What constitutes an appeal?

[RBIbaseball]

LL majors game. 3 umps.

R2, 1 out. Pop fly to 3rd base. Coach was mistakenly yelling "2 outs run run", so R2 goes and reaches 3B just as F5 catches the ball. Everyone in the stands is yelling tag the runner (clearly he did not tag up). F5 tags the runner while he is standing on 3B, but the other base ump on that side makes no call. F5 lets go of the tag a little confused, and then R2 sprints back toward 2B. They throw him out cleanly before he reaches 2B.

Even though the coaches got their out, they came to argue the call saying he should have been out of 3B. 

1) What constitutes an appeal? The player/coach announcing it? In this case, the coach was yelling to "tag the runner he didn't tag up" toward his team (as well as about 20 fans). Does the coach or player have to clearly state to an umpire it's an appeal? Does the player have to understand he is appealing?

I explained to them that simply tagging the runner standing on the base does not get an out, but if they clearly state they are appealing the tag at second then it would have. But not sure if that's right.

[Jimurray]

2 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

I think this is the point of contention. Would it be fair to say the players (defense) have to show intent/understanding on what they are doing (or at least reciprocate verbally what the coaches are telling them to say/do), or do the coaches yelling (among crowd/bench noise) from the dugout while a kid applies a tag suffice?

Differing opinions on this one, but in the end seems like judgement depending on how the play went down.

So what additional verbiage did the base ump hear when he called R2 out on the throw back to 2B when he was running there? Did the defense then say " we are appealing that R2 left early"? Or was it an unmistakable appeal that required no verbal?

[LRZ]

1 hour ago, RBIbaseball said:

Would it be fair to say the players (defense) have to show intent/understanding on what they are doing (or at least reciprocate verbally what the coaches are telling them to say/do)

That's not what the rule requires--only an unmistakable act. The coach yelling + the player obeying and acting = an appeal. Nor, in the circumstances, was the act inadvertent.

And it's not a matter of judgment. It is about not adding additional requirements to the rule.

[Rich Ives]

44 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

I think this is the point of contention. Would it be fair to say the players (defense) have to show intent/understanding on what they are doing (or at least reciprocate verbally what the coaches are telling them to say/do), or do the coaches yelling (among crowd/bench noise) from the dugout while a kid applies a tag suffice?

Differing opinions on this one, but in the end seems like judgement depending on how the play went down.

It says "defense" not "player". 

As long as they have indicated what they are up to how can you then say you don't know?

[RBIbaseball]

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

So what additional verbiage did the base ump hear when he called R2 out on the throw back to 2B when he was running there? Did the defense then say " we are appealing that R2 left early"? Or was it an unmistakable appeal that required no verbal?

My initial post was unclear, but he was tagged out a couple steps before reaching 2B. 

[RBIbaseball]

2 hours ago, LRZ said:

That's not what the rule requires--only an unmistakable act. The coach yelling + the player obeying and acting = an appeal. Nor, in the circumstances, was the act inadvertent.

And it's not a matter of judgment. It is about not adding additional requirements to the rule.

But I am judging the intent of the kid tagging. What if the runner was one step slower and the kid went to tag him while he was off the base but was a little slow and didn't reach him until he touched. (Coaches / crowd would have still been yelling to tag him) ... would that tag be an appeal or a regular attempt at an out?

And to me that's relevant in this case because several times in the game a kid would catch the ball and run over to tag a player who was safe on the base for 3sec or more... we're those appeals or kids just tagging people cause that's what they know.

I think the players intent is in play.

That all being said, I think next time I would be inclined to call him out based on the age level and all your guys input. I totally understand what you're saying.

[LRZ]

9 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

But I am judging the intent of the kid tagging. What if the runner was one step slower and the kid went to tag him while he was off the base but was a little slow and didn't reach him until he touched. (Coaches / crowd would have still been yelling to tag him) ... would that tag be an appeal or a regular attempt at an out?

And to me that's relevant in this case because several times in the game a kid would catch the ball and run over to tag a player who was safe on the base for 3sec or more... we're those appeals or kids just tagging people cause that's what they know.

