Sooo.... Holding the ball and stepping on the bag for 5 seconds isn't unmistakable enough? If there were no outs it clearly would have been a triple play.... Does the player have to shout "hey ump, give me the other one too"? What if he can't use his voice for some reason? Does he need to take two steps away and then take a giant step back onto the bag to show he's tagging off R3?
I watched and rewatched...I still don't get it. R3 never tagged his bag. So even though the "rules" say he scored with all these rules that have been added over the years. ie: the defense getting to choose which appeal, that's just silly. Or that the runner scored before the 3rd out counts as a score negating the fact that he didn't tag up, also silly. Now if he did tag his bag and scored before the 3rd out, then I can understand but I'm gonna die on this hill, that was not a legitimate score.
Despite the surrounding chaos, the rule is clear: 5.09(a) 5: Regarding when a runner is out: He fails to retouch his base after a fair or foul ball is legally caught before he, or his base, is tagged by a fielder. He shall not be called out for failure to retouch his base after the first following pitch, or any play or attempted play. This is an appeal play; Stepping on the base intentionally is an appeal. If the fielder had fallen on the base that would not have been a "tag", and thus not an appeal, but that is not the scenario as Adrianza was explicit about his action both during and after.
Here's my question: Since there is no such thing as a dead ball/verbal appeal in OBR, had the Nationals' infielders remained on the field, how could they have obtained that 4th out? The play became dead. The coaches were on the field! At the time, there were three outs so, officially, the inning is over and the run scores. Had the defense wanted to appeal that R3 left early, the ball would have to be made live again. How does that happen? In order to put the ball back in play you have to have 1) the pitcher on the rubber with possession of the ball, 2) the batter in the batter's box and 3) the catcher in the catcher's box. How can they check all those requirements be met if, at the time, there are three outs and the inning is over? Who would be the batter? Why would any batter step into the batter's box if the current status of the inning is that three outs have already been recorded?
Sooooo 1. Batter out on caught line drive (second out of the inning) 2. R2 who left his base early is out on the tag by the third baseman (as an appeal) (third out of the inning) 3. R3 who left his base early scores even though he didn't properly tag up (because there was no proper appeal) (and because he crossed home plate before third out).
To some commenters here (especially YOU Damian) who keep saying the umpire made a bad call (or lack thereof), let's remember again that verbiage that an appeal has to be clear and unmistakable. Even if the incidental foot on the bag immediately after tagging the runner was the fielder's way of appealing, it obviously was not clear and unmistakable. Do you know why? Because the umpire did not call the runner out on this unclear and non-appeal. The umpire didn't miss anything. He didn't get it wrong. He simply made no call, which means the appeal was not clear and unmistakable to him; ergo, it wasn't an appeal at all. Do you know what WAS actually VERY CLEAR and unmistakable? The umpire clearly pointing to the tagged runner and declaring him out. At that point, it should have been clear and unmistakable to the fielder that his appeal (if he was even really did intend to appeal in the first place) was not valid, and he should at that point have made a clear and deliberate step on the bag and declare his appeal to the umpire. It's as easy as that. The fielder blew this play, not the umpire. What's more, given that most players in the league probably have no idea that this rule exists, you can still make the case that the fielder didn't know the rule and was confused by the situation, and only stepped on the bag after making the tag because A. his momentum was carrying him in that direction, and / or B. he wanted to make sure the runner he was tagging was really out. Saying he was trying to appeal is giving the fielder a massive benefit of the doubt, and even if he was trying to appeal, he didn't do so clearly and unmistakably. Correct call on the field all the way.
tl;dr, so sorry if this has already been asked/covered: I'm not understanding why an appeal is even part of the conversation, and here's my understanding of the situation: The play starts with one out, Park on 2nd (R2) and Suwinski on 3rd (R3). Hayes lines out for out #2, as called on the field by the 1st base umpire. R2 & R3 are now at their own risk, but need to tag up before they advance up or risk being put out prior to returning to their respective bases (unless, of course, the fielding team allows them to advance without making the effort to put them out). The moment Adrianza tags R2 (who is on 3rd base), he's out, for the 3rd out of the inning, and whatever happens with R3 doesn't matter, because the inning is over. If R3 had tagged up AND scored PRIOR to R2 being put out, THEN the run should count as he would have scored legally prior to the 3rd out. Am I making sense at all? It just feels like there was a fundamental error on the part of the umpires here. I look forward to replies!
The failire to tag up does not inherently prevent a runner advancing. It is quite legal to be on first, not tag up after the batter is caught, round the bases while failing to touch second or third and then jump clear over home plate, and unless the defense appeals one of your many baserunning infractions you will be awarded the run. It may or may not be a good rule, but it is the current one. In this case, because he crossed home before R2 was out for not tagging up (which is an appeal and thus a time play, not a force) he has legally scored unless the defense appeals against him specifically.
@@vonskyme9133 Right, I kind of forgot the umpire crew's passive responsibility regarding baserunners. Basically, it's the defensive team's responsibility to call out of a runner fails to tag up or misses a base (on appeal), and the umpire's job to confirm that. I really think that should change. The players are there to play a game, not enforce the rules. If an umpire sees a baserunning infraction, they should call it out in the moment, much like they do for interference.
Looks good to me. The only issue is whether R2 was tagged before R3 crossed home, in which case the inning would end before the run scores. In this case, the appeal at third should have been the question of whether R3 left early OR whether the tag on R2 preceded R3 scoring. Neither of those appeals apparently happened. The Nats left the field before the umpires made their determination of whether the run scored, but Adrianza had technically made the appeal at third before he left, with the umpire walking away after signalling the out on R2, leaving all other appeals unanswered. Adrianza remained on third as the umpire walked away, twisting his foot on the bag as the runner also left, and the Nats cleared the field as the umps conferred. On the play, the first base umpire signalled the line out for the second out, and the third base umpire signalled the tag out for the third out, but none of the umps registered the appeal that Adrianza made by staring at the umpire while standing on the base after the throw to third. Edit - 5.09(a) 5: Regarding when a runner is out: He fails to retouch his base after a fair or foul ball is legally caught before he, or his base, is tagged by a fielder. He shall not be called out for failure to retouch his base after the first following pitch, or any play or attempted play. This is an appeal play;
I'm not sure how you can construe Adrianza staring after the lead runner, immediately looking to the umpire for the appeal, running to the bag, tagging a runner standing on the bag, stepping on the bag, keeping your foot on the bag, getting one appeal, turning and looking back to the thrower (who also looked to the lead runner before throwing to third) while keeping your foot on the bag, after having already glanced at the lead runner, keeping the tag and your foot applied while glancing back at the umpire who has already started walking off despite the fielder still standing on the bag clearly indicating his movement is intentional and not a "wierd little leg stretch" or "a superstitious OCD motion" or "just liking to feel rubber under the cleats sometimes", waiting there after the initial single appeal is granted but (apparently, in retrospect) the second appeal being denied, is "incidentally putting your foot on the bag and insufficient to represent an appeal"... which the Nats only find out isn't granted when the umpires, independently of the initial appeal(s), indicate that the run scores. If the stare and standing directly ON THE BASE with someone else present on it, twisting your foot to indicate that the contact is intentional, believing your appeal for the lead runner is denied, and then confronting umpires about the nature of the appeals only to be told that you can't appeal something (that you believe you've already appealed) after leaving the field despite the very rule you cited indicating the fielder's choice of simultaneous 4th out appeals to get the better one (which probably is what confused Adrianza since he did indicate an appeal to the lead runner in multiple ways), is still "incidental, unclear appeal" despite both runners leaving well before the ball was caught and anyone can see that, which would explain literally any action taken by anyone on the field during that sequence, then i don't know what to tell you. Bell threw to third. That should be your first indication of intent, since the runner from 2nd was practically on *third and so threw behind the runner so as to not hit him...and he knew he had caught it so it wasn't going to be a tag out. Bell throws to third, Adrianza stands on third while ensuring the runner doesn't go anywhere. There was additional footage of Bell seemingly calling for a separate appeal or at least adding additional commentary after the initial appeal verdict while still on the field, but that was apparently wholly ignored, and the umpires began waving the rest of the umpire crew onto the field as to indicate a review process. I couldn't tell where Bell was pointing but someone said he was pointing at a fielder on 2nd who was waiting there for another appeal, but Adrianza indicated they already had 3 outs, and didn't get the 4th. Adrianza later said that the umpire eventually told him he didn't see him standing on the base despite him clearly standing on the base. Clearly his actions were "mistakeable" but only from the outcome. You can't appeal an appeal, so what else is Adrianza supposed to do, besides sit down on the base and refuse to leave, or say, in the thick of it, "sir, are you absolutely sure you don't want to give me the out since i don't know when the runner crossed home exactly or even whether you've ruled the catch a catch? I'm standing on the bag. See? This is me--standing on the bag. Notice me doing this? I'm not sure which out i can get here, which is why i am staring into your soul and both standing on the bag and applying the tag simultaneously and you have a clear view of all of it...as opposed to the guy who threw the ball to third presumably to get the appeal since otherwise he would have looked to second for the force out. You saw me stare at the lead runner, then at you, then tag the base, right? I'm glad you gave us the one out...which isn't what we're looking for exactly unless that's your ruling, but i mean, you're the ump. I know we can't appeal appeals, right? I figure i'll get the better of the two outs...right? That's how this works, even after we leave the field, since i'm pretty sure if you don't think he left early this will get sent to the tape anyway. I respect you too much to show you up. There are rules, you know?"
