Uh, this doesn't look right

quote:

If Escobar missed the bag, why wasn't he called out when Posade's foot was clearly on the bag with the ball in his glove?

Is there something I am missing?

Posada's foot wasn't on the bag.

And hey, that crew got a call (almost) right for once!

Posada doesn't appear to have actually tagged Escobar, but from the first angle it appears he did and probably from the umpire's view it looked like it.

I have to disagree.

From the 7 to 9 second mark in the video, Posada is clearly standing on top of the bag after Escobar had run past it.

quote:

Originally posted by dw8man:
I just saw this clip on another site and was wondering if anyone else has seen it.

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play...._id=9780550&c_id=mlb

I really don't understand the umps actions on this play.

If Escobar missed the bag, why wasn't he called out when Posade's foot was clearly on the bag with the ball in his glove?

Is there something I am missing?

In the initial play, neither the fielder nor the batter/runner touched the bag, thus there was no play and no signal. If the B/R passed the bag without touching and the fielder received the ball late but touched the bag, the umpire would have signalled safe pending an appeal for the missed bag.

In this , since there was no play this was not an appeal situation and the B/R had to be tagged or called out for being out of his basepath to avoid a tag.

quote:

Originally posted by dw8man:
I have to disagree.

From the 7 to 9 second mark in the video, Posada is clearly standing on top of the bag after Escobar had run past it.

But not as part of the initial play...he was trying to appeal a non-appeal situation and was properly ignored by U1.

It was handled correctly although he did miss the tag but I agree from the umps angle it probably did look like one.

I'm not really sure how to explain it correctly but here's my best shot. Once the runner passes first base the force play is no longer in effect. It now becomes a tag play. Don't ask me to explain it but I'm pretty sure that sums it up. The real guys will be here to clear it up.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

quote:

Originally posted by dw8man:
I have to disagree.

From the 7 to 9 second mark in the video, Posada is clearly standing on top of the bag after Escobar had run past it.

But not as part of the initial play...he was trying to appeal a non-appeal situation and was properly ignored by U1.

Jimmy,
Since the runner never touched to begin with, why is this not a force play, regardless of when it happens?

The play at first is, by definition, not a force play in any situation.

Missing first, but beating the tag of the base is just like missing any other base. It becomes an appeal play.

Hmmm, didn't know that, thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by cabbagedad:
Hmmm, didn't know that, thanks.

Read OBR 2.00 Force Play

I think the runner got hosed. And no, I'm not a Yankee hater, just a concerned baseball; fan, player, coach and umpire. Well, I can't say I'm never an Y hater, they are still on the hapless M's schedule a few times a year.

As I saw it:

1. That's obsruction, kill the play and award 1B, as the obsructed runner was being played on. The lashing out of the right leg by R3 clearly forced the runner to deviate his attempt at the bag.
R3 clearly had no need to be there to field the quality throw. MHO, F3 was spectating instead of doing his job "covering the bag", i.e. "he ain't getting to that, oh, he got it, but it's too late he'll never throw...oh... The right leg goes out before the ball arrived and clearly forced BR to adjust mid stride, why BR missed the bag dead center but to the right side.

Disregarding the obs.

2. There should have been an initial call of safe,
upon the runner passing the bag. Per J/r and I agree. The no call "told" the D that the runner missed the bag, a no, no in my book. This should no way, no how, be called as if a runner missed a base/HP and was scrambling back, he passed the bag before the tag and Safe should have been signaled.

Diregarding the obs and a proper safe signal.

3. Upon a proper appeal, I'd a rung up the runner, even if the D only stepped on the bag and requested it. I'm wondering if F3 actually even appealed verbally?

I would not require the D to chase the runner down the RF line, what if "other runners" as an example.

The rule say's tag the bag or the offending runner, not, you have to chase them down, similar would be the same play at HP, with the runner now standing 1/2 way between HP and the dugout, nope you don't have to chase em. A simple "he missed it" and stepping on the plate, rung up.
Reserve the tag of the runner for those plays where "everybody" in the worlds knows what's happening.

Interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Interesting.

To say the least.

So, let's spin on: regardless of what was called, which training manual was ignored.

If we were writing the rules, how would "you" prefer this play to be handled?

I quoted J03 but only because I felt his respones was, well, "interesting".

Posada had possession of the ball. There was no obstruction.

IMO, the proper mechanic for U1 should have been "Safe - off the bag." Then Posada's obvious appeal of the miss should have been upheld because Escobar was making no effort to return to the base.

Hernandez also called an out on a missed tag, then called the out again when the tag mas made. Not a good job by Angel.

quote:

Hernandez also called an out on a missed tag, then called the out again when the tag mas made. Not a good job by Angel.