I think the players intent is in play.

That all being said, I think next time I would be inclined to call him out based on the age level and all your guys input. I totally understand what you're saying.

In your scenario, consider the player's intent informed by his coach's yelling at him. The player's act is then an appeal by the defense, a collective noun, as was pointed out.

[Jimurray]

12 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

My initial post was unclear, but he was tagged out a couple steps before reaching 2B. 

What would be your or your BU's call if the throw beat him to 2B and the fielder didn't attempt a tag?

[The Man in Blue]

5 hours ago, Jimurray said:

You would agree that a throw to a base where the runner left way early (brainfart or hit and run) or went too far to see if the ball was caught would not require any verbal if that runner was attempting to get back to his base and the throw beat him. You would signal the out without any other indication of appeal? 

I would.  There is no other reason to be throwing to a vacant bag behind the runner.

That is not the case here.  As it was presented, and had been reiterated, the tag was made amidst chaos and could very conceivably have been made because the fielder was simply making a play on the runner.  As presented, and with the wording of the LL rule, my judgment would be I need more for a proper appeal.  This was not an unmistakable action (or we wouldn’t be discussing it).  Again, parents yelling and coaches yelling instructions at the player (not the umpire) like an air traffic controller does NOT constitute a proper appeal in my judgment.

[The Man in Blue]

3 hours ago, Jimurray said:

So what additional verbiage did the base ump hear when he called R2 out on the throw back to 2B when he was running there? Did the defense then say " we are appealing that R2 left early"? Or was it an unmistakable appeal that required no verbal?

No additional verbiage was needed, the runner was out because he was tagged off the bag.  It still was not a proper appeal play.

[LRZ]

RBIbaseball, as you describe the scene, common sense also tells you you are dealing with an appeal. You will read here frequently the adage, "Use the rules to solve problems, not create them."

[RBIbaseball]

9 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

What would be your or your BU's call if the throw beat him to 2B and the fielder didn't attempt a tag?

Good question. No idea. I get your point.

[The Man in Blue]

11 minutes ago, LRZ said:

In your scenario, consider the player's intent informed by his coach's yelling at him. The player's act is then an appeal by the defense, a collective noun, as was pointed out.

That is not what the rule requires.

”The defense then tells the umpire what they are doing.”

Yelling instructions at a player is not informing an umpire.

[The Man in Blue]

5 minutes ago, LRZ said:

RBIbaseball, as you describe the scene, common sense also tells you you are dealing with an appeal. You will read here frequently the adage, "Use the rules to solve problems, not create them."

In the moment, I don’t think it was all that common.  Us sitting here dissecting it and adding our own perceived/imagined spin on a play that we never saw makes it common to us.

[LRZ]

 RBIbaseball stated, "In this case, the coach was yelling to 'tag the runner he didn't tag up.'" The umpire has been told, indirectly. The point is for the umpire to know what the play is, what the appeal is. This is common sense: the umpire knows the defense is claiming the runner didn't tag because he hears the defensive coach yell it. In the same way, as others have posited, if the throw came in directly to second, we'd call that an out, wouldn't we? Everyone knows what's being appealed. 

We are discussing this scenario, but also his question #1: what constitutes an appeal?

[Lou B]

R1 and B/R hits one to right center.  R1 takes off thinking it's a hit.  F8 races over and makes the catch.  R1 sees the catch, turns around and heads back to first.  F8 throws to F3 who steps on the bag.  Do you call/signal out of do you wait for F3 to say "I'm appealing that the runner left early"?

Sure hope you 're not expecting/waiting for a verbal appeal by F3!I

With the Book not By the Book!

[RBIbaseball]

16 minutes ago, LRZ said:

We are discussing this scenario, but also his question #1: what constitutes an appeal?

Although there is a bit on disagreement on my scenario,  I have learned a lot about what an appeal is and isnt, so overall net positive, lol.

 

THANK you to everyone. I'll let you guys keep going it at.

