virtue of the fact that the ball was not live. But to retroactively rule that the ball was live would be going beyond what a protest committee should be considering. 

[SteveJ]

 

 

 

Thanks to all for your input. Confirms my understanding. Unfortunately the appeal was mishandled by the umpire in our Cal Ripken U12 game. He claimed to have called time then allowed (and rejected)an appeal of a runner leaving a bag too early without putting the ball back in play. Not realizing that he had called time, I sent my base runner home from third base as the appeal went to first base. The run was disallowed because it was a dead ball situation (based on time being called), yet the defensive team got a no risk ruling on whether the runner had left early. Since the umpire did not rule in their favor, there was no need for them do so in a proper manner in a live ball situation, and I was denied the opportunity to potentially advance a runner. Fortunately, the play did not affect the outcome of the game.

 

You could have protested.  Rule misinterpretation that an appeal could happen with a dead ball.

 

And it should be a winner.

 

 

Would it?  The appel was rejected, so there is no out to reverse.  Time was out, so the runner couldn't advance, nothing to fix there.  Effectively, what the umpire did was gratuitously provide information to the defense that meant they didn't need to actually appeal.  So granting the protest would put the game exactly where it was anyway -- no score, no out, and the defense already knowing that there was no point in doing a proper appeal.  I confess to not being an expert on baseball protests, but I thought they would only be granted if they would change something -- seems like this is just an umpire mistake that can't be fixed.

 

If an umpire(s) makes a mistake by not applying a rule properly then there can be grounds for a protest. That's why all umpires need to study and understand the rules...their intent and how to apply them properly.

[Rich Ives]

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks to all for your input. Confirms my understanding. Unfortunately the appeal was mishandled by the umpire in our Cal Ripken U12 game. He claimed to have called time then allowed (and rejected)an appeal of a runner leaving a bag too early without putting the ball back in play. Not realizing that he had called time, I sent my base runner home from third base as the appeal went to first base. The run was disallowed because it was a dead ball situation (based on time being called), yet the defensive team got a no risk ruling on whether the runner had left early. Since the umpire did not rule in their favor, there was no need for them do so in a proper manner in a live ball situation, and I was denied the opportunity to potentially advance a runner. Fortunately, the play did not affect the outcome of the game.

 

You could have protested.  Rule misinterpretation that an appeal could happen with a dead ball.

 

And it should be a winner.

 

 

Would it?  The appel was rejected, so there is no out to reverse.  Time was out, so the runner couldn't advance, nothing to fix there.  Effectively, what the umpire did was gratuitously provide information to the defense that meant they didn't need to actually appeal.  So granting the protest would put the game exactly where it was anyway -- no score, no out, and the defense already knowing that there was no point in doing a proper appeal.  I confess to not being an expert on baseball protests, but I thought they would only be granted if they would change something -- seems like this is just an umpire mistake that can't be fixed.

 

 

It would have taught the umpire the rule.

 

AND, somewhat far fetched, the protest committee could decide that as the ball was supposed to be live so the run scores.

 

 

That does seem pretty far-fetched. The protest committee should be reviewing the application of the rules, not effective game management by the umpire. Had the umpire granted the appeal, that would seem to be reversible by virtue of the fact that the ball was not live. But to retroactively rule that the ball was live would be going beyond what a protest committee should be considering. 

 

 

So now the defense knows it doesn't have an appeal they can win so they don't have to make the throw so the offense doesn't get the score they should have earned.

 

Do we now eject the manager when he says "you owe us one blue?"