Washington - Pittsburgh missed 4th out appeal

[Jimurray]

Video will probably show later today. Announcers were correct in using the adjective "brutal" but what was brutal was their commentary and rules knowledge: T5, Both R2 and R3 left early thinking the line drive was trapped but the ump clearly and correctly signaled a catch. Washington appealed R2 standing on 3B by tagging him and U3 signaled the third out. F5 did accidentally step on 3B also but did not give any sign that he was appealing R3. You can not have an accidental appeal. It has to be obvious either by the situation or verbal declaration. The umps did not tell Washington to leave the field. They left because they saw the third out and did not realize they could get an advantageous fourth out which could have been appealed until the pitcher and all infielders left fair territory. The umps signaled that the run scored because R3 touched home before the third out of R2 which is NOT A FORCE, it is an appeal. I think the umps knew the rule but have to go to NY anyway since protests are not allowed in MLB anymore.

[LRZ]

A noted rules expert, Rich Marazzi, has served as rules advisor to several MLB teams. It seems like there are a couple of other teams that could benefit from his knowledge.

[johnnyg08]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

Video will probably show later today. Announcers were correct in using the adjective "brutal" but what was brutal was their commentary and rules knowledge: T5, Both R2 and R3 left early thinking the line drive was trapped but the ump clearly and correctly signaled a catch. Washington appealed R2 standing on 3B by tagging him and U3 signaled the third out. F5 did accidentally step on 3B also but did not give any sign that he was appealing R3. You can not have an accidental appeal. It has to be obvious either by the situation or verbal declaration. The umps did not tell Washington to leave the field. They left because they saw the third out and did not realize they could get an advantageous fourth out which could have been appealed until the pitcher and all infielders left fair territory. The umps signaled that the run scored because R3 touched home before the third out of R2 which is NOT A FORCE, it is an appeal. I think the umps knew the rule but have to go to NY anyway since protests are not allowed in MLB anymore.

Good Find...time and time again, people confuse force plays with appeal plays. It's wild. 

 

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

Good Find...time and time again, people confuse force plays with appeal plays. It's wild. 

 

Should U2 call the out on that tag? Does U3 calling it add some confusion although he does point at R2 while signaling out. 

[johnnyg08]

4 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Should U2 call the out on that tag? Does U3 calling it add some confusion although he does point at R2 while signaling out. 

I think it might. I don't have an issue with U3 calling this though. 

The step on the base is where there will be debate. I don't have a problem with them allowing the run. But it's a good argument to suggest that stepping on 3B was as appeal on R3...but the water is muddy with R2 standing on the 3B. Really cool play.

[The Man in Blue]

Man, I dunno' ... I would say tagging the runner while he is on the base is a pretty obvious appeal.  Especially with the way F5 stood there holding the tag and then seemed to double-check with the umpire as he walked away.

Before I saw the video, I assumed the tag was made while the runner was still coming to the base, in which case I would say it is NOT an obvious appeal and just a routine tag out.

Stepping on the base was not an obvious appeal.

EDIT: OK, it seems the appeal WAS accepted on the tag of R2 (third out) but denied on the appeal of R3 (stepping on the base).

[maven]

10 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

The step on the base is where there will be debate. I don't have a problem with them allowing the run. But it's a good argument to suggest that stepping on 3B was as appeal on R3...but the water is muddy with R2 standing on the 3B. Really cool play.

I agree that if there's anything to dispute it's that F5 BOTH tagged R2 AND tagged 3B.

Unfortunately, he tagged R2 first, yielding the 3rd out of the inning. If they want that apparent 4th out, then we need a little more than stepping on 3B as he's tagging R2.

He does stay on there a while, but I'd like something more: pointing to R3, verbally appealing—anything to indicate that the action around the base is supposed to be TWO appeals rather than just one.

That's the bottom line for me: I see enough to know that F5's actions are a deliberate appeal, but not enough to know that his actions are TWO DISTINCT appeals.

And I'll add: 

1. I'm not a pro umpire, so I don't have an official opinion about whether the ruling in the video was right.
2. For amateur ball, whether I grant the second appeal will depend on which ruling gets me to beer o'clock faster.

 

[Thunderheads]

There's a great 14+ minute video from Lindsay and Close Call Sports on this .....

Is it safe to assume that w/ more than 1 runner, when appeals are being made, that's when things need to be more deliberate from the fielder making the appeal?  

[noumpere]

5 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

There's a great 14+ minute video from Lindsay and Close Call Sports on this .....

Is it safe to assume that w/ more than 1 runner, when appeals are being made, that's when things need to be more deliberate from the fielder making the appeal?  

Of course.  It's no different from: bases loaded,  Home run.  Defense throws the ball tho third and jsut stands there.

 

In our games we'd always ask for more detail.  Much the same in the OP -- but from the video I saw (without sound) the "obvious" appeals was on R2 and with nothing else, there's nothing else to ask.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

Of course.  It's no different from: bases loaded,  Home run.  Defense throws the ball tho third and jsut stands there.