[Jimurray]

26 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

No additional verbiage was needed, the runner was out because he was tagged off the bag.  It still was not a proper appeal play.

So if the OP and/or his BU made no call when instead of a tag of the runner the ball was gloved by the fielder touching 2B who looked for a call that would be OK because it was not unmistakable?

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

That is not what the rule requires.

Yes, it is what it requires. All it needs for you to know what they are doing and why, whether they tell you, use smoke signals, or are obvious in intent. Is the defense (in toto) talking about appealing or is there no other potential play to occur at that juncture? Did the fielder tag the runner (or bag) intentionally? If both of those are yes, the chances of it being a valid appeal approach 100%.

[Mister B]

11 hours ago, RBIbaseball said:

Would it be fair to say the players (defense) have to show intent/understanding on what they are doing (or at least reciprocate verbally what the coaches are telling them to say/do), or do the coaches yelling (among crowd/bench noise) from the dugout while a kid applies a tag suffice?

Are coaches considered part of the team? There's a reason they wear a uniform at FED and above. 

Many LL Majors players are probably smarter than you think. I was watching a game, R1 with 1 out, hard ground ball hit right to F3, he touches the base and throws to 2B, F6 steps on the base and runs in, flipping the ball to the mound, BU calls R1 out. R1 says he was never tagged. BU says he was out on the force. R1 says there was no force, runner was out at first. BU looks very confused. PU overturns and calls him safe. Most of the defensive players, stayed on the field, as they knew he was safe. Both F1 and F4 were yelling, "you gotta make the tag!" during the play. Both BU and F6 looked like they wanted to disappear. The best part was F5 explaining what happened to the defensive coach, who kept insisting there was a force. 

I had worked a majors game with R1 and R2 and no outs. Short fly to F3 in foul territory. Both runners go on the hit. F3 makes the catch, flips it to F1, standing on 1B, who fires it to F6 on 2B. Triple play. I didn't need a verbal explanation, their intent was crystal clear. The offensive coach did need an explanation, as he thought all foul balls were dead. 

The question in your scenario, was F5 confused because he was waiting for a call that didn't happen, or because he didn't know what he was doing? 

[noumpere]

12 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

That is not what the rule requires.

”The defense then tells the umpire what they are doing.”

Yelling instructions at a player is not informing an umpire.

You are taking an EXAMPLE from an instructors manual and turning it into a REQUIREMENT.

[Rich Ives]

15 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

That is not what the rule requires.

”The defense then tells the umpire what they are doing.”

Yelling instructions at a player is not informing an umpire.

Then you'd deny a normal retouch appeal because they didn't tell you what they were doing?   Pay attention here. If everyone in the park knows it's an appeal don't be an OOO.  The requirement is that it be obvious. This is. Don't be The Man in Deep DooDoo.

[The Man in Blue]

Rich, I don’t know if you are doing it deliberately, but you can come off as rather patronizing at times.  That isn’t the first time I’ve noticed that directed at me.  You stated in your post the very reason for my logic: 

“Then you'd deny a normal retouch appeal because they didn't tell you what they were doing?”

The situation as presented by the OP (not in a perfect world, not in some added on events, and not in leaving out parts of it) showed that that the situation was not normal, the intent was not obvious, and actions were questionable.

During a “normal retouch appeal” it is obvious what is happening, the actions themselves tell the umpire there is an appeal, and there is no question as to what is occurring.

Matt and noumpere — I neither wrote the rule that was posted in here nor umpire LL, so I assume what was posted was the LL rule. I will tap out having stated my thoughts under my reading/interpretation of the presented situation and with this parting thought:

I fully agree with “reading the room” when umpiring, but you must also be consistent.  You can’t cite rules when you agree and then claim they are really just suggestions when you don’t.  Preventative officiating is a skill; picking and choosing not to enforce rules is a mistake.

 

 

[Rich Ives]

3 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Rich, I don’t know if you are doing it deliberately, but you can come off as rather patronizing at times.  That isn’t the first time I’ve noticed that directed at me.  You stated in your post the very reason for my logic: 

“Then you'd deny a normal retouch appeal because they didn't tell you what they were doing?”

