A rules question. Was watching the Yankees game the other night, and Posada caught a throw to the plate and made the tag. Replay made clear that he ahd trapped the ball in his glove by covering the glove with his mask. This was apparently shielded from the ump's view. The broadcasters seemed to imply that Posada had got away with one.

What's the rule? Was this (as described) a good tag? My intuition says yes, but what's the rule?

Thanks!

Not having been the umpire in question, nor having seen that play via replay, I can't picture exactly how it occurred, but I will admit that that's an interesting one, to say the least. Nevertheless, if the mask should touch the ball in any way, which in this case sounded like it did, it would be ruled what we call "detached gear." Pursuant to 7.05(d), if a fielder deliberately touches a thrown ball (as opposed to a fair batted or pitched ball) with his cap, glove, or any other part of his uniform detached from its proper position, all runners are awarded two bases from the bases they occupied at the time of the contact. Of course, if no umpire saw this, there's nothing we could really do

Hey MLB Ump -

I have a question:

When an outfielder catches a fly ball on or near the foul line, why does the umpire always signal if the ball was fair or foul? It doesn't seem to make any difference to me, just an out.

Thanks !

Red,

Even though we do so for informational purposes, we also point fair or foul because if the ball should fall, it may be fair or foul and result in one of a couple different outcomes. Mechanically, we prioritize balls near the line like this. We will signal fair/foul then rule on the catch/no catch. In sum, it's fair/foul, catch/no catch, in that order.

To elaborate even more...

There are 4 types of batted balls:

1. Fair ball
2. Foul ball
3. Foul tip
4. Foul batted ball

Of these, only #2 above is a dead ball. Each of the other three is a live ball situation. Always. #4 is the one about which people most likely haven't heard. It occurs when a fly ball is hit into foul territory for a catch. The ball remains live if caught, and runners can tag and run if they so choose.

When a fly ball is near the line, we first acknowledge its fairness or foulness. Of it's caught, it's live regardless and runners must tag. If it's not caught, it's foul if first touched over foul territory (the ball relative to the line and not where the fielder is); otherwise it's fair. Informational purposes helps to let the runners know if they must necessarily be off right away or need not advance, etc.

Note that if the ball should be foul and dropped but not caught, we won't even bother with the "no catch" part of things. This is because we simply declare, "Foul ball." This kills the ball; it's dead. Runners must return. There's no need for the "no catch" call because it has been precluded by the call of foul ball.

If, however, the ball is fair and dropped, we will first point fair THEN rule no catch. I'm sure you can figure out why. wink

I'm sure this is all quite confusing, but trust me, there is a reason behind this.

[ September 02, 2006, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: MLB UMPIRE ]

Wha are your thoughts on the entire A-Rod "MINE" issue?

Just another attempt by a player to deke out an opponent, something that is common in Major League Baseball. However, actions such as what Alex did are not that common. There is a pervasive belief among many in MLB that Mr. Rodriguez is quite immature.

Now if you're asking my opinion on whether it could have been some type of interference, the answer is yes, but that is a very conditional yes. In Rodriguez's situation it was not, but it could be if certain things had happened that didn't happen.

I saw this almost happen in a game in Fenway today...

If a runner is touched by a batted ball, in fair territory, but is touching a base (other than home, obviously), is he still out?

Depending on the situation, yes. Except for being touched by an Infield Fly while on a base, runners are out of they are hit by a fair batted ball that has not touched or passed an infielder other than the pitcher or catcher. There are some exceptions as I mentioned. If the ball goes past an infielder who could not have made a legitimate attempt to field the ball then hits a runner on or off base but another fielder behind said runner could have made an attempt to field the ball, then the runner is out. Admittedly, in most situations where the ball passes an infielder then hits a runner, the runner will not be out. The times where it does happen are usually when the infielders are playing in.

