Failure to tag ruling

The runner is out for failing to tag after a ball is batted in the airand caught before touching the ground (Line drive, fly ball, pop up, blooper but not a foul tip). it's not considered a force play and it doesn't matter where the ball was thrown first as long a throw beats the baserunner back to the bag.

This is an appeal play, and given the attempted play on the runner at home, the defense would have to clearly make evident that they are appealing the runner's failure to re-touch third base.

Why wouldn't the umpire responsible for 'the tag up' just call him out? Why does a team need to make an appeal?

Same goes for SF to the outfield. Why doesn't the umpire call the runner out if he failed to tag properly and crosses home plate.

Can a guy run from the dugout back to third?

quote:

Originally posted by AntzDad:
Why wouldn't the umpire responsible for 'the tag up' just call him out? Why does a team need to make an appeal?

Because the rules say so. A running infraction must be exploited with an appeal that must be unmistakable, so with the play at home, the throw to third becomes a play on the runner (not an appeal.) If the throw goes to third, and F5 says, "He left early," now you have an unmistakable appeal.

quote:

Originally posted by AntzDad:
Same goes for SF to the outfield. Why doesn't the umpire call the runner out if he failed to tag properly and crosses home plate?

Same principle as above.

quote:

Originally posted by AntzDad:
Can a guy run from the dugout back to third?

From the dugout, no. If he has not entered dead-ball territory, though, he can attempt to correct his running infraction as long as a following runner has not scored.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AntzDad:
Why wouldn't the umpire responsible for 'the tag up' just call him out? Why does a team need to make an appeal?

Same goes for SF to the outfield. Why doesn't the umpire call the runner out if he failed to tag properly and crosses home plate.
QUOTE]

Years back the NFHS rule was for umpires to call out automatically any runner who missed a base without appeal.....

I hated that...why should an umpire bail out the defense for not doing a part of the game they are responsible for?.....

Fortunately the NFHS recinded that ruling and now we have appeals back....

The onus is on the defense to note if a runner touched a base or left early...and properly appeal....

quote:

Originally posted by piaa_ump:
...why should an umpire bail out the defense for not doing a part of the game they are responsible for?.....

My question is why is 'that part of the game' part of the game?*** If you see it, why don't you call it? Same for check swings. Why does a team have to ask?

***I won't be satisfied with 'because that's the way the rules are written'.

quote:

Originally posted by AntzDad:
***I won't be satisfied with 'because that's the way the rules are written'.

Then you might as well ask why only three strikes, but four balls? Why three outs and not five?

The rules makers set the foundation with the Knickerbocker Rules (sometimes referred to as "The Cartwright Rules") and they evolved from there. Some additions and changes were for "fair play", some for efficiency and some to encourage offense.

Jim Evans has done the definitive study of the rules and their history. He has found notes that explain some of the reasoning of the times but he also has found some dead ends. The rulesmakers didn't all keep diaries or minutes of meetings. Thus sometimes we are left with conjecture. This is one of those.

Here is a "fair use" portion of Evans Historical explantation of appeals (7.08 d)

"This basic rule of baserunning was mandated in the Original Code of 1876. The only difference in that early rule and today’s is the criteria which defined a “catch.” A fielder who “momentarily held” the ball was considered to have caught it. The term “momentarily held” disappeared from the rule books in the early part of the 20th century when gloves began to be more universally accepted.

In 1880, the rule specified that the runner could be declared out only if the fielder touched the base or runner before the pitcher “delivered to the bat”.

In 1969, the appeal procedure was clarified when the rule was amended disallowing any appeal following a pitch, or any play or attempted play."

quote:

Originally posted by AntzDad:

quote:

Originally posted by piaa_ump:
...why should an umpire bail out the defense for not doing a part of the game they are responsible for?.....

My question is why is 'that part of the game' part of the game?*** If you see it, why don't you call it? Same for check swings. Why does a team have to ask?

***I won't be satisfied with 'because that's the way the rules are written'.

Its my opinion that the rules writers envisioned a game of strategy, intelligence and skill that requires a player to be actively involved in the game with the knowledge that the game is being played within the rules....

The writers gave the game a purpose, a set of rules , an arbiter to settle disputes and a process to make sure that the spirit of the rules is being followed....

If we followed your model, we would cease to be arbiters of the game and now become participants or the 3rd team on the field.....

But the rules dont allow it.....because....

wait for it......

wait......

thats the way the rules are written.........

Jimmy- How many umpires did they use in 1876?

quote:

Originally posted by AntzDad:
Jimmy- How many umpires did they use in 1876?

Not to answer for Jimmy, but I believe just one...

According to the September 23, 1845, rules of the Knickerbocker Club of New York, which created modern baseball, the president of the club "shall appoint an Umpire, who shall keep the game in a book provided for that purpose, and note all violations of the Bylaws and Rules."

As "match" games between clubs became more frequent, three officials were commonly used--one umpire chosen by each team and a neutral "referee" to decide the often partisan split decisions. In 1858 the National Association of Base Ball Players sanctioned a single umpire, sometimes a spectator or even a player, chosen by the home team with the consent of the rival captain.

There was no dress code, but contemporary prints depict the idealized portrait of the gentleman arbiter--a distinguished-looking gentleman resplendent in top hat, Prince Albert coat, and cane, who stood, kneeled, or sat on a stool in foul territory along the first base line. Although the attire became less formal by the Civil War, the volunteer arbiters continued to receive no remuneration for their services other than the "honor" of being chosen "the sole judge of fair and unfair play."

So, what do you think that man on the stool would have done if he'd witnessed unfair play- perhaps, a man crossing the plate after a fly out without properly tagging up? Or, is that not unfair play?

I agree the umpires here. Players need to make the call. It is not always clear to whom is the defense requesting the appeal without them stating. I was coaching a game and with the appeal for the 4th out of the inning which saved us a run and the game. I as I saw the play happening I couldn't believe I would actually get to do it. The umpires knew it as soon as it happened. We had just talked about it before the game. Runners on 2nd and 3rd one out. Fly ball to right field and the runners are tagging. Our Rf makes the catch(out #2) and throws to 3rd knowing the runner was slower and not shot at the runner at the plate. We get the out at third for out #3. Here is the fun part. The runner at 3rd left early. I tell me 3b to step on the bag and tell the umpire the runner at 3rd left early. The umpire saw it and called him out on the appeal. Out #4. I will probably never see that play again.

quote:

Originally posted by AntzDad:
So, what do you think that man on the stool would have done if he'd witnessed unfair play- perhaps, a man crossing the plate after a fly out without properly tagging up? Or, is that not unfair play?

well, now that you asked....according to rule 17 of the original 20 rules....


17. All disputes and differences relative to the game, to be decided by the Umpire, from which there is no appeal....

or in todays english...any dispute relative to the play of the game will be brought to the umpire and he will decide the issue and the decision given will be final....

quote:

Originally posted by AntzDad:
So, what do you think that man on the stool would have done if he'd witnessed unfair play- perhaps, a man crossing the plate after a fly out without properly tagging up? Or, is that not unfair play?

He would have followed and enforced the rules as written.