Holy shit you're so mad lol All Adrianza had to do was step on the base and either point to the lead runner, or tell the umpire "he left third base early," and the run doesn't score. Looking at the umpire isn't obviously an appeal for R3 when you're also tagging R2; it looks like he's confirming that the umpire is calling R2 out. "B-b-b-b-but he stepped on the bag! What else does he need to do?!?" Literally anything to call attention to his apparent intentions.
"Line drive was ruled caught; batter is out. By tagging the runner, Minnesota appealed that the runner left 2nd before the catch. Runner was ruled out. Since Minnesota failed to properly appeal the runner leaving 3rd early before leaving the field, they lose the ability to appeal. The run scores."
The announcers were horrific in this situation. Spreading more misinformation and complaining that the fans take and then fill comments like these with complaints. The umpires nailed the call. The third baseman should know that the runner on third left early, that's one of his responsibilities and he should have explicitly stepped on the bag to make that appeal first before appealing the other runner. Even if it doesn't matter in this situation make it clear and explicit what you are going for to the umpire. Who knows what was in the third baseman's head as he randomly stepped on the base after tagging the runner without saying anything. Considering the third baseman just sat on the ground for a minute after catching the throw makes it clear that he didn't notice any runners leaving early and just heard his teammates yelling "Tag him!". The rule is complicated but not very hard and the Nationals messed up appeal rules twice, by not appealing a missed base before that in the first place that would have been a free out, and by their players being unaware and not knowing the rules costing them a run. The rule is perfectly fine. An appeal has to be a clear separate effort. Make a blatant step onto the base while looking at the umpire, say who you're appealing. Then tag the runner. The third baseman had no clue what he was doing and none of the announcers had a clue about anything aside from spreading BS and false outrage for everyone to think is the truth.
Brilliant post! Juxtapose this poor understanding of the rules with hall of fame shortstop Derek Jeter who did it right. Tom Hallion had a mic on when #2 looked at him as he stepped on second base and said,” Runner missed base.” Hallion said,” Which runner?” Mr. Jeter said,” First runner by.” Mr. Hallion said,” Safe,” and signaled safe. Jeter then said,” Second runner by.” as he stepped on second base again. Hallion again said,”’Safe,” as he signaled safe. Jeter didn’t get an out but he knew how to appeal. You can view his plaque at a museum in a small village in upstate New York.
Wow those Nationals announcers are brutal. Not knowing the rule is one thing, but falsely accusing the umpires of mismanaging the situation and even advocating the Nationals protest the game (MLB no longer even allows protests anymore) is inexcusable.
I love the format of these videos because the situational commentary almost makes it sound sarcastic. "Nope, not reviewable" has the same energy as "You idiot."
9:15 The timing of calling the ruling brutal when Davy Martinez comes out, considering a year later, he would call the ruling of the Astros not being out of the baseline brutal
So much of this would be resolved as far as the broadcast is concerned, if broadcasters had access to rules experts like they do in the NFL and NHL. I don’t expect broadcasters to understand every little nuance of the rules, but they’re obviously guessing here and they’re not very good at it. Having access to a retired umpire as a rules expert (or access to close call sports) would be outstanding.
I think people are getting mixed up by what an "appeal" is. Tagging a runner who did not tag up at his base on a caught line drive or fly ball is an out by rule. There is no appeal happening. Now if the runner makes it to his next bag safely (and is called safe by the ump) after leaving his previous bag early and then the defense tags him while he is standing on his new bag, he is safe. However, the defense now needs to make an appeal to the ump at the base the runner vacated by, before the next pitch, having the pitcher throw the ball to that bag. That initiates the appeal process and the ump will make the call of out (he left early) or safe (he did not). Now, if the runner was not tagged while standing on his new base, he is still out because he is now doubled off of his old base by the appeal throw going to that base. However, if he was not tagged at any point between the play ending and the defense appealing and he realizes he did not tag up he can still retreat to his previous bag and will be safe if he is either not tagged or beats the throw there (but it will be a force-out, he does not need to be tagged). So at 10:18 when the 3rd baseman tags the runner he looks at the ump for the out signal. Because the runner had obviously left 2nd before the catch was made, the umpire correctly made the out call. NO APPEAL WAS MADE. TAGGING A RUNNER FOR AN OUT IS NOT AN APPEAL. Now if the ump had called the runner safe, then the defense would make an official appeal to the 2nd base ump to ask if he left early, which the 2nd base ump would confirm and the runner would be out at that time. Then when the 3rd baseman touches third (which happens a split second later) the ump never makes an out or safe call for the runner that left 3rd, as the inning ended with the runner on 3rd being called out. The 3rd baseman should have realized this when the ump specifically pointed at the runner and signaled "out" and made no other official call. At that point the players needed to get back to their positions and make an official appeal (the only one of the inning and the only one needed) too the 3rd base ump who would have confirmed the runner left early, that the bag was touched, and that the runner is out, now the 4th out of the inning, and that the run did not score. Therefore there would have been 4 outs in one inning to prevent the run from scoring. 3 outs was not enough.
That's interesting, because if its an out by rule, then no appeal is necessary for the apparent signal the ump made. Adrianza looking to the umpire for an appeal while standing on third would be the most logical signal of intent (besides Bell throwing to third rather than second). Edit - your comment isn't technically correct. Per 5.09(a) 5: Regarding when a runner is out: He fails to retouch his base after a fair or foul ball is legally caught before he, or his base, is tagged by a fielder. He shall not be called out for failure to retouch his base after the first following pitch, or any play or attempted play. This is an appeal play;
You are the one getting mixed up by what an "appeal" is. Tagging a runner who did not tag up at his base on a caught line drive or fly ball is an appeal. There is no need for the defense to get back to their positions and make an appeal unless time was called. You don't seem to understand that appeals can be made during continuous live action.
Lindsay provided expert analysis. It’s a timing play. R-3 touched home plate before the third out was recorded. Run scores unless a legal appeal is made for a forth out which negates the run. Once the incompetent Nats. left the infield the opportunity to appeal was lost. Umpire perfection and perfect analysis by C.C.S.
So question if the mats tag the bag first and then the runner at that point the run doesn’t count because that is their first appeal. If they tag the runner prior to the bag the run scores because the run cross prior to tag being made?
@@charlesbarber5157 No. In this case the Nats must touch 3rd, AND clearly indicate to the umpire which runner's actions they are appealing, i.e. R3. Physically tagging R2 is obvious, but this is where the timing comes into play. R3 had crossed the plate prior to R2 being tagged. The run scores unless the Nats explicitly appeal that play (they didn't) or all infielders have left the field of play which they did. The run counts.
It looks to me that Adrianza touched third base intentionally while also tagging the runner on third. That should constitute two appeals, regardless of in which order they were recorded. According to Adrianza after the game the umpire said he didn't see him on the base and only saw the tag. In other words, touching the bag wasn't "incidental" and so the appeal was technically made by the Nats before they left the field, even if the umpire didn't see it. @@greenmanofkent
I've been watching baseball for 60 years and have never seen this exact play. I'll bet not one in a hundred players, much less fans, would have known the right solution.
It has happened at least twice before, in 1989 and 2009. In 2009, the Dodgers came out of the dugout to say the run should be awarded after all the D’Backs had left fair territory. In 1989, Larry Barnett did it automatically and explained it to the media after the game.
Rare occurrence yes. Knowing the right way to play it? They should. It’s like if a runner in a force out try’s to get in a run down to allow another runner to score, everyone would be scream step on second. This one isn’t nearly that obvious but they should still know take the force out not the tag out, it makes a difference.
@@nickpoole583 no run can ever score when a force out is the third out, or the third out is at first base before the batter/ runner has touched first base.
Remember NFL Ref Ed Hochuli? He was so good at explaining the intricacies of a ruling. Too bad Wegner here didn't do that; it was a perfect opportunity missed. This is hopefully where the evolution of the mics go: explaining a ruling and also announcing who gets ejected.
Agree completely. I am hopeful this will improve in years to come as baseball umpires are just this year “broadcasting” to their stadiums. Which means none of them had practice - much less developed training - in announcing protocol.
Mark Wegner is doing what the league has instructed him to do. He did not fail. An explanation of a fourth out appeal during a game would not be understood and would take time.
It is amazing that the announcers and managers think the umpires don’t know the rules. The umpires miss a lot of judgement calls, but very few rules. The announcers probably get paid a lot more than umpires, so maybe they should go to classes to learn the rules that they get paid to comment on.
This isn’t me trying to say the umpires are wrong. I understand the fourth out appeal didn’t happen. I also understand umpires deserve a heck of a lot more credit for what they do, knowing all these rules and getting paid a small fraction of all these players and coaches that SHOULD know the rules but don’t. However, is it possible for the home plate or third base umpire to just say (while the first play is live) that the runner doesn’t score because he didn’t tag?
It doesn't matter if it goes out of play? Does that mean we now have beer league softball rules for homeruns? No need to run the bases, it went out of play. Come back to the dugout and have another beer! You earned it!
@@johncurley8486 If a runner misses the plate and is not appealed, does his run score? Of course. But he violated the rules by failing to touch the plate. There is no violation until the runner is appealed.
I disagree on the last point, the rule clearly says “inadvertently”. F5 didn’t inadvertently step on 3B, he stepped on 3B on purpose. He didn’t trip and fall or run into the base by accident. With purpose and intent, he stepped on the base with the ball in his glove and looking right at the umpire. It does not get more clear and obvious than that.
What's even more clear and obvious is the 3B saying "The runner didn't tag up before scoring". He didn't say that because he didn't know that the runner didn't tag up, replay shows he was watching the popup when the runner took off.
That has nothing to do with the play or appeal. You don’t have to verbalize the appeal. The rule says INADVERTENTLY stepping on or touching a base is not a valid appeal. He stepped in 3B with full control of himself and intent.