Batter hits a "walkoff" homerun but misses touching homeplate. He thinks he did, but as his teamates rushed the field to celebrate, his foot never hits the plate. You see the play clearly. How long does the runner have to fully round the bases? How long before you make a call? Do you advise the runner?

We make no call and count the run, as this is an appeal play. The defense must appeal the batter-runner's missing home plate (before all infielders have left fair territory or the catcher has left his area). If they do not, the run counts and the game is over. This is different from base abandonment, by the way. If a runner simply walks off the field and abandons his effort to advance, then we can call him out. In your situation, however, this is not the case.

I'm guessing such an appeal may never occur. After all, the opposing players just walk off the field in disgust. Does anyone actually stand there and watch the hitter round the bases?

Hey Joe,

Good point. I know that in the games I do the defense rarely pays attention. I'd say 99% of the time when they appeal, there's no question that a runner touched a base. They seem to never appeal when a runner does miss a base! Of course, they then argue when I rule a guy safe when he's touched a base.

I'd guess this isn't much different in the Major Leagues. Who really pays attention to that? (They should, though, IMHO.)

There was this one college head coach who was smart. His team's dugout is on the first base side. Whenever the opposition got a hit of any kind or had someone tag up, he had someone on his bench be the person responsible for watching the base touches/tag-ups, with the most attention being paid to first base (a key when there were 2 outs to start with). Twice in one game I called a batter-runner out for missing first base with two outs when runs had scored. The result: all runs nullified! The first time I wiped out 2 runs, the second time 1 run to end the game with the opposition losing by a run. Needless to say security had to escort me off the field and away from the visiting fans.

I would think major league teams do that -- have someone watch to see if a runner misses a base. I've heard broadcasters say that the appeal "was called for from the bench." But on a walk-off homer I doubt anyone would bother paying attention.

Hey ump...

I'm sure I know the answer, and I'm probably just pissed off, but I figured I'd ask anyway...

Is there an "unmarked" running lane between the other bases, similar to the marked one between home and first?

In today's Mets/Phils game, an SNY camera had a great angle of Delgado's throw in the 7th inning hitting Utley. You can clearly see that Utley changed his course of direction, got in the way of the throw and then when he slid into the bag, he barely could touch the bag with his hand. Of course the ball goes into shallow left field and 2 runs score.

If he was running from home to first and that was the catcher throwing, no question the HP umpire would call runner's interference and rule him out.
Why isn't such a call made going from 1st to 2nd?

Thanks

Josh

Josh,

The area to which you refer when discussing the batter-runner going to first is called the running lane. It exists only from home to first and begins halfway down the line. Hence the term "Running Lane Interference."

There are no such running lanes anywhere else on the bases. A runner is not going to be penalized when running between bases in your referenced play unless his interference is intentional because on a thrown ball situation, the interference must be intentional (save for Running Lane Interference).

I kind of figured you would say that (-:
Of course in my extremely biased opinion Utley did intentionally move in the way of Delgado's throw, but certainly Ted Barrett didn't share my view point LOL

Josh

Actually, if you want to blame someone for that play, blame Jose Reyes for not giving Delgado someplace to throw safely. Had Reyes moved to the left or the right, Delgado could've gotten the out.

I just saw this happen at Fenway.

Runner is running through first base, and trips over the first base bag, and lands well into fair territory. First baseman then tags the runner, but he is ruled safe. Why?

I think he has to make a turn towards second base. If he just runs through the base, making no attempt to go to second, it doesn't matter if he happens to fall in fair territory, he can't be tagged out.

Joe's on the right track with his answer, badger. The batter-runner simply overran first base, his tripping over the base notwithstanding. A batter-runner is allowed to even make a wide turn toward second and not be tagged for the out so long as he doesn't actually make an attempt toward second. Once he makes an attempt to go to second he's liable to be tagged out. It's basically up to the umpire's judgment as to whether or not the batter-runner made such an attempt.

