14 replies to this topic

[David_Nicoson]

Runner avoids the tag but misses the plate. In MLB (and baseball in general, I suppose), I believe the correct thing for the umpire to do is signal nothing. Right?

Does anybody know what the current ASA rules say for this situation?

[fryer98]

Runner avoids the tag but misses the plate. In MLB (and baseball in general, I suppose), I believe the correct thing for the umpire to do is signal nothing. Right?

Does anybody know what the current ASA rules say for this situation?

In MLB, they signal nothing, until the player leaves the home plate area, which is the dirt around the plate, they are out. I would guess that in ASA, it's the same for when the player leaves the field into the dugout area, he is out.

Just a guess though.

[aadams_22]

Runner avoids the tag but misses the plate. In MLB (and baseball in general, I suppose), I believe the correct thing for the umpire to do is signal nothing. Right?

Does anybody know what the current ASA rules say for this situation?

We have Pony Baseball/Softball here in Illinois, and the way it was always done here was the umpire signaled nothing. It was up to the other manager to pay attention, and make sure to have one of his players with the ball tag out the runner before he enters the dugout or touch home plate if the runner is already in the dugout. If neither was done the run counted.

[David_Nicoson]

They technically have to appeal this in MLB, but I guess it should be obvious to the defense if there's not been a signal.

7.08
Any runner is out when --

(k) In running or sliding for home base, he fails to touch home base and makes no attempt to return to the base, when a fielder holds the ball in his hand, while touching home base, and appeals to the umpire for the decision.
Rule 7.08(k) Comment: This rule applies only where runner is on his way to the bench and the catcher would be required to chase him. It does not apply to the ordinary play where the runner misses the plate and then immediately makes an effort to touch the plate before being tagged. In that case, runner must be tagged.

[Nikki_N]

We wouldn't be having this discussion if I weren't too chicken to slide.

[thehidden]

why slide when u can just run the catcher over...i used to lovet getting run over

[David_Nicoson]

We wouldn't be having this discussion if I weren't too chicken to slide.

OK, well now I'm caught for bitching about umpires again.

This is what happened.

1. Our heroine runs across the plate and catches just the corner of the plate, beating the tag.
2. Umpire says and signals safe.
3. Heroine goes back to touch the plate just to make sure.
4. Catcher tags heroine before she reaches the plate.
5. Umpire calls out.

I think the umpire concluded that the heroine must've missed the plate. Otherwise, why does she go back?

MLB and Little League rules both define SAFE the same way:

"SAFE" is a declaration by the umpire that a runner is entitled to the base for which he was trying.

So a reversal here is nonsensical by baseball rules. There's not really any new evidence to consider after the run scores.

[mcpickl]

Runner avoids the tag but misses the plate. In MLB (and baseball in general, I suppose), I believe the correct thing for the umpire to do is signal nothing. Right?

Does anybody know what the current ASA rules say for this situation?

ASA rules are the same

signal nothing

[David_Nicoson]

ASA rules are the same

signal nothing

Great. Thanks!

[mulhs82]

OK, well now I'm caught for bitching about umpires again.

This is what happened.

1. Our heroine runs across the plate and catches just the corner of the plate, beating the tag.
2. Umpire says and signals safe.
3. Heroine goes back to touch the plate just to make sure.
4. Catcher tags heroine before she reaches the plate.
5. Umpire calls out.

I think the umpire concluded that the heroine must've missed the plate. Otherwise, why does she go back?

MLB and Little League rules both define SAFE the same way:

"SAFE" is a declaration by the umpire that a runner is entitled to the base for which he was trying.

So a reversal here is nonsensical by baseball rules. There's not really any new evidence to consider after the run scores.

My guess is that the umpire figured that since the runner beat the throw and would not miss home plate, then she was safe. Once the ump made the safe call, there is no reason for the runner to go back to the bag. That is basically admitting to not touching the plate.

I'm guessing the ump wasn't too sure about the original call and once the runner turned back to get to the plate, he assumed that the plate was missed and since there was a tag before the runner got back, the call was changed.

As for your deduction about the change of calls is correct. the only example I could come up with would be an appeal of a tag up on a fly ball.

[timwakefield]

OK, well now I'm caught for bitching about umpires again.

This is what happened.

