Chicago-Milwaukee's 10-Minute Missed Touch Appeal

[Lindsay]

During Milwaukee's 6-1 win Saturday vs Chicago, Craig Counsell's Manager's Challenge over HP Umpire Jeremie Rehak's safe call on appeal that White Sox baserunner Yoan Moncada was safe at home plate spurred a 10-minute delay as Tony La Russa questioned the umpires' decision, including Crew Chief Dan...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

View the full article

[Thunderheads]

I have moved this over from the FREE FOR ALL SECTION from @SeeingEyeDog .........

Greetings brothers...well, @Gilis on top of his game here as always. There's a lot going on here on this one...

One question I have which Gil discusses near the end is...Rehak signals time just before the appeal because what he thinks is happening is F1 is requesting a new baseball. Now, I get it...he's called time and if he doesn't allow the appeal due to the fact that time was called, we know MKE will turn right around and execute a proper appeal. But, will they? Don't you have to observe the formality of the appeal then for no other reason that that is how the appeal rules are written? Time was called. It's not a proper appeal. Could THAT be protested under OBR? In the end, the runner missed the plate. The request for replay was in time according to the rules, despite what the announcers keep saying...and the crew ultimately got the call correct.

Finally, what do you guys have here on the "lack of sufficient mechanics" to enable Rehak to indicate "That's nothing!" when he was touched by a thrown ball versus the confusion over giving the safe signal and the runner thinking he had legally touched the plate because Rehak signalled him safe? Could/should he have done something differently? If so...what?

~Dawg

[humanbackstop19]

I was at this game and saw Rehak get hit and make the safe mechanic.  Crowd was puzzled all around, especially when LaRussa came back out.  It definitely looked like the P was asking for a new ball after the conference, so I can understand how Rehak killed the ball not expecting the appeal.  

[ArchAngel72]

I like the call and the strategy used, Do I think they bent the rule, Yeah sure but whatever they got the call right. TO me that is what's important.

 

[Thunderheads]

6 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

I like the call and the strategy used, Do I think they bent the rule, Yeah sure but whatever they got the call right. TO me that is what's important.

 

where did they bend the rule?  Not trying to contest you, ...just wanted to know why you used those words

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, ArchAngel72 said:

I like the call and the strategy used, Do I think they bent the rule, Yeah sure but whatever they got the call right. TO me that is what's important.

 

Nope...the replay challenge is of the appeal call...well within 20 seconds.

[ArchAngel72]

2 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

where did they bend the rule?  Not trying to contest you, ...just wanted to know why you used those words

 

53 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Nope...the replay challenge is of the appeal call...well within 20 seconds.

 

What La Russa was arguing,  That they could not get a replay off due to them taking a mound visit, the play happened then they called time and more than 20 seconds had elapsed.  However once the mound visit was over and they had ample time to look for "the footage", Then they asked for an appeal and then thus the replay was based off the appeal and not the actual play.

 

One could argue there is no replay on the appeal because of the time out for the mound visit, ie too much time.

 

Let me say it this way.  Had they appealed the missed plate right away La Russa had no dog in the fight, however since they intentionally stalled and then went for the appeal after the stall, they sorta twisted the rule by getting that IR to look at the "appeal" like 2 minutes later.

Its bending the timing thing into a pretzel. I am willing to bet MLB makes an adjustment to it between this season and next.

 

[Thunderheads]

12 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

 

 

What La Russa was arguing,  That they could not get a replay off due to them taking a mound visit, the play happened then they called time and more than 20 seconds had elapsed.  However once the mound visit was over and they had ample time to look for "the footage", Then they asked for an appeal and then thus the replay was based off the appeal and not the actual play.

 

One could argue there is no replay on the appeal because of the time out for the mound visit, ie too much time.

 

Let me say it this way.  Had they appealed the missed plate right away La Russa had no dog in the fight, however since they intentionally stalled and then went for the appeal after the stall, they sorta twisted the rule by getting that IR to look at the "appeal" like 2 minutes later.