Disclaimer----I'm not bringing this up because it was in a Mets game---as I don't think it played any part in the loss to Pittsburgh on Monday.


Two consecutive games where an ejection occurred as a result of an enforcement of rule 7.08C.
Now I'm understanding that there is a marked difference between the pro rule and the federation/NCAA rule regarding this situation.

In NFHS, the runner has to make a clear attempt towards second base in order to be tagged out after overrunning first on a hit.

However, the wording in 7.08C doesn't say that. It indicates that a runner may not even hesitate after overrunning the bag or they risk being put out on a tag.

So---what defines "hesitate"?
After watching replays of both the Argenis Reyes play on Monday and the BJ Upton play on Tuesday, I think most would agree that there was no attempt made by either runner to advance to second base (as neither of their upper bodies turned, which needs to happen in order to go from first to second).
However, I agree that both runners may have waited a second or two before returning to first, thus Joe West and Jerry Meals called their respective runners out.
So again, what's hesitate, and where are the exceptions, and what's a general rule of thumb for an umpire to use when umpiring a game under pro rules.
Certainly, there are cases where a runner injures themselves running to first. They may be safe on the play, but because of their injury they can't make it back to first quickly, and I can't recall any play where they were tagged out as a result?

I appreciate your insight on what your interpretation of the rule and if you know these particular 2 plays are.

Thanks

Josh

I haven't seen the Mets play... but there was absolutely no reason at all for Upton to be called out. The ONLY move Upton made anywhere close to being a move towards second was when he attempted to get out of the way of the ball. Absolutely terrible call. Period.

But what makes it worse is Darling's quote to the media (Meals couldn't talk to the media? seriously?) that he's called people out for less. FOR LESS?! Upton didn't do anything to begin with so it's pretty amazing he's called people out for less.

Josh,

7.08c has two parts to it that come into play, either one of which may be invoked to call a runner out. A batter-runner who makes any type of attempt to advance to second can be out if tagged after overrunning first base. In addition, he can also be called out when tagged if he doesn't "immediately return" to first base, notwithstanding his never having made an attempt to advance to second. Admittedly, both are up to the judgment of the umpire and are rather vague terms. Personally, I find it difficult to sustain an out on a B-R overrunning first base unless he made some kind of attempt to advance to second.

As far as Darling's quote to the media: he is the Crew Chief. Major League Baseball permits only the Crew Chiefs to speak to the media when asked about a ruling or play that occurred in a game. Because Meals was not the Crew Chief, he was not permitted to address the issue.

In the bottom of the 10th between the Rays and White Sox, AJ Pierzynski got in a pickle, yet was awarded 3rd base on interference. AJ appeared to create the interference himself by extending his arm. Was the correct call made?

Hey, badge, I was actually at that game! I was seated in the club level tickets right by 3rd base, directly above and down the line from the play. As soon as I saw it, I said, "AJ's trying to get an obstruction call on the Tampa fielder!" Sure enough, seconds later Eddings (of the 2005 ALCS dropped third strike fame) makes the obstruction call!

Even from where I sat I could tell AJ stuck his arm out and purposely fell to the ground in an attempt to win an Academy Award for worst acting.

It was Eddings? Oh wow. AJ must certainly have some pictures of Eddings doing some interesting things... oh crap, I hope that's not the identity of our resident ump!

Nah, I don't think it is. I have an idea, but this isn't a gossip or rumor column.

BTW, a few days ago MLB issued a statement that admitted the call was incorrect. Included in that statement was the admission by Eddings that after he reviewed everything a couple days later, he agreed he made the wrong call.

Ah, of course. Thanks for clarifying that.

Hey ump---got a question on a real play that was routine, but i'd like to throw in a hypothetical situation based on this play that I couldn't get clarified by reading rule 7.10.

Last monday in LA, the Mets and Dodgers were tied in the 11th with 2 outs and Ryan Church on first base. Angel Pagan belts a potential go-ahead triple to right center field. However, Church misses third base (I'm still perplexed how a major league ball player can miss a bag by that wide of a margin but I digress) and is called out on appeal.

