Runner Misses Base in Boston, But Replay Says He's Safe???

[Lindsay]

When Replay Review ruled Rangers batter-runner Wyatt Langford safe at first base, even though he failed to touch it on an infield ground ball, Red Sox manager Alex Cora visited umpire Dan Iassogna for a "call confirmed" explanation. Soon after, Cora walked back to Boston's dugout, appearing satisfied with the crew chief's rationale...so what was the reason Houck was safe?

With one out and two on, Rangers batter Langford hit a ground ball to Red Sox pitcher Tanner Houck, who threw low to first base, where first baseman Romy Gonzalez failed to catch the low throw as batter-runner Langford danced around Gonzalez to avoid him.

1B Umpire Adam Beck slowly gestured "safe" as Boston opted to challenge the call, alleging that Langford was actually out because first baseman Gonzalez did eventually pick up the baseball while standing on first base.

Replay Review returned a "call confirmed" decision, ruling the runner safe at first base, even though the runner missed the bag on his initial run through and even though the fielder's foot was in contact with first base, while he held the baseball, before the runner could return to touch the missed base.

This is an appeal play pursuant to Official Baseball Rule 5.09(c)(2), which states, "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, is tagged."

An appeal is defined as "the act of a fielder in claiming violation of the rules by the offensive team," and the MLB Umpire Manual includes a case play whose scenario mirrors that which occurred in Boston.

It states, "Batter-runner hits a ground ball and beats the play at first base but misses the bag...The proper mechanic is for the umpire to make no call on the play because the batter-runner has not yet touched first base. If the defense appeals by tagging the runner (or base) and appealing that the runner missed first base before the runner returns to first base, the batter-runner would be declared out."

Accordingly, Replay Review applied the MLBUM case play to adjudicate this sequence. The runner is ultimately safe because Boston failed to make a clear and unmistakeable appeal claiming a violation of rules by the offensive team, which is a higher standard than a simple tag out. Whereas inadvertently stepping on the base while holding the baseball might result in an out during a force play, this is insufficient to effect an appeal because it lacks clear communication to the umpire of intent to appeal a violation of the rules.

The only part of this play officiated improperly therefore was the umpire's safe mechanic: the proper mechanic is to make no call until either the defense appeals or the runner returns to touch the missed base. But without a defensive appeal, the runner is safe regardless for having beaten the play.

Video as follows:
Alternate Link: Langford safe at first base, even though he missed his base touch...here's why

View the full article

[jimurrayalterego]

43 minutes ago, Lindsay said:

When Replay Review ruled Rangers batter-runner Wyatt Langford safe at first base, even though he failed to touch it on an infield ground ball, Red Sox manager Alex Cora visited umpire Dan Iassogna for a "call confirmed" explanation. Soon after, Cora walked back to Boston's dugout, appearing satisfied with the crew chief's rationale...so what was the reason Houck was safe?

 

With one out and two on, Rangers batter Langford hit a ground ball to Red Sox pitcher Tanner Houck, who threw low to first base, where first baseman Romy Gonzalez failed to catch the low throw as batter-runner Langford danced around Gonzalez to avoid him.

 

1B Umpire Adam Beck slowly gestured "safe" as Boston opted to challenge the call, alleging that Langford was actually out because first baseman Gonzalez did eventually pick up the baseball while standing on first base.

 

Replay Review returned a "call confirmed" decision, ruling the runner safe at first base, even though the runner missed the bag on his initial run through and even though the fielder's foot was in contact with first base, while he held the baseball, before the runner could return to touch the missed base.

 

This is an appeal play pursuant to Official Baseball Rule 5.09(c)(2), which states, "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, is tagged."

 

An appeal is defined as "the act of a fielder in claiming violation of the rules by the offensive team," and the MLB Umpire Manual includes a case play whose scenario mirrors that which occurred in Boston.

 

It states, "Batter-runner hits a ground ball and beats the play at first base but misses the bag...The proper mechanic is for the umpire to make no call on the play because the batter-runner has not yet touched first base. If the defense appeals by tagging the runner (or base) and appealing that the runner missed first base before the runner returns to first base, the batter-runner would be declared out."

 

Accordingly, Replay Review applied the MLBUM case play to adjudicate this sequence. The runner is ultimately safe because Boston failed to make a clear and unmistakeable appeal claiming a violation of rules by the offensive team, which is a higher standard than a simple tag out. Whereas inadvertently stepping on the base while holding the baseball might result in an out during a force play, this is insufficient to effect an appeal because it lacks clear communication to the umpire of intent to appeal a violation of the rules.