When I reivew the link and I saw this the next morning on ESPN I felt Angel called the out for avoiding the tag out of the baseline. It was clear Posada did not tag him on the initial attempt but the runner then tried to dodge his way back and was called out.

I know this is off topic but this call last night in 19th inning of Pirates/Braves is a real head scratcher.

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=17335331

quote:

Originally posted by jjk:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Interesting.

To say the least.

So, let's spin on: regardless of what was called, which training manual was ignored.

If we were writing the rules, how would "you" prefer this play to be handled?

I quoted J03 but only because I felt his respones was, well, "interesting".

According to ML umpire evaluators, Angel's initial no-call was correct for the reasons I cited.

His call of out on a missed tag is another matter.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

According to ML umpire evaluators, Angel's initial no-call was correct for the reasons I cited.

According to the MLBUM, the proper mechanic is for the umpire to call the runner safe when he "beats the play" at 1st base.

The question becomes: What constitutes the "play" at 1st base? I don't think the definition of play applies, since the throw by Cano (F4) constitutes a play on the B/R (and the B/R would never beat that one).

It seems to me that for the purpose of this mechanic, "play" means F3's actual touch of the bag while in possession of the ball. In this case, the B/R did beat the play and should have been ruled safe by Hernandez.

I believe the basis for the mechanic is to not alert the defense to the missed base. It is their job to see the miss and execute a proper appeal. A no call clearly tells the world that the B/R missed the base.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

According to ML umpire evaluators, Angel's initial no-call was correct for the reasons I cited.

\
According to the MLBUM, the proper mechanic is for the umpire to call the runner safe when he "beats the play" at 1st base.

The question becomes: What constitutes the "play" at 1st base? I don't think the definition of play applies, since the throw by Cano (F4) constitutes a play on the B/R (and the B/R would never beat that one).

It seems to me that for the purpose of this mechanic, "play" means F3's actual touch of the bag while in possession of the ball. In this case, the B/R did beat the play and should have been ruled safe by Hernandez.

I believe the basis for the mechanic is to not alert the defense to the missed base. It is their job to see the miss and execute a proper appeal. A no call clearly tells the world that the B/R missed the base.

Their opinion is that there was no play on the runner and F3's touch of first was an invalid appeal (since there was no play) and the runner had to be tagged. In this instance, no call is made since no play was made.

If you review the video, you can see F3 clearly making an appeal as he touches the bag and his touch is not of the "play".

I was asked: Do you signal batter/runners safe at first when there is no play, such as a when the fielder doesn't throw? Same things here...no play, no signal.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Their opinion is that there was no play on the runner and F1's touch of first was an invalid appeal (since there was no play) and the runner had to be tagged. In this instance, no call is made since no play was made.

I was asked: Do you signal batter/runners safe at first when there is no play, such as a when the fielder doesn't throw? Same things here...no play, no signal.

I don't think that's analogous.

Why is the appeal invalid? Escobar was far from the base and was making no effort to return when Posada made the obvious appeal.

Think of it this way - what if Escobar had rounded 1st and made it safely to 2nd. Would he be subject to being out on appeal for his miss at 1st? Of course he would. I can't see how a subsequent attempt at an advance - after a missed base - can create an appeal opportunity that didn't exist when the base was first missed.

It's a good thing I'm not a major league umpire. If it happens in my game I'm calling him safe - off the bag, then honoring the ensuing appeal.

The was no play on the runner. Thus no signal. That simple. If F3 had made a play on the runner, the safe signal would be appropriate.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
The was no play on the runner. Thus no signal. That simple. If F3 had made a play on the runner, the safe signal would be appropriate.

Posada's attempt to tag the base was most certainly a play on Escobar.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
The was no play on the runner. Thus no signal. That simple. If F3 had made a play on the runner, the safe signal would be appropriate.

Posada's attempt to tag the base was most certainly a play on Escobar.

That then is where the disagreement lies. His late tag of the base while staring at the umpire is not seen as part of the initial play.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:


Posada's attempt to tag the base was most certainly a play on Escobar.

That then is where the disagreement lies. His late tag of the base while staring at the umpire is not seen as part of the initial play.

I'm talking about Posada's initial attempt to touch the bag - right after he received the throw, not the appeal. That was most certainly a play on Escobar, as defined in the MLBUM (and supported, specifically, by J/R). If the evaluators contend that is not a play, I would refer them to their own manual:

"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..."

Posada's attempt to stab the base (while he had the ball) is indisputably a play. The evaluators have it wrong. The proper mechanic is to call Escobar safe.

And what about the appeal - why was that "invalid"?

From the same manual: "Batter-runner hits a ground ball and beats the play at first base but misses the bag. Ruling: The proper mechanic is for the umpire to call the runner safe, indicating he beat the play. 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."

Posada's appeal was proper - the runner did not need to be tagged. Escobar should have been banged out right there. They got that one wrong too.

I'm with Dash.