@@GENEticSportsNetwork the rule doesn't say that, actually, the explanatory note just give the example that inadvertent stepping is one of the things that would mean it was not an appeal. It's not the only thing, for example deliberate stepping on the base out of general principles would not be an appeal. The explanatory note DOES say that an appeal must be unmistakable. This may ir may not have been intended as an appeal, but it's definitely not unmistakable.
The pay was not officiated correctly, the umps awarded a run to a player who didn’t tag up, they screwed up. The “appeal” was officiated correctly but it’s only the result of the umps screwing up horribly in the first place
It don’t matter , these are outs and should not require a replay. They can get together and say. “It’s a catch “ and the rest is in the books. This should not even be a conversation after that.
The problem is, they're only outs on appeal. They're not force outs, and the umpire is not allowed to give them out without an unmistakable appeal for that specific runner.
@Damian No, the defense didn't properly appeal to get R3 out nullifying the run. The umpires can't tell them "hey make sure you appeal R3 too before you leave the field" Not their fault the defense is stupid and left without getting the 4th out.
@Damian part of what you said is correct, but since they could have appealed 2 plays they would get to declare which of those plays they wanted to be the 3rd out IF THEY STAYED ON THE FIELD. Once they left the field then the tag of R2 is the 3rd out, and since R3 crossed the plate before this tag, his run counts. This is what the umpires ruled and they are correct.
@@jeredratliff7726 at what point would they be given the option to declare which out they wanted to keep? Because as far as I see they were never given that option. Or what should the D done different to get it outcome they wanted? He steps on the base and seem insistent on that as to say “I’m tagging him and stepping on the base to get R3 out. I’m getting them all out.” At that point what else should the 3rd baseman have done to obtain the option in the 4th out rule?
@@nickpoole583 understandable questions as this is a confusing scenario. From my understanding - which I think aligns with the rulebook - the outs are recorded in the order they are made by the defense. The fielder doesn't get to make both outs and then declare 'a fiat' which order he wants them in. The 'declaration' is made based on the order the outs are made. This is a weird scenario because well over 99% of the time you are just looking for 3 outs and the order of them does not matter. But since the 3rd out was not a force-out, this left open the possibility of a 'timing play,' where a run can score on the same play during which the 3rd out is made. The runner was tagged for the 3rd out, which means that R3 (the runner who began the play at 3rd base) could only be declared out by appeal. The defense subsequently lost the ability to appeal this out when they left the field. My perception is that they left the field as a way of persuading the outcome of the play but it actually cost them the opporutnunity to appeal this rare 4th out situatino. If - instead of tagging R2 - the 3rd baseman had stepped on 3rd base first, R3 would have been the 3rd out, and none of this would have ensued. In other words, to prevent the run in this case a 4th out is needed **by appeal**. It can only be made by appeal because the inning is otherwise over when the 3rd out is made. The rules allow for an appeal following a 3rd out made by means other than force out. The only reason the run is possibly allowed is because it crossed the plate before the 3rd out. A 3rd out by force out negates any runs on the play, but this 3rd out was the tag of R2 who was then standing on 3rd.
Announcers are confused regardless. But yeah, its a tiny bit confusing for the regular viewer. Especially when the announcers are clueless and pile on bullshit rule after bullshit rule.
There's a difference between confused, spreading information, and being angry homers saying to protest the game (protests are for rules that are applied incorrectly, not for disagreeing with an existing rule. But everyone wants to protest any game where they're angry about a call)
Super late to the party. First, MLB should hire Lin to be their expert rules commentator. Second, this play is as rare as it gets, buried in obscurity and this is truly intriguing. I don't blame broadcast personnel not knowing the minutia of every rule, so it makes sense to have an expert. Having former umpires only gets people saying they are only siding with the umps. Lin would crush it on MLB!
so guy tags runner and steps on base for the guy leaves early but he still scores??? I am confused, why does he need an appeal? the runner from third is out
This is one of those plays that seems like a made up situation that no one would actually believe would ever happen. And I feel so bad for these umpires because these announcers that don't understand the rules are bashing them when they don't know what they're talking about.
Umpires and MLB missed a real opportunity to use the microphones to explain a rule clearly..... Get on the microphone and say "The Runner from third scored on a time play with the appeal of the runner from 2nd leaving early..... By leaving the field the defense lost the ability to appeal that the runner from 3rd left early under the fourth out rule which would have prevented the runner from 3rd scoring"
12:00 You DO NOT need to appeal for the runner on third base, that is up to the umpires to determine whether the run should count or not which at the time of the play they did not reward Pittsburgh the run. Think about it like this, just because you step on Home plate doesn't mean you automatically score. It's up to the umpire's interpretation and acknowledgement if the run is valid. Which it definitely couldn't have been because the runner clearly left early.
But why is it a legal run? If there were no outs it would have been a triple play. (The runner (R3) never tagged up and was out when the ball tagged third?)
How does the fact that the run scored nullify the fact that the runner on third left early. Shouldn't he have to return to the base or be called out when the third baseman steps on the bag, regardless of what the runner on second base did? "Caught on the fly so no one was forced to advance"? How about no one is allowed to advance before returning to the base after the ball is caught?
Because a failure to tagup us an appeal play. Unless the defense appeals specifically you are deemed to have advanced - in a hypothetical where a player on first rounds (but does not touch) second before the ball is caught, continues to round third (but again does not touch or retreat to tag up) and then swan dives clear over home, unless the defense appeals he will have scored. The rule may or may not be fair, but that is the rule.
@@vonskyme9133 I understand that. I guess my point was that the third base umpire should have called both runners out, once the runner from second was tagged and the third baseman intentionally tagged the base with his foot. How was this not just a replay overturn of the call?
@@birdzilla106 because the umpires deemed it wasn't a clear an unmistakable appeal on R3 for lleaving early, probably because he's holding the tag on R2 the whole time. Even deliberately putting your foot on the bag isn't enough if you aren't sure why you're doing it. An argument can certainly be made that he intended to appeal both, but the requirement is 'unmistakable', which is less clear on the footage.
I’m still lost. He was off the bag. The ball was caught. The player touched the bag. What appeal are we talking about here? Is the contention here that the fielder touching the bag didn’t narrate his actions? Are you saying players need to verbally tell the umpires what they are doing. “I caught the ball”. “I’m tagging the runner and tagging the base.” Doing so isn’t enough? I’m more confused now. So runners can leave whenever regardless of the ball being caught and even if the fielders do what they are suppose to in order to double them up if they don’t tell the umpire it doesn’t count? That’s absurd.
That's the rule... kind of. Specifically for missed bags and failed tag ups you need to appeal to the umpire - touching the bag is not automatic. The appeal doesn't need to be verbal, but it does need to be unmistakably an appeal on the relevant runner. In this case he's tagging R2 the entire time, for that appeal, and appears to step on the bag intentionally but not separately to clearly indicate he is appealing R3. Remember the requirement is 'unmistakable', and you can't accidentally appeal, so even stepping on the bag because everyone else is yelling at you to do so is not enough if you don't know why they're yelling. The rule may or may not be good, but it is (and technically always has been) the rule.
@@vonskyme9133 If everyone is telling him to step on the bag, and he clearly follows their instructions, just because he didn't know why doesn't mean his action wasn't unmistakable though. It's not like his foot brushed the bag accidentally or something. He clearly and intentionally steps on the bag and KEEPS his foot there. I think its completely asinine that apparently the umpire can ignore what objectively occurred and instead make a ruling based on what he subjectively thinks a players intent was. Any rule that favors subjectivity rather than objectivity needs to go.
@@bones343 it doesn't mean his action itself is unmistakable, but it does mean it could be mistaken as something other than an appeal (because, in that case, it's not. It's a confused act, not deliberate appeal). I agree the rule could well be worth changing but that's an entirely different argument (while we're at it there are a BUNCH of rules that could be clearer).
While the Nats should have kept the field, the run was not awarded until well after they had left the field. Also just what did the Pirates Manager say to the Umps? Did he appeal the run being scored? Did whatever he said influence the Umps review?
If the Reds would have appealed R3 not tagging up instead of the 3rd basemen tagging R2 for his not tagging up, then no runs would score. But by tagging R2 after R3 had already scored, then we have R3 scoring! As appealing a base runner not tagging up is a timing play. R3 scored before the tag of R2. Umpire rests his case....
Ok, so let me see if I understand this correctly. Let's suppose there is a runner on first with nobody out. A fly ball is caught, but the runner goes on contact and does not tag. If the fielding team just throws the ball to the pitcher who pitches to the next batter, and they do not tag first base, the inning continues with the runner on second and one out effectively as if the runner stole second before the play.
Let me give you guys a perfect example why the run should've never counted. Let's say it's 1 out, man on 2nd and 3rd like this situation. The batter drives the ball to the outfield for a sacrifice fly, the runner on 3rd tags up perfectly on time and come across Home to score. But the runner on 2nd base leaves early when he tags up for 3rd base. The defense makes an appeal to the runner that left early from 2nd and the run gets taken off the board. SAME THING APPLIES HERE.
It could be the same but only if it's a timing play where the out at second occurs before R3 crosses home. Rule 4.09 specifies how a team scores: One run shall be scored each time a runner legally advances to and touches first, second, third and home base before three men are put out to end the inning. EXCEPTION: A run is not scored if the runner advances to home base during a play in which the third out is made (1) by the batter-runner before he touches first base; (2) by any runner being forced out; or (3) by a preceding runner who is declared out because he failed to touch one of the bases. In this case, it's a trailing runner that is being put out, not a preceding runner, making it a timing play. In that sense, it is the same for one of the potential appeals (R2 tag occurring before R3 crosses home) but not the appeal that would negate the run (R3 leaving early), since the tag appeared to be after R3 crossed home. Edit - if Adrianza had not tagged R2 and held him on the base, and R2 had run home, trailing R3, only the appeal on R3 would negate R2's run.