 

The only part of this play officiated improperly therefore was the umpire's safe mechanic: the proper mechanic is to make no call until either the defense appeals or the runner returns to touch the missed base. But without a defensive appeal, the runner is safe regardless for having beaten the play.

Video as follows:
Alternate Link: Langford safe at first base, even though he missed his base touch...here's why

View the full article

Did we have OBS to start with?

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Did we have OBS to start with?

Something to consider. But is he still in the act of fielding the throw?

[jimurrayalterego]

9 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Something to consider. But is he still in the act of fielding the throw?

I would say no.

 

"Rule 6.01(h) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: An infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball."

[grayhawk]

41 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I would say no.

 

"Rule 6.01(h) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: An infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball."

I thought there was something about if the ball is still within his "immediate reach" he could still be considered in the act of fielding.

[jimurrayalterego]

49 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I thought there was something about if the ball is still within his "immediate reach" he could still be considered in the act of fielding.

Yes, if he was fielding a batted ball.

[Velho]

6 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

55 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I thought there was something about if the ball is still within his "immediate reach" he could still be considered in the act of fielding.

Yes, if he was fielding a batted ball.

This goes to something we touched on in another thread : once fielder misses batted ball outside of reach or misses a thrown ball, when does OBS come into play? Immediately or after some delay since he “can’t simply disappear”?

@The Man in Blue had thoughts to the latter if I recall correctly.

[jimurrayalterego]

10 minutes ago, Velho said:

This goes to something we touched on in another thread : once fielder misses batted ball outside of reach or misses a thrown ball, when does OBS come into play? Immediately or after some delay since he “can’t simply disappear”?

@The Man in Blue had thoughts to the latter if I recall correctly.

Didn't the WS OBS call clear that up?

[Velho]

18 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Didn't the WS OBS call clear that up?

F5 did that extra leg kick though. Was that ever explicitly discussed as contributing vs being a non-factor?

OBS wasn't called until as soon as the ball got past (granted U3 was eye on ball).

 

[SeeingEyeDog]

Can we talk more about the mechanics...

BR passes the bag and doesn't touch the bag. Fielder does not make an out. If U1 does nothing, doesn't that then alert the coaching staff that the BR missed the bag and now U1 is "helping" the coaching staff to initiate the appeal? By rule, once both feet are beyond the bag, the runner is safe. U1 could safe that and STILL call the BR out on appeal...yes?

Further...on a play at the plate. Not a force play. No tag by the fielder and no touch of the plate by the runner. Runner then returns to the dugout. Count the run? Out on abandonment? Something else?

~Dawg

[Velho]

The missed 1B mechanic has gone back and forth. Latest I understood was no signal - but do signal at all other bases once acquired with a play on. This play with a dropped ball is a complicating factor though since reference play is BR beats a caught throw.

 

[jimurrayalterego]

12 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Can we talk more about the mechanics...

BR passes the bag and doesn't touch the bag. Fielder does not make an out. If U1 does nothing, doesn't that then alert the coaching staff that the BR missed the bag and now U1 is "helping" the coaching staff to initiate the appeal? By rule, once both feet are beyond the bag, the runner is safe. U1 could safe that and STILL call the BR out on appeal...yes?

Further...on a play at the plate. Not a force play. No tag by the fielder and no touch of the plate by the runner. Runner then returns to the dugout. Count the run? Out on abandonment? Something else?

~Dawg

At 1B U1 used to make no call but that has changed and U1 did safe the runner as soon as he passed 1B.

At HP the MLBUM infers with the appeal verbiage that the run would score: "On a play at the plate, should the runner miss home plate and the fielder miss the tag on the runner, it is preferable that the umpire make no signal on the play. As outlined in the previous paragraph, the runner must then be tagged if the runner attempts to return to the plate; if the runner continues on the way to the bench, the defense may make an appeal."

[Velho]

1 minute ago, jimurrayalterego said:

At 1B U1 used to make no call but that has changed...

"On a play at the plate, should the runner miss home plate and the fielder miss the tag on the runner, it is preferable that the umpire make no signal on the play....

Alright. I'll just do opposite of what I think and I'll be good to go.

[beerguy55]

Exhibit 421843 to why the umpires should simply explain the ruling to the crowd/viewers.

And to why the broadcasters need actual rules experts on staff.

"The runner passed first base while the fielder did not have the ball - even though he missed the base he is considered "safe"...after that point, the fielder must clearly appeal that the runner missed the base, and he failed to do so."

That's good enough for the people in the stands.

The rules expert in the booth can elaborate a little further for the broader media audience.

In ten F*#King seconds.

 

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

If U1 does nothing, doesn't that then alert the coaching staff that the BR missed the bag and now U1 is "helping" the coaching staff to initiate the appeal?

