White Sox Appeal Play Gone Awry - What Happened?

[Lindsay]

Red Sox batter Jarren Duran reached on White Sox pitcher Garrett Crochet's throwing error on an infield ground ball, winding up at third. Sensing that Duran may have failed to touch first base in all the commotion, Chicago prepared for an appeal, but as Crochet threw to first, Duran took off for home plate, trying to distract the White Sox. Officially a stolen base, Crochet's throw once again evaded first baseman Andrew Vaughn.

We review baseball's appeal rules to figure out if Chicago still retained the right to appeal Duran's purported missed base touch at first and if anything else may have been missed here.

Official Baseball Rule 5.09(c)(2) states that "any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when with the ball in play, while advancing or returning to a base, they fail to touch each base in order before they, or a missed base, are tagged."

Appeals can occur at any time prior to the next pitch, play, or attempted play—which can include an appeal made during the live ball associated with the continuous action featuring the alleged base-running infraction (sometimes called a "real time appeal"), or it can be made after the ball has been returned to the pitcher and the pitcher has engaged the rubber (a "standard appeal"). In a standard appeal, the umpire puts the ball in play (if the ball had been declared dead), upon which the pitcher steps off the rubber and throws (or, theoretically, runs) to the base at which the appeal is being made.

Note: NFHS / high school allows live or dead ball appeals; OBR/NCAA require live ball appeals.

The key part to this play is the "any appeal under this rule must be made before the next pitch, or any play or attempted play" part of the rule. So too is that "An appeal is not to be interpreted as a play or an attempted play."

Had Vaughn caught Crochet's throw and instead, distracted by Duran stealing home, threw home, Chicago would have lost its right to appeal at first base and whatever resulted at home plate (safe/out on the catcher's tag) would prevail. In order for this "play or attempted play" to occur, Vaughn would have to actually physically possess the baseball; even though replays indicate he may have motioned as if he were throwing home, he did not possess the baseball and, thus, this was not a play or attempted play.

The MLB Umpire Manual substantiates this: "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."

Accordingly, even though Crochet's throw evaded Vaughn's glove, it stayed in play in foul territory near right field, and was retrieved by Vaughn, who (although video doesn't capture this) immediately returned to and tagged first base to appeal. This is important to note as well, because a ball that falls out of play here would close the appeal window: "Once the defensive team “errs” (i.e., throws the ball out of play) in its attempt to appeal at third on the runner originally on second, it loses its right to make an appeal."

1B Umpire Alan Porter called Duran "safe" at first base, ruling that Duran did not miss the base.

White Sox manager Pedro Grifol briefly discussed the play with HP Umpire Sean Barber, but ultimately Crochet returned to the mound and threw a pitch, sealing the finality of Duran's stolen base.

There was one thing Chicago failed to do was challenge 1B Umpire Porter's safe/touch call. That's it.

Video as follows:
Alternate Link: Chicago botched an appeal play but not for the reason you might suspect

View the full article

[Velho]

Why wouldn't F3 catching the ball from F1 while touching 1B on that unmistakable appeal and then throwing home to get the runner (if he wasn't now a retired runner) be ok? Lindsay says that if F3 had caught the ball [edit: while touching 1B] and thrown home they would have lost the ability to appeal. Is hearing the result of the appeal part of the appeal?

 

[dumbdumb]

you can only surmise (who knows) that lindsay was saying the 1st baseman was already off the bag (pulled foot anyway) trying to quickly make that, play, at home and get that runner by tagging him out (intervening play) at the plate, rather than just concentrating and making sure he caught the ball and had his foot on the bag and win the, out, by appeal, and who knows the answer since he did not catch the ball to start with, nor did he come right back to touch 1B after retrieving the over throw. and why did they just not appeal porter's call to start with, and make this whole play mute to start with.

and of course we can get pendantic again, whatever the dog gone that means, and go round and round with the phrasing point.

you are not wrong with what you say, but from another point of view? (are views like opinions) (and wasn't, another point of view, a phrase Jimmy Buffett used). apparently nobody, or so they say, can really and truly read some one's mind, so why do we have throwing at the batter warnings when no one can read minds, or so the managers say.

[The Man in Blue]

A question and a thought . . . 

Question: When does the review clock start?  I'm assuming Grifol didn't challenge because he assumed it was too late to do so (why he didn't go ahead and try is beyond me).  He banked on a successful appeal.

Thought: ". . . next pitch, any play or attempted play . . . " is something we need a clear definition of.  (Maybe there is one?)  To me, a play during that continued live ball should NOT be considered a play that would negate the appeal.  IMO, that should be interpreted as the next live play after a stoppage of play.

[Biscuit]

21 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

A question and a thought . . . 

Question: When does the review clock start?  I'm assuming Grifol didn't challenge because he assumed it was too late to do so (why he didn't go ahead and try is beyond me).  He banked on a successful appeal.

Thought: ". . . next pitch, any play or attempted play . . . " is something we need a clear definition of.  (Maybe there is one?)  To me, a play during that continued live ball should NOT be considered a play that would negate the appeal.  IMO, that should be interpreted as the next live play after a stoppage of play.

The review clock starts when the appeal is ruled on, as that is what is being challenged (CCS included that in a video this year iirc).

The MiLBUM and MLBUM do cover this pretty well. What you're suggesting is pretty close to how it works. Plays that happen during continuous action do not count against pitch play or attempted play. Once play is relaxed (everyone is standing around, ball is on the infield, or time is called), now we get into pitch play or attempted play territory. Play had relaxed before the pitcher did... Whatever that was, so therefore a pitch play or attempted play (not including an appeal play) would negate their ability to make an appeal. If before throwing to first they had tried to make a play on the runner, they would lose their ability to appeal. It's moot because Grifol didn't challenge, but he could have challenged here and won.

[Jimurray]

While segueing to NCAA in an order of appeals thread I thought I would also segue to the NCAA difference if this happened on a college field. The err of a wild throw with a runner advancing would preclude the appeal when the ball was recovered and 1B touched.