It is a bad rule to begin with because it is a situation that happens only in rare occasions and rewards a team for a mistake. It should not be a time play if both runners did not tag
@@AEMoreira81 my only comment is for the rule to change, there should not exist that two runners who leave early without tagging be granted a timed out. It should be a case that when either runner is tagged or base touched out, if that being the third out, then no run should count
The worst thing about baseball's replay/review system is that it just doesn't follow common sense. Baseball has always been too "but the rules say..." focused. It was clear that the runners were out and no one should have scored and the umps should have been able to make that call without the Nats appealing
This sounds good in practice, and maybe with TV workable. But many times this will go un-missed at least at younger ages because the focus is usually on the ball. The only people that don't do that are the umpires, because the each umpire has a base (or bases if there are less than 4 umpires) they are watching. It's going to be a much bigger mess to try to unwind a situation where a bunch of stuff has played out on the field when the umpire is the only one that saw someone miss the bag. I mean do you immediately call it? Do you wait until a bunch of runs score, and then step and say, "oh no, actually that runner over there was out." Either way you are probably going to generate controversy. Actually even with TV it might be missed. This just helped because all the focus was on one tight spot on the field.
If you don't believe me about TV, there is a great video you can find on this channel about announcers explaining the umpires because each umpire is focused on the base, but the announcers have the advantage because they see the whole field, except that they miss the very obvious obstruction happening right in front of them.
According to the rules: 5.09(a) 5: Regarding when a runner is out: He fails to retouch his base after a fair or foul ball is legally caught before he, or his base, is tagged by a fielder. He shall not be called out for failure to retouch his base after the first following pitch, or any play or attempted play. This is an appeal play; Adrianza clearly intended to step on third, which would only indicate an appeal as there was no force. In that sense, it would negate the restriction on appeals made after leaving the field because it was made before they left the field.
9:07 That's still bullshit, the umpires got the appeals correct but that completely gets nullified because of the appeal being for the runner on 2nd base which they confirmed had left early wipes off the run of the 3rd base runner. No runs can be acknowledged if separate baserunners fail to get back on an out which was caught in the air. (The only exception being on a rundown)
I think I understand everything here . . . except WHY either the tag or stepping on the base were labeled as appeals and not just the actions of the play. Did I miss time out being called? I'm a year late but just discovered all these awesome videos so I might just be left wondering . . .
I'm OK with the explanation (totally ignoring what the Washington announcers were saying)... however, let me ask it another way because it seems like this is neither a timing play nor an appeal situation. When the line drive is caught without touching the ground, then a throw goes behind a runner who did not tag, that runner is forced out when the defense touches the bag he left. So, regardless of whether R2 is out by the applied tag, R3 is out because of the foot touching the base he left early. Please explain then, why this even needs an appeal - the ball was still live and they got 4 outs. I understand they're counting the run because they're calling it a timing play, but it's actually a force play for the 3rd out.
It's not a force play, failure to tag up is always an appeal play (ad also a time play - a force play is explicitly only when a runner is forced to advance, not return). In the scenario you gave, throwing the ball behind the player and touching the bag, that's an unmistakable appeal because there is absolutely no other reason to even throw the ball there. In this case, however, an argument can be made that he only stepped on third as part of general principles rather than as a specific, unmistakable appeal that he is trying to say R3 did not tag up. That's enough in this case (even though you could ALSO argue he did appeal).
@@vonskyme9133 Thanks for your well-worded explanation. Just by way of closure... it seems that if F3 had thrown to the now-vacated 2B, or if F5 had ignored the runner and stepped on 3B, either of those things would have ended the inning without a run scoring. But, because F5 tagged the runner (and R3 already crossed home plate), they still need to appeal. This also makes that 3B umpire look really good because he pointed to R2 and called him out.
@@jfejapan2829 if F5 had ignored the runner and stepped on the bag only (effectively appealing ONLY for R3, not R2-who-happens-to-be-on-3), then yes no run scores. Throwing to second is the same appeal as tagging R2 with the glove, so if they did that and the ball arrives after R3 crosses the plate they still need to appeal at third to stop the run.
This is ridiculous. It might be the right call by rule, but the rule is just absurd and arcane. It's completely nonsensical, nobody in the stadium knows what's going on, and it took a stupid amount of time. MLB really should change this rule. Personally, I think the problem is with the "valid appeal" rule. A rule should never have to determine intent of a player. The fielder touching the base should be a valid appeal, period.
If the umps were doing their jobs correctly, which they were, there HAD to be an appeal. Leaving early and tagging up us only out on appeal, not automatically.
I'm confused... The correct action for the batter is to tag R2 to put him out, then to tag the base to put R3 out. He did so, so both runners should be out and unable to score. I still don't understand why the run scores due to a rule about an appeal. That's just bizarre to me.
There was already 1 out. The batter hit into a line drive which was caught. That was the second out. Both runners left early not realizing the ball was caught. The ball was thrown to 3rd and dropped. In that time the runner on 3rd scored and the runner on 2nd move to 3rd. The fielder tagged the runner now on 3rd base for the 3rd out. What the fielder should have done is either touched the base first before tagging the runner, or after tagging the runner, got the attention of the ump, point to the bag and step on the base with intent.
@@brandonfrancey5592 I understand all of that. The fact remains, from the video the fielder clearly makes 2 separate actions, first to tag the runner, then the bag. It was clearly his intent to appeal both runners. But because he didn't say something extra to the umpire, a runner who left early from the base is allowed to score? That's absurd to me.
@@Fire5485 Doesn't matter. The moment he tagged the runner, the inning was over. 3 outs. If there were none out it would have been, line drive, tag, base. 3 outs, no run. Stepping on the base with 3 outs is irrelevent because the inning is over. The point of the appeal is to say to an ump, hey, we have 4 outs here. We want this runner to be the 3rd out that ends the inning. Also keep in mind, not tagging up isn't illegal. If the other team doesn't catch you and the next play happens, it counts. So reconstruct the inning with the runner on 3rd tagging up. Line drive, 2nd out. Runner on 3rd tags and scores. Runner on 2nd goes to third and is tagged out. Inning over.
@@brandonfrancey5592 stepping on the base with 3 outs is the proper method for executing an appeal on R3, so it is most certainly not irrelevant. That's exactly what the fielder did, therefore the run shouldn't count.
@@davej3781 I agree with most of what you're saying. I'm just frustrated that it relies on the umpire "accepting" the appeal. Why is it not reviewable that "hey, the fielder did actually tag the base and appeal R3 in addition to R2"? I get the rule, I'm just frustrated that a run counted due to a stupid technicality that, in my opinion, should be fixed.
Granted this isn't a Mets broadcast, but both three Mets' TV and radio broadcast teams generally do a good job of getting the rules right. #InHowieGaryKeithRonAndDometimesWayneITrust
Agreed. Tagging the runner and stepping on third gets BOTH runners out for leaving early. There is no need for any appeal. Had he not immediately stepped on third, then I could see why the appeal would be necessary, but he already got him out, so it's a done deal.
So, basically, if 3B, tags the runner for out 3, he needs to also alert the 3BUmp that, I am also appealing R3 by stepping on the base, then they get to choose which out sticks? Had he touched 3rd first, and not tagged R2 at all, would that have sufficed?
YES. Tag the out you want. Step on third alone. Do separate appeals for two players, not to mention the fielder didn't seem to know what he was trying to do anyways since he didn't do anything until he realized people were yelling at him to tag the runner.
@Damian Wrong, Stepping on the bag without making it clear what he was appealing is nothing. All F-5 needed to do was to tell the umpire he was also appealing R3 leaving early. He didn't do that. An appeal must be obvious and unmistakable.
@Damian The umpire was correct. While verbal appeals are not required, the rule does require the defense to make it clear and unmistakable who they are appealing. Your belief that it was clear and unmistakable is nothing more than your opinion, which means nothing. If the umpire genuinely missed the tag of the base, all F-5 needed to do was tell the umpire that he was appealing R3 leaving early. He could still have made the appeal after R2 was called out, but instead the defense left the field, making a further appeal invalid. The defense screwed up, not the umpires.
@Damian The umpire may not have realized initially that F-5 stepping on the base was the intention to appeal. But that that does not negate the fact that the fielder could have gotten the umpire's attention by saying "I'm appealing R3 left early" or something to that effect. F-5 obviously didn't understand he could get the fourth out.
Looks simple to me, ball was caught, runner on second going to third is tagged out and the runner on third going home is out because the fielder touched third with the ball before he could return. I am no expert, but I did play little league. I see, the refs got it wrong, and the appeal is the question here? I guess?
The appeal must be "unmistakable." Now, on a normal tag up double play, the appeal *is* unmistakable because there's only one possible appeal that the defense could be making, appealing that the runner who started at the base being thrown to left the base early. But in this case, there are *two* possible appeals that the defense could be making-the appeal on R2 and the appeal on R3. In this case, it is the responsibility of the defender to make an "unmistakable" appeal. His first action is to tag the runner. That action is an unmistakable appeal (because you're tagging a runner who's clearly standing on a base so you're not trying to claim an ordinary out for tagging a runner.) The defender definitely touches the base, but he does so after the tag and he doesn't (in the opinion of the umpire and of Lin and of many of the commenters here) make an unmistakable appeal. In my personal opinion, the third baseman isn't 100% sure of what he's doing here. He doesn't look confident about his actions and he certainly doesn't verbalize an appeal on R3. If he had, it would have been given.