Yes, and it helps the offense know they need to touch the base.  So it's equal and fair.

For plays at the plate I was taught this when I played Little League some 40 years ago, by my coach.  If the ump signals safe he saw you touch the plate, if he makes no signal, you better find a way to discreetly get back to the plate.

[Velho]

40 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

If the ump signals safe he saw you touch the plate, if he makes no signal, you better find a way to discreetly get back to the plate.

👍

It does get complicated when there is a missed tag (Safe sign "No Tag!") and then Runner misses the plate. 🤷‍♂️

[beerguy55]

45 minutes ago, Velho said:

👍

It does get complicated when there is a missed tag (Safe sign "No Tag!") and then Runner misses the plate. 🤷‍♂️

But what was taught (right or wrong) was even then the ump would not signal - so say catcher makes a swipe tag while at the same time I do a backdoor slide - If the catcher makes the tag in time, out, if I hit the plate with no tag, safe...if neither happens, then the ump makes no signal.

[The Man in Blue]

4 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Yes, and it helps the offense know they need to touch the base.  So it's equal and fair.

For plays at the plate I was taught this when I played Little League some 40 years ago, by my coach.  If the ump signals safe he saw you touch the plate, if he makes no signal, you better find a way to discreetly get back to the plate.

 

The concept of "no call" is no different any other missed base scenario.  A missed base is an appeal play, pure and simple.  What makes this unusual is that there is a play being made, not just a runner passing by.  Personally, I prefer the mechanic of making the call because we have the "passed = assumed touch" provision.  

Since a missed base is explicitly an appeal play (one state association under Fed withstanding), making the call is, IMO, the correct thing to do.

I'm not opposed to the "no call" though.  I have never bought into the concept of "not making a call tips off the defense."  As you said, it tells EVERYBODY what is happening, including the team that is in violation and needs to correct it before the defense calls them on it.  So if the PTBs want this, then there you go.

 

9 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I thought there was something about if the ball is still within his "immediate reach" he could still be considered in the act of fielding.

As @jimurrayalterego noted, on a batted ball.  For the sake of fun, let's say this was batted though . . . just how many reaches are you giving him?

 

8 hours ago, Velho said:

This goes to something we touched on in another thread : once fielder misses batted ball outside of reach or misses a thrown ball, when does OBS come into play? Immediately or after some delay since he “can’t simply disappear”?

@The Man in Blue had thoughts to the latter if I recall correctly.

Parsing together rules -- not ignoring existing rules -- (which I have a post I will be making on this), my stance on it was as such:

Just as a batter cannot disappear, so we allow them to stand still, a fielder cannot disappear.  If they were protected and legal just a moment before, some consideration should be given to their position and action in the immediate moment after.  In that particular play (two fielders crashing and landing on top of one another), it was my contention the runner had already legally altered his path to avoid the fielder legally making a play.  I did not feel the alteration occurred due to a change in that protected player's status, nor did it occur due to the second player.  I think my timing was shown to have been wrong on that conclusion, but I don't recall.

 

7 hours ago, Velho said:

F5 did that extra leg kick though. Was that ever explicitly discussed as contributing vs being a non-factor?

OBS wasn't called until as soon as the ball got past (granted U3 was eye on ball)

Case in point.  The fielder was legally positioned when making the play, missed the play, then a following action caused the obstruction.  Had he remained still, I don't believe there would have been a call.

Please, please, please do NOT give me the "shouldn't reward them for poor play" argument.  Adjudicating and punishing poor play is NOT our job.

[grayhawk]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

As @jimurrayalterego noted, on a batted ball.  For the sake of fun, let's say this was batted though . . . just how many reaches are you giving him?

As long as the ball is within his immediate reach, he should be considered in the act of fielding and is protected. The runner would have to avoid hindering or impeding him.

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

As long as the ball is within his immediate reach, he should be considered in the act of fielding and is protected. The runner would have to avoid hindering or impeding him.

I think @The Man in Blue is referring to the bobbles of F3 in the OP and maybe postulating a fielder chasing after a  bobbled batted ball that still remained within his reach but every reach bobbled it. Does protection cease after the first touch of the within reach ball or can he chase and bobble the ball with full protection forever.

[The Man in Blue]

Exactly.  If you are extending the protection for an infinite amount of time on infinite stabs and bobbles, then the timing of continuing protection for an “inanimate error maker” has more bones since time has been discounted.

”A step and a reach” … one attempt?  One arm’s length?

[grayhawk]

3 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

”A step and a reach” … one attempt?  One arm’s length?

A step and a reach isn't in the rule book. And there is no amount of attempts mentioned either. So if we judge it's within his immediate reach, and he's attempting to field it, we should have him protected.