 

In our games we'd always ask for more detail.  Much the same in the OP -- but from the video I saw (without sound) the "obvious" appeals was on R2 and with nothing else, there's nothing else to ask.

But there was a conversation between U3 and F5 as F5 started to leave. Be nice to know what was said. 

[Mussgrass]

When F5 steps on third base he still has the tag on R2, who was on the base. That, to me, is still part of the appeal on R2. If F5 even looks toward home and points there while stepping on third base it probably is clear enough of an appeal on R3.

The amazing thing in all of this is that nobody got ejected.

[Richvee]

12 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

There's a great 14+ minute video from Lindsay and Close Call Sports on this .....

Is it safe to assume that w/ more than 1 runner, when appeals are being made, that's when things need to be more deliberate from the fielder making the appeal?  

This is one of CCS’s best videos ever. The both broadcasts announcers were writing new chapters in the MSU rulebook. I couldn’t stop laughing.

Why is it that an announcer, especially on a play as wacky as this one, can’t just admit they don’t know?  Why not say “ That’s something I don’t think I’ve ever seen before. We’re gonna have to do some research on the rules here.” 
instead of spewing BS that daddy coaches are listening to and believing these morons are right. 

[conbo61]

Question for discussion.

Would the ORDER of appeal have any bearing?  In other words, if F5 picked up the ball and touched 3B declaring he was appealing that the R3 left early, then the 4th out situation is irrelevant.

Correct?

[noumpere]

3 minutes ago, conbo61 said:

Question for discussion.

Would the ORDER of appeal have any bearing?  In other words, if F5 picked up the ball and touched 3B declaring he was appealing that the R3 left early, then the 4th out situation is irrelevant.

Correct?

No reason to have a 4th out on R2 when it's not a force and all runners in advance of him are out.  IF the 4th out is advantageous, it's ignored.

[Thunderheads]

4 minutes ago, conbo61 said:

Question for discussion.

Would the ORDER of appeal have any bearing?  In other words, if F5 picked up the ball and touched 3B declaring he was appealing that the R3 left early, then the 4th out situation is irrelevant.

Correct?

I do believe the CCS video says that in that situation, that could have made the difference.  "The declaration" of stepping on third AFTER tagging R2 would be needed to grab the '4th out' nullifying the run  (I think)

[Richvee]

Advantageous 4Th out. When the defense appeals for a 4th out they can pick the most advantageous out.  

[Senor Azul]

From the 2016 BRD (section 8, p. 21):

Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  If two runners could be appealed, or the defense is not clear about whom they are appealing, the umpire should not make any decision and should ask the defense which runner they are appealing.

And here is what the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual says (p.80) about multiple runner appeals for OBR play: “If there is an appeal at a base that more than one runner has passed, the fielder should specify which runner is under appeal. If the fielder does not specify, the umpire can ask which runner’s action is being appealed.”

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Senor Azul said:

From the 2016 BRD (section 8, p. 21):

Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  If two runners could be appealed, or the defense is not clear about whom they are appealing, the umpire should not make any decision and should ask the defense which runner they are appealing.

And here is what the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual says (p.80) about multiple runner appeals for OBR play: “If there is an appeal at a base that more than one runner has passed, the fielder should specify which runner is under appeal. If the fielder does not specify, the umpire can ask which runner’s action is being appealed.”

The defense was clear about who they were appealing. They tagged him and U3 pointed to him as being out. We don’t know if any of the crew noticed the foot on the bag but my first impression was that is was accidental. But I think it was a purposeful step now. But the fielder wasn’t clear as to what purpose and didn’t get any response to that step. U3 ruling on U2’s runner doesn’t seem to have a bearing. Only one out was called and Washington could have made it clear they were appealing a fourth out before they left the field. It’s possible F5 thought R3 didn’t score because he tagged/forced R2 out. Need to know what was said as he left 3B. 

[buckyswider]

Two related but somewhat tangential questions about this play:

1- what is the UH's duty to signify that the run counted?  Unlike many Gnat's fans on social media, I'm pretty certain that the confirmation shouldn't be made until the possibility of appeal has passed.  Otherwise, it gives the defense an unfair advantage.  (Also, I guess a case can be made that such signalling is not "public"- it's to ensure the official scorer- and only the official scorer- that s/he has recorded the play properly).  Jaska/Roder (older edition) is silent on this.

2- What is the proper defensive appeal procedure after a third out but after time has been called?  I didn't see any U signal it, but the Pie-Rats manager running onto the field was effectively a time out call.  If the defense was savvy enough to have asked for a subsequent appeal, does the pitcher have to toe the rubber (without a batter in the vicinity of the batter's box!) to put the ball back in-play so an appeal could be made??

 

Thanks! 

[noumpere]

1) Signal just as you would if R2 had been tagged out trying to advance.  I'm not sure whether this was close enough to require a signal or not.

2) A manager running on the field is not the same as calling time.  But, yes, if time was granted, put the ball back in play.