@@Tickenest I read all of that, very informative about the appeal process and I agree the officials applied the appeals rule correctly. I just assumed they were also officiating tag ups as that is the meat and potatoes of this play after the ball was ruled a catch.
How is tagging a base after the runner leaves early on a caught fly ball considered an appeal? I've never seen that play called an appeal before. Catch the ball throw to either 2nd or 3rd first and have a triple play. Double play if there was already an out before play.
Me neither, but apparently all such plays are technically "appeals". Usually you don't have to do anything besides step on the base to indicate the "appeal" and the umpire signals the out. Edit- on "bang bang" plays like on fly outs where a runner may or may not have left early, then it typically goes into a more formal appeal process, but still the team has to stand on the bag with the ball and look to the umpire for them to make a decision.
Triple play. Hitter out on catch....both runners out by virtue of not tagging up as third baseman tagged third causing the runner going home to be out and tagging the runner on third causing him to be out because he had no legal right to the bag because he also did not tag up.....triple play.
So, in effect, the 3rd-base ump made two, maybe three, incorrect calls: he called R1 safe at home and scoring (even though R1 failed to tag up and then left the field of play) when initially he should have signaled nothing and he missed the appeal move by the third baseman. Or what am I seeing wrong?
The appeal is not unmistakable, in my mind, and thus not validly made (although I admit it's arguable). If no appeal is made the runner scoring is the correct call, tagup or no tagup.
@@vonskyme9133 Open for debate I'll grant you, but do you disagree that the umps missed the non-tag-ups AND that the 3rd-base ump should have not signaled the run scoring until the play was dead?
@@TCizauskas I'm not sure on the scoring signal (edit: actually, on rewatching I can't see any run scoring signal while live, but run scoring signals are required on time plays - no idea on live or dead requirements. What timestamp do you see one?), but I do disagree on the non tagups. They saw them, but they literally aren't allowed to do anything about them without an appeal. A batter who leaves first, never tags up, rounds all bases without touching any of them, including home plate, has legitimately scored under the rules unless the defense appeals the baserunning infractions. The rule may or may not be fair or make a lot of sense, but that is the current rule.
R2 is tagged, player steps on the base with the ball, how is that not an appeal on R3? If R3 had come running back it would have been an appeal without question and the fielder wouldn't have needed to say anything, usually it's appeals where they missed a bag that you need to specify what you're appealing. Tag ups are usually a given in this situation. I guess when appealing tag ups with this crew you're going to have to announce what they're intending?
Tag ups are usually "a given" because its "unmistakable" that's the purpose of stepping on the bag. Think about it here. Why did the fielder step on third base? To appeal? Because that's the direction his momentum was taking him? It's not clear. And if it's not clear then, by rule, it's not an appeal. This is unequivocally proven because, if the fielder had been intending to appeal R3, he would have said so when the umpire called R2 out instead.
@@JosephJamesScott it's the players' responsibility to know the rules just as much as it is the umpires'. This is the correct ruling, by the book. If the players understood "basic baseball", as you put it, this wouldn't have happened. Not only is it not the umpires' job to explain to the fielders how to make this appeal, it's explicitly prohibited for them to do so. It sucks for the Nats, but it's baseball.
@@FoxtasticGaming he's not. And there's no doubt about that. But even if he was, the umpire clearly pointed to R2 and called him out. If he had intended to appeal R3, he would have said so at that time. How is it that folks here consider stepping on third to be an obvious appeal but don't consider the umpire pointing as he calls an out to also be obvious?
@@FoxtasticGaming they didn't miss anything and it doesn't get much clearer than this. If you're frustrated with how the rule works and the interpretations of it, that's one thing, but this is officiated correctly by the book.
This does not matter... If there was no out on the play it would of been a triple play... It does not matter if he touched the base or the runner due to the runner on third not tagging up on a fly ball... The explanation is great, but does not apply to this... There never should of been an appeal it should have never needed to be appealed... The fact that there was no valid tag up on a fly ball the bag or the runner at 3rd could be tagged as an out... This was a complete circus by the umpires
Failing to tagup is only out on an appeal, it's not automatic. You can argue whether or not he made an unmistakable appeal on R3, but he definitely does have to do so.
@@vonskyme9133 the issue with this play is it should not have required an appeal.... If there was no outs and the first baseman catches that ball as he did.. he can tag the runner and the base and it's a triple play... The umpires screwed this up from the jump. Rule 8-2-6 extracts this from being a time play because the runner who was tagged at third never made an attempt to go back to his original base making it a force out so the run should not have counted regardless of an appeal...
@@roadmaster3531 a force out under OBR is only when a player is forced to advance, not return (the rulebook is wonnderful in its wording as always, defining it as 'a play in which a runner loses his right to legally occupy a base by way of the batter becoming a runner'. It doesn't mention that the force is removed if the batter or a preceding runner is out explicitly, but that is the way it works). Tag ups are covered by rule 5.09 (c), which specifically refers to an appeal play. There is no rule 8-2-6 in the current baseball rules. There is an 8.02 which refers to appealing an umpires decision, but it us different to what is being argued in this case.
@@vonskyme9133 well must be looking at an old rule book then... Bottom line Manfred is worst commissioner in Sports, Angel Hernandez is garbage and these umpires screwed up
@@roadmaster3531 you can argue the first two by all means, but the third one they did absolutely by the rules as they've stood since at least 2010 (older rulesets are harder to find online).
this is the correct ruling to a dumb rule. he stepped on the base to make sure both runners were out. having to say it out loud "I'm appealing" is silly and serves no purpose.
What I don't get is this. The appeal has to be made during a live ball. The third out was registered, how can the ball be live (to make an appeal valid) with the defensive team still on the field?
As I understand it from the wording of the 4th out rule, the appeal has to be made before the pitcher and all infielders leave the fair territory. Based on that I'd suggest the ball is still live until then. The dead ball law doesn't list 3 outs as one of the reasons the ball goes dead, so it doesn't disagree. The ball may even stay technically live between innings from my reading. Edit: if it IS dead, though, the correct procedure is to ask the umpire for the ball, take your positions and appeal as normal. This can even be done after the game is theoretically over, for example because someone got excited and missed a base in a walkoff home run.
(Deleted comment) I get it now. It's one very needed step clearer at the linked article. I'm really not sure how stepping on the base isn't an unmistakable appeal, and not a combined appeal.
Yes, the time play is the part you're missing. The runner who started on third crossed the plate before the runner who started on second was tagged for the third out. There is no force play involved, so the run scores.
@Damian There was a runner standing on third when the third baseman stepped on third. It wasn't made obvious to the umpire that the step on third was appealing the runner who started on third. Just stepping on the base is not enough to appeal like was explained in the video.
Can you explain why the runner was sent back during the Angels Vs White Sox 5th Inning, Wade was sent back to first on a 3-1 count because batter made contact on back swing, it wouldn’t batter be considered out?
Maybe Lindsay will cover it, but if I remember correctly from the prior videos, with backswing interference, the runner is sent back. Batter's interference is separate from backswing interference, and has to involve interfering by stepping in front of the catcher on his throw. Batter's interference results in the batter being out. Backswing interference just sends the runner back.
stopping on the first one... you dont know the rules well do you. he went back and stepped on second as he had to for the ground rule double. Didn't miss first to go back... just needs to retouch second. What did he do for the ground rule double? he went back and touched second because that was the base he is entitled to.
The Nats had to have the tag the base at 3rd, despite not being entitled to hoke? Also, if part of the Nats went to the dugout, but two players remain on the field, can they appeal the play?
I'm ok w/ the ruling, but not sold on 3B not making an unmistakable appeal. It's obvious that he purposely stepped on the base; he didn't do it accidentally. Does he have to make a verbal appeal at that point? But the crew needed to explain what happened beyond leaving the field. That's why they have the mics.
No, it's not obvious. He stepped on the base following his tag of the runner standing on third. The focus of the fielder was OBVIOUSLY on the runner he was tagging, not making an appeal on the runner that scored that left early. You can't "accidentally appeal". This call was 100% correct. Don't be swayed by a terrible broadcast.
@@FirstBitewithDan No, the fielder wouldn't have tagged the runner standing on the base if he wasn't playing the catch, and he likewise wouldn't have touched the base for any reason other than to appeal the lack of tagging up--there was no R1 in this situation. Both plays were 100% in line with playing the catch. Fourth out was touching third, which as Lin explained the Nationals could elect to take precedence over the tag of R2 to negate the run. Ump was so focused on calling Park out that he neglected the additional appeal of Suwinski.
@@closethockeyfan5284 That's utterly ludicrous! Now we're trying to read the fielder's mind, which is impossible, but that said, the manner in which he tagged the runner and then his momentum carried him towards the base implied that he wasn't really sure what he was doing because of the unusual situation. There's no doubt here that the fielder was NOT trying to make an appeal on the runner; if by some unusual chance he was, his actions didn't signify his intentions. AGAIN, we have a good call here. Case closed.
@@FirstBitewithDan Sorry, but that just doesn't align with the facts. The only uncertainty came from the soft call of catch on the batted ball. The appeals were both made correctly, and your logic falls apart because if he was so confused, then how does the tag appeal count as such either? No, this was a blatant fourth out appeal. The only ones who clearly didn't know what they were doing were the umpires, otherwise there would be no rules check and no 10-plus minute debacle. I love umpires.as one who's been there and had my share of tough calls. I will largely defend them. But they blew this one.
@@closethockeyfan5284 Since there's not any real way of knowing what was going on inside the fielder's head, we can't err to the side of giving him the benefit of the doubt. Simply running to the base doesn't constitute an appeal. Stepping on the base and pointing towards home saying "THAT runner is who I want out, he left early" or something to that effect would have made more sense. Even supposing his mindset was "I'll tag the runner and then tag the base for the appeal", his actions didn't coincide with that logic. It would have been no trouble at all for him to point and say "He left early" but he didn't, and since you can't accidently back your way into an appeal, there's no other logical call except this one.