I know that appeal plays differ widely in NFHS vs pro and that being said it's been an extremely long time since I've had a missed base appeal (since in NFHS I can call a runner out without an appeal even being made--plus in NFHS, most appeals are dead ball appeals since the coach usually calls time before throwing to the bag).

Anyway, I do know from 7.10 that all appeals in pro are live ball appeals. So what happens if when the Dodgers were appealing Church missing the bag--Pagan would have broken home for the plate? Do they have to make a play on him prior to the appeal or only after? If they chose to retire the runner first, would Church's run actually have counted or could the appeal still have been made?

I know none of this stuff actually occurred, but I'm wondering what the interpretations are if during a live ball appeal, runners start to advance (balks and wild throws are covered in the rule, but this situation doesn't appear to be defined as clearly).

As always, thanks for your clarifications!

Josh

Good morning, Josh.

In professional baseball (and under Official Baseball Rules), if the defense makes a play on a runner in the manner in which you explain, they lose the right to make an appeal on any runner who missed a base. Therefore, if Pagan goes home and the defense throws to try and retire him at the plate, they lose the right to appeal Church missing third.

I do not know what Federation rules say on this, but I do know that under NCAA Rules, if the offense initiates such a play, the defense does not lose the right to an appeal. They would be able to appeal following their play on Pagan at home.

MLB Ump,

How do you feel about Rule 7.05(g) in a situation like Tuesday night in St. Petersburg? I'm obviously not arguing with the application of the rule as it was clearly applied correctly, but do you think it's something that should be looked at in the future?

The situation, if you're not aware, was this: runner at first is Zobrist, the batter Aybar lays down a bunt. Pitcher plays it and throws it into left field. 300 feet away. Into the Rays bullpen - amazingly, the ball skips into a bag of balls in the bullpen. Zobrist was already around third when the ball became dead.

Is this a situation that you like having the rule explicitly tell you what to do (two bases) or would you like the ability to make a judgment call there?

I think the rule works great for when an infielder throws the ball into the dugout or the stands, but in this instance, when the ball is in play for so long as it rolls into left field...

(On a side note, it was really embarrassing hearing the Rays broadcast crew go on and on about how "bad" of a "call" it was. It took me two seconds to look it up in the rule book and to realize it was in fact the right call [I had just never seen a play in which that rule was enforced when it wasn't a throw into the dugout or the stands and thus wanted to see, but the rule is clearly cut and dry... I guess with only two parks having on-field bullpens, it's probably not common to have it happen like it did though]... they didn't figure it out for at least an inning when they talked to one of your supervisors, Jim McKean. Very embarrassing.)

hey ump...i hope your 2011 season is starting off well (and of course that you are still visiting these boards)...

I'm wondering if you can offer an opinion on 3 interference calls that occurred throughout baseball yesterday...

First...Larry Vanover calls Ike Davis out for interfering with Ian Desmond in the 8th inning. Looks to me like that was absolutely the correct call.

Then, in SD, Ed Hickox calls out a Padres runner to end the game for interference in the bottom of the 9th. Also, looked like 100% correct.

However, in the top of the 13th in Anaheim, Bob Davidson calls out a Blue Jays runner for interference with the Angels third baseman.

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=13640527

Not sure I really see the interference in that one. Can you offer up the rule interpretation on the Davidson call?

Thanks
Josh

Josh,



Yes, I still visit the boards. I visit more than I post, but I’m still reading them.



With respect to your referenced situation here, if Bob believed the runner hindered the fielder’s making the play on the ball (making the play includes fielding it and throwing it to a fielder to retire a runner), he can rule interference. Because the replay shows the action in something other than real time, it’s rather difficult to say whether Bob erred or not. Remember, ultimately it’s his judgment—good or bad.