1. Our heroine runs across the plate and catches just the corner of the plate, beating the tag.
2. Umpire says and signals safe.
3. Heroine goes back to touch the plate just to make sure.
4. Catcher tags heroine before she reaches the plate.
5. Umpire calls out.

I think the umpire concluded that the heroine must've missed the plate. Otherwise, why does she go back?

Umpires are stupid, and sometimes forget that they MUST ignore any subsequent action after they've made a ruling.

The same thing happened in the playoffs a couple years ago, and it was a pretty huge deal. I believe it was the ChiSox vs the Angels, with the Sox batting in the 8th or something, with 2 outs and first base open. Batter strikes out swinging on a ball down low, catcher catches it in the dirt, umpire appears to rule him out (he made an 'out' signal, which he later ridiculously claimed meant a swing-and-miss), catcher tosses the ball to the mound and heads to the dugout, batter runs to first, umpire rules him safe, ChiSox come back and win.

Obviously the umpire must have concluded that the catcher trapped the ball. Otherwise why would the batter run to first?


Ok so I've thought about it a little more, and I'm gonna continue my two-year-old rant for a minute. So the umpire has 2 calls to make: Did the batter foul tip the ball, and did the catcher catch the ball? He decided that the clearest way to make those calls would be to signal "out" with his fist, and of course everybody should know that the fist-pump clearly means "strike three but the ball is still live."

[TMoneyBags]

I found it comical. As much as I hate the White Sox and their entire poorly run organization, I hate the Angels equally and I still kind of like AJ Pierzkynski. Go AJ

[SilverSeven]

Umpires are stupid, and sometimes forget that they MUST ignore any subsequent action after they've made a ruling.

The same thing happened in the playoffs a couple years ago, and it was a pretty huge deal. I believe it was the ChiSox vs the Angels, with the Sox batting in the 8th or something, with 2 outs and first base open. Batter strikes out swinging on a ball down low, catcher catches it in the dirt, umpire appears to rule him out (he made an 'out' signal, which he later ridiculously claimed meant a swing-and-miss), catcher tosses the ball to the mound and heads to the dugout, batter runs to first, umpire rules him safe, ChiSox come back and win.

Obviously the umpire must have concluded that the catcher trapped the ball. Otherwise why would the batter run to first?
Ok so I've thought about it a little more, and I'm gonna continue my two-year-old rant for a minute. So the umpire has 2 calls to make: Did the batter foul tip the ball, and did the catcher catch the ball? He decided that the clearest way to make those calls would be to signal "out" with his fist, and of course everybody should know that the fist-pump clearly means "strike three but the ball is still live."

I remember this play and I disagree with your analysis. You claim that the umpire made the "out" signal, but the closed fist is actually the right mechanic to signal the swinging third strike.

When I umpire and this situation happens, I make 2 signals. The first one is the closed fist above my head to signal strike three and then the second one is a punching motion in front of my chest to signal the out. So if I just show the fist without punching him out, the ball was trapped and the runner is still good to try for first. The umpire in that situation was exactly right imo.

As for the OP, yeah the ump screwed that one up big time...safe means safe...

[timwakefield]

I remember this play and I disagree with your analysis. You claim that the umpire made the "out" signal, but the closed fist is actually the right mechanic to signal the swinging third strike.

When I umpire and this situation happens, I make 2 signals. The first one is the closed fist above my head to signal strike three and then the second one is a punching motion in front of my chest to signal the out. So if I just show the fist without punching him out, the ball was trapped and the runner is still good to try for first. The umpire in that situation was exactly right imo.

As for the OP, yeah the ump screwed that one up big time...safe means safe...

Perhaps I have been proven wrong then . I thought the ump was supposed to signal that the ball was still live after calling strike three, if in fact it was still live.

However, the umpire definitely DID make one mistake on the play, which is that the catcher caught the ball on the fly, as the replays showed.

[SilverSeven]

Perhaps I have been proven wrong then . I thought the ump was supposed to signal that the ball was still live after calling strike three, if in fact it was still live.

However, the umpire definitely DID make one mistake on the play, which is that the catcher caught the ball on the fly, as the replays showed.

Sometimes, I'll point the ground after calling strike three to let everybody know it was a trapped ball, but that definitely is not the official signal. I don't recall ever seeing a pro ump make that signal.

You're right, I remember now, the catch was clean, it was an awful call.