I understand how this is the correct application of the rules but I’m not sure I understand how this is the right outcome. It’s quite clear watching live that the fielder both tags the runner and the base. It seems ridiculous to require players, while the play is going on, to know the intricacies of the appeal rules and know the tag the base before the runner.
God I hate it when play-by-play announcers are clueless about the rules. Teams should make them pass a rules test before hiring them.
"you sent them off the field" mmmmmmwut
Commentators everywhere: confidently wrong about the rules of the game
Lin: "I'm about to end this man's whole career."
Not just confidently wrong, but also throwing the umpires under the bus.
Sooo.... Holding the ball and stepping on the bag for 5 seconds isn't unmistakable enough? If there were no outs it clearly would have been a triple play.... Does the player have to shout "hey ump, give me the other one too"? What if he can't use his voice for some reason? Does he need to take two steps away and then take a giant step back onto the bag to show he's tagging off R3?
The announcers as usual don't know the rules.
I watched and rewatched...I still don't get it. R3 never tagged his bag. So even though the "rules" say he scored with all these rules that have been added over the years. ie: the defense getting to choose which appeal, that's just silly. Or that the runner scored before the 3rd out counts as a score negating the fact that he didn't tag up, also silly. Now if he did tag his bag and scored before the 3rd out, then I can understand but I'm gonna die on this hill, that was not a legitimate score.
Despite the surrounding chaos, the rule is clear:
5.09(a) 5: Regarding when a runner is out:
He fails to retouch his base after a fair or foul ball is legally caught before he, or his base, is tagged by a fielder. He shall not be called out for failure to retouch his base after the first following pitch, or any play or attempted play. This is an appeal play;
Stepping on the base intentionally is an appeal. If the fielder had fallen on the base that would not have been a "tag", and thus not an appeal, but that is not the scenario as Adrianza was explicit about his action both during and after.
Here's my question: Since there is no such thing as a dead ball/verbal appeal in OBR, had the Nationals' infielders remained on the field, how could they have obtained that 4th out? The play became dead. The coaches were on the field! At the time, there were three outs so, officially, the inning is over and the run scores. Had the defense wanted to appeal that R3 left early, the ball would have to be made live again. How does that happen? In order to put the ball back in play you have to have 1) the pitcher on the rubber with possession of the ball, 2) the batter in the batter's box and 3) the catcher in the catcher's box. How can they check all those requirements be met if, at the time, there are three outs and the inning is over? Who would be the batter? Why would any batter step into the batter's box if the current status of the inning is that three outs have already been recorded?
Not touching a base is beyond anything I can fathom a player doing. It is like not knowing where your house is.
We see NBA players travel ALL THE TIME. To me, it's like fingernails on a chalkboard.
Sooooo
1. Batter out on caught line drive (second out of the inning)
2. R2 who left his base early is out on the tag by the third baseman (as an appeal) (third out of the inning)
3. R3 who left his base early scores even though he didn't properly tag up (because there was no proper appeal) (and because he crossed home plate before third out).
To some commenters here (especially YOU Damian) who keep saying the umpire made a bad call (or lack thereof), let's remember again that verbiage that an appeal has to be clear and unmistakable. Even if the incidental foot on the bag immediately after tagging the runner was the fielder's way of appealing, it obviously was not clear and unmistakable. Do you know why? Because the umpire did not call the runner out on this unclear and non-appeal. The umpire didn't miss anything. He didn't get it wrong. He simply made no call, which means the appeal was not clear and unmistakable to him; ergo, it wasn't an appeal at all. Do you know what WAS actually VERY CLEAR and unmistakable? The umpire clearly pointing to the tagged runner and declaring him out. At that point, it should have been clear and unmistakable to the fielder that his appeal (if he was even really did intend to appeal in the first place) was not valid, and he should at that point have made a clear and deliberate step on the bag and declare his appeal to the umpire. It's as easy as that. The fielder blew this play, not the umpire. What's more, given that most players in the league probably have no idea that this rule exists, you can still make the case that the fielder didn't know the rule and was confused by the situation, and only stepped on the bag after making the tag because A. his momentum was carrying him in that direction, and / or B. he wanted to make sure the runner he was tagging was really out. Saying he was trying to appeal is giving the fielder a massive benefit of the doubt, and even if he was trying to appeal, he didn't do so clearly and unmistakably. Correct call on the field all the way.
tl;dr, so sorry if this has already been asked/covered:
I'm not understanding why an appeal is even part of the conversation, and here's my understanding of the situation:
The play starts with one out, Park on 2nd (R2) and Suwinski on 3rd (R3). Hayes lines out for out #2, as called on the field by the 1st base umpire. R2 & R3 are now at their own risk, but need to tag up before they advance up or risk being put out prior to returning to their respective bases (unless, of course, the fielding team allows them to advance without making the effort to put them out). The moment Adrianza tags R2 (who is on 3rd base), he's out, for the 3rd out of the inning, and whatever happens with R3 doesn't matter, because the inning is over. If R3 had tagged up AND scored PRIOR to R2 being put out, THEN the run should count as he would have scored legally prior to the 3rd out.
Am I making sense at all? It just feels like there was a fundamental error on the part of the umpires here. I look forward to replies!
The failire to tag up does not inherently prevent a runner advancing. It is quite legal to be on first, not tag up after the batter is caught, round the bases while failing to touch second or third and then jump clear over home plate, and unless the defense appeals one of your many baserunning infractions you will be awarded the run. It may or may not be a good rule, but it is the current one.
In this case, because he crossed home before R2 was out for not tagging up (which is an appeal and thus a time play, not a force) he has legally scored unless the defense appeals against him specifically.
@@vonskyme9133 Right, I kind of forgot the umpire crew's passive responsibility regarding baserunners. Basically, it's the defensive team's responsibility to call out of a runner fails to tag up or misses a base (on appeal), and the umpire's job to confirm that. I really think that should change. The players are there to play a game, not enforce the rules. If an umpire sees a baserunning infraction, they should call it out in the moment, much like they do for interference.
Looks good to me. The only issue is whether R2 was tagged before R3 crossed home, in which case the inning would end before the run scores. In this case, the appeal at third should have been the question of whether R3 left early OR whether the tag on R2 preceded R3 scoring. Neither of those appeals apparently happened. The Nats left the field before the umpires made their determination of whether the run scored, but Adrianza had technically made the appeal at third before he left, with the umpire walking away after signalling the out on R2, leaving all other appeals unanswered. Adrianza remained on third as the umpire walked away, twisting his foot on the bag as the runner also left, and the Nats cleared the field as the umps conferred. On the play, the first base umpire signalled the line out for the second out, and the third base umpire signalled the tag out for the third out, but none of the umps registered the appeal that Adrianza made by staring at the umpire while standing on the base after the throw to third.
Edit - 5.09(a) 5: Regarding when a runner is out:
He fails to retouch his base after a fair or foul ball is legally caught before he, or his base, is tagged by a fielder. He shall not be called out for failure to retouch his base after the first following pitch, or any play or attempted play. This is an appeal play;
I'm not sure how you can construe Adrianza staring after the lead runner, immediately looking to the umpire for the appeal, running to the bag, tagging a runner standing on the bag, stepping on the bag, keeping your foot on the bag, getting one appeal, turning and looking back to the thrower (who also looked to the lead runner before throwing to third) while keeping your foot on the bag, after having already glanced at the lead runner, keeping the tag and your foot applied while glancing back at the umpire who has already started walking off despite the fielder still standing on the bag clearly indicating his movement is intentional and not a "wierd little leg stretch" or "a superstitious OCD motion" or "just liking to feel rubber under the cleats sometimes", waiting there after the initial single appeal is granted but (apparently, in retrospect) the second appeal being denied, is "incidentally putting your foot on the bag and insufficient to represent an appeal"... which the Nats only find out isn't granted when the umpires, independently of the initial appeal(s), indicate that the run scores. If the stare and standing directly ON THE BASE with someone else present on it, twisting your foot to indicate that the contact is intentional, believing your appeal for the lead runner is denied, and then confronting umpires about the nature of the appeals only to be told that you can't appeal something (that you believe you've already appealed) after leaving the field despite the very rule you cited indicating the fielder's choice of simultaneous 4th out appeals to get the better one (which probably is what confused Adrianza since he did indicate an appeal to the lead runner in multiple ways), is still "incidental, unclear appeal" despite both runners leaving well before the ball was caught and anyone can see that, which would explain literally any action taken by anyone on the field during that sequence, then i don't know what to tell you. Bell threw to third. That should be your first indication of intent, since the runner from 2nd was practically on *third and so threw behind the runner so as to not hit him...and he knew he had caught it so it wasn't going to be a tag out. Bell throws to third, Adrianza stands on third while ensuring the runner doesn't go anywhere.