Its bending the timing thing into a pretzel. I am willing to bet MLB makes an adjustment to it between this season and next.

 

Ok ... but technically ....there wasn't a 'play' made at the plate ....no ball, no tag.  So, the 20 seconds could never start because there was no call (regardless of the safe signal, which was not a safe call, but more of a 'that's nothing call).    An appeal is an appeal, and the process was followed.

I don't think rules were "bent" here, but I will agree that there very well may be rule clarification on this just in case it happens again.

[ArchAngel72]

7 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

Ok ... but technically ....there wasn't a 'play' made at the plate ....no ball, no tag.  So, the 20 seconds could never start because there was no call (regardless of the safe signal, which was not a safe call, but more of a 'that's nothing call).    An appeal is an appeal, and the process was followed.

I don't think rules were "bent" here, but I will agree that there very well may be rule clarification on this just in case it happens again.

Is an error still a play?

 

[Thunderheads]

Just now, ArchAngel72 said:

Is an error still a play?

 

no, point is .... the 20 second clock is based on a call- safe or out, but that didn't happen as there was no ball, and no tag.  

[ArchAngel72]

4 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

no, point is .... the 20 second clock is based on a call- safe or out, but that didn't happen as there was no ball, and no tag.  

well what I see is Error on P1 at a play at the plate with an errant throw, and PU tracks the ball and not the player crossing the plate. He signaled a safe call,  I thought "Thats nothing" is one or two safe signals and a point with "Thats nothing"

In the end TH I think you and I will disagree with the signal call on this unless I can get audio of the PU 

[ArchAngel72]

from MLB Umpire Manual taken from Baseball Rules Academy

https://baseballrulesacademy.com/official-rule/mlb-umpire-manual/play-or-attempted-play/

 

A play or attempted play is interpreted as a legitimate effort by a defensive player who has possession of the ball to actually retire a runner. This may include an actual attempt to tag a runner, a fielder running toward a base with the ball in an attempt to force or tag a runner, or actually throwing to another defensive player in an attempt to retire a runner. (The fact that the runner is not out is not relevant.) A fake or a feint to throw shall not be deemed a play or an attempted play.

[Thunderheads]

1 minute ago, ArchAngel72 said:

well what I see is Error on P1 at a play at the plate with an errant throw, and PU tracks the ball and not the player crossing the plate. He signaled a safe call,  I thought "Thats nothing is one or two safe signals and a point with "Thats nothing"

In the end TH I think you and I will disagree with the signal call on this unless I can get audio of the PU 

No, ...that's nothing is also a 'safe' mechanic..... sometimes along w/ a verbal, sometimes not.  It's not, I repeat, it's NOT a 'safe call' as in "he's safe at home" because he's tracking the ball, and the ball is not involved with the catcher, and there was no tag, and any professional (and most amateurs) know ... there's not a 'safe/out' without a play on the runner.  (there was not a play on the runner).

[beerguy55]

26 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

well what I see is Error on P1 at a play at the plate with an errant throw, and PU tracks the ball and not the player crossing the plate. He signaled a safe call,  I thought "Thats nothing" is one or two safe signals and a point with "Thats nothing"

In the end TH I think you and I will disagree with the signal call on this unless I can get audio of the PU 

Is it relevant?   Think of how this would progress in any situation at any base. (most likely home, but it could conceivably happen anywhere)

Umpire makes a safe call on a tag attempt...

defense then appeals that runner never touched base, following proper appeal procedures...

umpire rules safe again because he believes runner touched the base....this entire process will take more than 20 seconds from the original call...  

Then defense asks to go to replay.

The defense MUST be allowed that 20 second clock to start after the appeal, because by rule the team is required to appeal the missed base/left early before requesting replay.

 

I don't really care if Rehak may have inadvertently given the runner wrong information....that runner should know he missed the base.    We're not talking 1/2 an inch here.

 

The only alternative would be to change the appeal process (after continuing action - ie. at the end of the play) to one that is verbal and more closely follows the replay process, at least for MLB.

[ArchAngel72]

Thank you Beerguy

 

I like that explanation