The situation as presented by the OP (not in a perfect world, not in some added on events, and not in leaving out parts of it) showed that that the situation was not normal, the intent was not obvious, and actions were questionable.

During a “normal retouch appeal” it is obvious what is happening, the actions themselves tell the umpire there is an appeal, and there is no question as to what is occurring.

Matt and noumpere — I neither wrote the rule that was posted in here nor umpire LL, so I assume what was posted was the LL rule. I will tap out having stated my thoughts under my reading/interpretation of the presented situation and with this parting thought:

I fully agree with “reading the room” when umpiring, but you must also be consistent.  You can’t cite rules when you agree and then claim they are really just suggestions when you don’t.  Preventative officiating is a skill; picking and choosing not to enforce rules is a mistake.

 

 

If everyone in the park knows it's an appeal you have no basis for denying it.  You heard "someone" tell the player to appeal. He did. How can you say it isn't one? 

The LL thing you posted was  an example, not the actual rule. The actual rule says "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."  If a player is doing it because "someone" yelled - and you heard - "appeal the runner leaving early"  that clearly satisfies the requirement.

And finally, if everyone responding to a question says "A" don't keep arguing that it's "B".

[Jimurray]

39 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

If everyone in the park knows it's an appeal you have no basis for denying it.  You heard "someone" tell the player to appeal. He did. How can you say it isn't one? 

The LL thing you posted was  an example, not the actual rule. The actual rule says "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."  If a player is doing it because "someone" yelled - and you heard - "appeal the runner leaving early"  that clearly satisfies the requirement.

And finally, if everyone responding to a question says "A" don't keep arguing that it's "B".

While I believe the  @The Man in Blue is in error I’d rather he keep arguing then ascribe to your last sentence. He has not been obtuse yet:) He can have the last word and the the thread can die. People can read it and make their own judgments.  

[RBIbaseball]

3 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

If everyone in the park knows it's an appeal you have no basis for denying it.  You heard "someone" tell the player to appeal. He did. How can you say it isn't one? 

There is a lot of great discussion back and forth here. But I just have to jump back in one last time, even though I said I wouldn't....

When you say "he did", that is a judgement call. Both myself and the other BU, (who were there in real life), were not convinced the player was actually appealing or that he even heard his coach through the 40+ fans and entire dugout yelling.

Example of all the things that were being yelled at the same time by 40+ people:

• "Tag the runner, tag the runner!"
• "Touch the base, he didn't tag"
• "Throw it to second!"
• "2, 2, 2, 2!"
• "Tag him Johnny"
• "He left early!"
• "He didn't tag!"
• "Go back to second" (offense side)"
• "Stop, stop, stop! (offense side)"
• "Nooooo!"
• "Goooooo!"
• "There's two outs already!"
• "Only 1 out, get em!"

Obviously, I did my best guess on the myriad of things being yelled, but the point being, it was chaos for that kid. I'm not sure if he made out a single command independently from the combined yelling.

The kid caught the ball as the runner (who was about two arms length away and most likely could see him in his peripheral) ran right in front of him. The kid then applied the tag as quickly as he could after catching the ball (less than 2 seconds after touching the base in my estimation). Simply comparing it to a throw back to 2nd where there is no other possible reason anyone would ever make the play is unfair in my opinion. As I have stated in many previous posts in the thread, many of these kids would routinely apply tags to runners after they reached base safely (sometimes 4 or 5 seconds after) and look at me for a call (which I would just look at them back, until they threw it back to the pitcher).

Take it with a grain of salt, as I have less than 15 games under my belt. One thing is that I am convinced is - that during that play -  I was not convinced the player was appealing the play vs tagging the runner cause that's what he knows how to do. I was unsure to say the least and felt strongly that it was the latter. If you still feel that you would grant an appeal on the play, I will not argue that you are wrong, but I definitely don't think its a clear and shut case like you make it out to be. My take away is that it's a judgement call on intent to appeal.