There was additional footage of Bell seemingly calling for a separate appeal or at least adding additional commentary after the initial appeal verdict while still on the field, but that was apparently wholly ignored, and the umpires began waving the rest of the umpire crew onto the field as to indicate a review process. I couldn't tell where Bell was pointing but someone said he was pointing at a fielder on 2nd who was waiting there for another appeal, but Adrianza indicated they already had 3 outs, and didn't get the 4th. Adrianza later said that the umpire eventually told him he didn't see him standing on the base despite him clearly standing on the base. Clearly his actions were "mistakeable" but only from the outcome. You can't appeal an appeal, so what else is Adrianza supposed to do, besides sit down on the base and refuse to leave, or say, in the thick of it, "sir, are you absolutely sure you don't want to give me the out since i don't know when the runner crossed home exactly or even whether you've ruled the catch a catch? I'm standing on the bag. See? This is me--standing on the bag. Notice me doing this? I'm not sure which out i can get here, which is why i am staring into your soul and both standing on the bag and applying the tag simultaneously and you have a clear view of all of it...as opposed to the guy who threw the ball to third presumably to get the appeal since otherwise he would have looked to second for the force out. You saw me stare at the lead runner, then at you, then tag the base, right? I'm glad you gave us the one out...which isn't what we're looking for exactly unless that's your ruling, but i mean, you're the ump. I know we can't appeal appeals, right? I figure i'll get the better of the two outs...right? That's how this works, even after we leave the field, since i'm pretty sure if you don't think he left early this will get sent to the tape anyway. I respect you too much to show you up. There are rules, you know?"
Holy shit you're so mad lol
All Adrianza had to do was step on the base and either point to the lead runner, or tell the umpire "he left third base early," and the run doesn't score. Looking at the umpire isn't obviously an appeal for R3 when you're also tagging R2; it looks like he's confirming that the umpire is calling R2 out.
"B-b-b-b-but he stepped on the bag! What else does he need to do?!?"
Literally anything to call attention to his apparent intentions.
@@wyssmaster uh huh.
"Line drive was ruled caught; batter is out.
By tagging the runner, Minnesota appealed that the runner left 2nd before the catch. Runner was ruled out.
Since Minnesota failed to properly appeal the runner leaving 3rd early before leaving the field, they lose the ability to appeal. The run scores."
The announcers were horrific in this situation. Spreading more misinformation and complaining that the fans take and then fill comments like these with complaints. The umpires nailed the call. The third baseman should know that the runner on third left early, that's one of his responsibilities and he should have explicitly stepped on the bag to make that appeal first before appealing the other runner. Even if it doesn't matter in this situation make it clear and explicit what you are going for to the umpire. Who knows what was in the third baseman's head as he randomly stepped on the base after tagging the runner without saying anything.
Considering the third baseman just sat on the ground for a minute after catching the throw makes it clear that he didn't notice any runners leaving early and just heard his teammates yelling "Tag him!". The rule is complicated but not very hard and the Nationals messed up appeal rules twice, by not appealing a missed base before that in the first place that would have been a free out, and by their players being unaware and not knowing the rules costing them a run. The rule is perfectly fine. An appeal has to be a clear separate effort. Make a blatant step onto the base while looking at the umpire, say who you're appealing. Then tag the runner. The third baseman had no clue what he was doing and none of the announcers had a clue about anything aside from spreading BS and false outrage for everyone to think is the truth.
Fyi the radio team nailed it. Charlie and Dave are the best in the business.
it seem to me that the umps weren't too hot either
Brilliant post! Juxtapose this poor understanding of the rules with hall of fame shortstop Derek Jeter who did it right. Tom Hallion had a mic on when #2 looked at him as he stepped on second base and said,” Runner missed base.” Hallion said,” Which runner?” Mr. Jeter said,” First runner by.” Mr. Hallion said,” Safe,” and signaled safe. Jeter then said,” Second runner by.” as he stepped on second base again. Hallion again said,”’Safe,” as he signaled safe. Jeter didn’t get an out but he knew how to appeal. You can view his plaque at a museum in a small village in upstate New York.
@@danielcorreard3746 umpires were perfect. You are ignorant
I am not a big fan of any rule that requires you to appeal to the umpire to get it enforced.
Wow those Nationals announcers are brutal. Not knowing the rule is one thing, but falsely accusing the umpires of mismanaging the situation and even advocating the Nationals protest the game (MLB no longer even allows protests anymore) is inexcusable.
Agreed
I wonder if those announcers ever corrected themselves to their audience - either later during this game, or even the next game?
I love the format of these videos because the situational commentary almost makes it sound sarcastic.
"Nope, not reviewable" has the same energy as "You idiot."
They are idiots. Arrogance and ignorance simultaneously. Toxic
The announcers' running commentary is fascinating.
9:15 The timing of calling the ruling brutal when Davy Martinez comes out, considering a year later, he would call the ruling of the Astros not being out of the baseline brutal
The 3rd base umpire missed the runner on 3rd leaving early. He got the call right on the 2nd base runner but not the 3rd base runner
Umps got it all correct. Nats didn't make a correct appeal for runner that scored. The video explained it all.
So much of this would be resolved as far as the broadcast is concerned, if broadcasters had access to rules experts like they do in the NFL and NHL. I don’t expect broadcasters to understand every little nuance of the rules, but they’re obviously guessing here and they’re not very good at it. Having access to a retired umpire as a rules expert (or access to close call sports) would be outstanding.
I think people are getting mixed up by what an "appeal" is. Tagging a runner who did not tag up at his base on a caught line drive or fly ball is an out by rule. There is no appeal happening. Now if the runner makes it to his next bag safely (and is called safe by the ump) after leaving his previous bag early and then the defense tags him while he is standing on his new bag, he is safe. However, the defense now needs to make an appeal to the ump at the base the runner vacated by, before the next pitch, having the pitcher throw the ball to that bag. That initiates the appeal process and the ump will make the call of out (he left early) or safe (he did not). Now, if the runner was not tagged while standing on his new base, he is still out because he is now doubled off of his old base by the appeal throw going to that base. However, if he was not tagged at any point between the play ending and the defense appealing and he realizes he did not tag up he can still retreat to his previous bag and will be safe if he is either not tagged or beats the throw there (but it will be a force-out, he does not need to be tagged).
So at 10:18 when the 3rd baseman tags the runner he looks at the ump for the out signal. Because the runner had obviously left 2nd before the catch was made, the umpire correctly made the out call. NO APPEAL WAS MADE. TAGGING A RUNNER FOR AN OUT IS NOT AN APPEAL. Now if the ump had called the runner safe, then the defense would make an official appeal to the 2nd base ump to ask if he left early, which the 2nd base ump would confirm and the runner would be out at that time. Then when the 3rd baseman touches third (which happens a split second later) the ump never makes an out or safe call for the runner that left 3rd, as the inning ended with the runner on 3rd being called out. The 3rd baseman should have realized this when the ump specifically pointed at the runner and signaled "out" and made no other official call. At that point the players needed to get back to their positions and make an official appeal (the only one of the inning and the only one needed) too the 3rd base ump who would have confirmed the runner left early, that the bag was touched, and that the runner is out, now the 4th out of the inning, and that the run did not score. Therefore there would have been 4 outs in one inning to prevent the run from scoring. 3 outs was not enough.
That's interesting, because if its an out by rule, then no appeal is necessary for the apparent signal the ump made. Adrianza looking to the umpire for an appeal while standing on third would be the most logical signal of intent (besides Bell throwing to third rather than second).
Edit - your comment isn't technically correct.
Per 5.09(a) 5: Regarding when a runner is out:
He fails to retouch his base after a fair or foul ball is legally caught before he, or his base, is tagged by a fielder. He shall not be called out for failure to retouch his base after the first following pitch, or any play or attempted play. This is an appeal play;
You are the one getting mixed up by what an "appeal" is. Tagging a runner who did not tag up at his base on a caught line drive or fly ball is an appeal. There is no need for the defense to get back to their positions and make an appeal unless time was called.
You don't seem to understand that appeals can be made during continuous live action.
Lindsay provided expert analysis. It’s a timing play. R-3 touched home plate before the third out was recorded. Run scores unless a legal appeal is made for a forth out which negates the run. Once the incompetent Nats. left the infield the opportunity to appeal was lost. Umpire perfection and perfect analysis by C.C.S.
So question if the mats tag the bag first and then the runner at that point the run doesn’t count because that is their first appeal. If they tag the runner prior to the bag the run scores because the run cross prior to tag being made?
@@charlesbarber5157 No. In this case the Nats must touch 3rd, AND clearly indicate to the umpire which runner's actions they are appealing, i.e. R3. Physically tagging R2 is obvious, but this is where the timing comes into play. R3 had crossed the plate prior to R2 being tagged. The run scores unless the Nats explicitly appeal that play (they didn't) or all infielders have left the field of play which they did. The run counts.
It looks to me that Adrianza touched third base intentionally while also tagging the runner on third. That should constitute two appeals, regardless of in which order they were recorded. According to Adrianza after the game the umpire said he didn't see him on the base and only saw the tag. In other words, touching the bag wasn't "incidental" and so the appeal was technically made by the Nats before they left the field, even if the umpire didn't see it. @@greenmanofkent
It is unfortunate that so many broadcasters are ignorant of the rules.
I love listening to commentators who clearly have no idea whats happening try and explain whats going on lol
I've been watching baseball for 60 years and have never seen this exact play. I'll bet not one in a hundred players, much less fans, would have known the right solution.
Announcers should not comment on rules and have an expert that they can go to.
It has happened at least twice before, in 1989 and 2009. In 2009, the Dodgers came out of the dugout to say the run should be awarded after all the D’Backs had left fair territory. In 1989, Larry Barnett did it automatically and explained it to the media after the game.
Rare occurrence yes. Knowing the right way to play it? They should. It’s like if a runner in a force out try’s to get in a run down to allow another runner to score, everyone would be scream step on second. This one isn’t nearly that obvious but they should still know take the force out not the tag out, it makes a difference.
@@nickpoole583 no run can ever score when a force out is the third out, or the third out is at first base before the batter/ runner has touched first base.
Yes. That’s the point …. If you opt not to take the force out you allow the opportunity for a runner to score.
Remember NFL Ref Ed Hochuli? He was so good at explaining the intricacies of a ruling. Too bad Wegner here didn't do that; it was a perfect opportunity missed. This is hopefully where the evolution of the mics go: explaining a ruling and also announcing who gets ejected.
Agree completely. I am hopeful this will improve in years to come as baseball umpires are just this year “broadcasting” to their stadiums. Which means none of them had practice - much less developed training - in announcing protocol.
They just gotta get used to being mic’d up and the good explanation will come
Mark Wegner is doing what the league has instructed him to do. He did not fail. An explanation of a fourth out appeal during a game would not be understood and would take time.
We all know who got the hook. Not needed
Who's on first!? >LOL This was absolutely confusing.
It is amazing that the announcers and managers think the umpires don’t know the rules. The umpires miss a lot of judgement calls, but very few rules. The announcers probably get paid a lot more than umpires, so maybe they should go to classes to learn the rules that they get paid to comment on.
This isn’t me trying to say the umpires are wrong. I understand the fourth out appeal didn’t happen. I also understand umpires deserve a heck of a lot more credit for what they do, knowing all these rules and getting paid a small fraction of all these players and coaches that SHOULD know the rules but don’t. However, is it possible for the home plate or third base umpire to just say (while the first play is live) that the runner doesn’t score because he didn’t tag?
It doesn't matter if it goes out of play? Does that mean we now have beer league softball rules for homeruns? No need to run the bases, it went out of play. Come back to the dugout and have another beer! You earned it!
scoring a run on a triple play, pretty fancy
...only in the convoluted rules of baseball!
Also caught the announcers saying the nationals should put the game under protest. That isn't a thing anymore either.
If he'd just stepped on third before he tagged the runner, it would have been moot. He wouldn't have even needed to tag the runner.
Why is it ALWAYS the umpire's fault when the teams don't know the rules and then screw it up? And the announcers do not have a clue.
It’s an obscure rule that has only ever been called a handful of times in history.
They awarded a run to a player who didn’t tag up, that was in violation of the rules
@@johncurley8486 If a runner misses the plate and is not appealed, does his run score? Of course. But he violated the rules by failing to touch the plate. There is no violation until the runner is appealed.
Well, simply due to the fact that Umpires are paid to enforce the rules, thus they must know the rules!
Because the umpire missed him stepping on the bag. He lingered on the bag for several seconds but it wasn't obvious enough to his old ass eyes??
I disagree on the last point, the rule clearly says “inadvertently”. F5 didn’t inadvertently step on 3B, he stepped on 3B on purpose. He didn’t trip and fall or run into the base by accident. With purpose and intent, he stepped on the base with the ball in his glove and looking right at the umpire. It does not get more clear and obvious than that.
What's even more clear and obvious is the 3B saying "The runner didn't tag up before scoring". He didn't say that because he didn't know that the runner didn't tag up, replay shows he was watching the popup when the runner took off.
That has nothing to do with the play or appeal. You don’t have to verbalize the appeal. The rule says INADVERTENTLY stepping on or touching a base is not a valid appeal. He stepped in 3B with full control of himself and intent.
@@GENEticSportsNetwork the rule doesn't say that, actually, the explanatory note just give the example that inadvertent stepping is one of the things that would mean it was not an appeal. It's not the only thing, for example deliberate stepping on the base out of general principles would not be an appeal.
The explanatory note DOES say that an appeal must be unmistakable. This may ir may not have been intended as an appeal, but it's definitely not unmistakable.
The pay was not officiated correctly, the umps awarded a run to a player who didn’t tag up, they screwed up. The “appeal” was officiated correctly but it’s only the result of the umps screwing up horribly in the first place
Wrong. The defense screwed up by not making an unmistakable appeal on R3. The umpires did nothing wrong.
That double play would have been a triple play had there been no outs lol
Only of they appealed prior to the next pitch. They would have, of course, but it would still require the appeal.
IF only he stepped on third before tagging the runner.
It don’t matter , these are outs and should not require a replay. They can get together and say. “It’s a catch “ and the rest is in the books. This should not even be a conversation after that.
The problem is, they're only outs on appeal. They're not force outs, and the umpire is not allowed to give them out without an unmistakable appeal for that specific runner.
Shouldn't the umpires explain the play? They're mic'd up but only announce the rules check
You might be right but how the hell do you explain it concisely? I doubt many fans would understand even if they did.
Ed Hochuli managed to do it in football, so follow his example. A minute long explanation of what the ruling is would be better than no explanation.
@@davidlocke3477 lol I’m not sure many people would want umpires to follow his example. He got blasted for loving the sound of his own voice.
He was (is?) also a lawyer, so it's no surprise that he liked to talk that much.
@@davidlocke3477 I loved Guns but he wasn’t everyone’s cup of tea.
Great job standing their ground. I will always give the umpires credit when they get it right, especially on obscure rules.
@Damian No, the defense didn't properly appeal to get R3 out nullifying the run. The umpires can't tell them "hey make sure you appeal R3 too before you leave the field" Not their fault the defense is stupid and left without getting the 4th out.
@Damian part of what you said is correct, but since they could have appealed 2 plays they would get to declare which of those plays they wanted to be the 3rd out IF THEY STAYED ON THE FIELD. Once they left the field then the tag of R2 is the 3rd out, and since R3 crossed the plate before this tag, his run counts. This is what the umpires ruled and they are correct.
@Damian you are clearly a very biased Nats fan. If you watch the video you will actually understand why you sound just like the announcers.
@@jeredratliff7726 at what point would they be given the option to declare which out they wanted to keep? Because as far as I see they were never given that option. Or what should the D done different to get it outcome they wanted? He steps on the base and seem insistent on that as to say “I’m tagging him and stepping on the base to get R3 out. I’m getting them all out.”
At that point what else should the 3rd baseman have done to obtain the option in the 4th out rule?
@@nickpoole583 understandable questions as this is a confusing scenario. From my understanding - which I think aligns with the rulebook - the outs are recorded in the order they are made by the defense. The fielder doesn't get to make both outs and then declare 'a fiat' which order he wants them in. The 'declaration' is made based on the order the outs are made. This is a weird scenario because well over 99% of the time you are just looking for 3 outs and the order of them does not matter. But since the 3rd out was not a force-out, this left open the possibility of a 'timing play,' where a run can score on the same play during which the 3rd out is made.
The runner was tagged for the 3rd out, which means that R3 (the runner who began the play at 3rd base) could only be declared out by appeal. The defense subsequently lost the ability to appeal this out when they left the field. My perception is that they left the field as a way of persuading the outcome of the play but it actually cost them the opporutnunity to appeal this rare 4th out situatino. If - instead of tagging R2 - the 3rd baseman had stepped on 3rd base first, R3 would have been the 3rd out, and none of this would have ensued.
In other words, to prevent the run in this case a 4th out is needed **by appeal**. It can only be made by appeal because the inning is otherwise over when the 3rd out is made. The rules allow for an appeal following a 3rd out made by means other than force out. The only reason the run is possibly allowed is because it crossed the plate before the 3rd out. A 3rd out by force out negates any runs on the play, but this 3rd out was the tag of R2 who was then standing on 3rd.
Broadcaster: “ I have no idea what’s going on.” A man with no idea what’s happening pronounces judgment upon an mlb umpire crew.
I can't blame the announcers for being confused. I'm still confused.
Announcers are confused regardless. But yeah, its a tiny bit confusing for the regular viewer. Especially when the announcers are clueless and pile on bullshit rule after bullshit rule.
There's a difference between confused, spreading information, and being angry homers saying to protest the game (protests are for rules that are applied incorrectly, not for disagreeing with an existing rule. But everyone wants to protest any game where they're angry about a call)
Super late to the party. First, MLB should hire Lin to be their expert rules commentator. Second, this play is as rare as it gets, buried in obscurity and this is truly intriguing. I don't blame broadcast personnel not knowing the minutia of every rule, so it makes sense to have an expert. Having former umpires only gets people saying they are only siding with the umps. Lin would crush it on MLB!
so guy tags runner and steps on base for the guy leaves early but he still scores??? I am confused, why does he need an appeal? the runner from third is out
As long as one foot’s on the base and you go towards 1st can you legally go to 3rd or have to touch it even if your foot’s already on the base
More baseball fans should follow this channel.
Baseball fans should also pay attention when the rule is explained.
"this is brutal".. yep .. As usual the incompetence is the broadcasters is brutal
This is one of those plays that seems like a made up situation that no one would actually believe would ever happen. And I feel so bad for these umpires because these announcers that don't understand the rules are bashing them when they don't know what they're talking about.
Umpires and MLB missed a real opportunity to use the microphones to explain a rule clearly..... Get on the microphone and say "The Runner from third scored on a time play with the appeal of the runner from 2nd leaving early..... By leaving the field the defense lost the ability to appeal that the runner from 3rd left early under the fourth out rule which would have prevented the runner from 3rd scoring"
12:00 You DO NOT need to appeal for the runner on third base, that is up to the umpires to determine whether the run should count or not which at the time of the play they did not reward Pittsburgh the run. Think about it like this, just because you step on Home plate doesn't mean you automatically score. It's up to the umpire's interpretation and acknowledgement if the run is valid. Which it definitely couldn't have been because the runner clearly left early.
Perhaps it is time for a class for all broadcasters in the rules of baseball.
But why is it a legal run? If there were no outs it would have been a triple play. (The runner (R3) never tagged up and was out when the ball tagged third?)
Another reason baseball is antiquated and lost so many fans.
How does the fact that the run scored nullify the fact that the runner on third left early. Shouldn't he have to return to the base or be called out when the third baseman steps on the bag, regardless of what the runner on second base did? "Caught on the fly so no one was forced to advance"? How about no one is allowed to advance before returning to the base after the ball is caught?
Because a failure to tagup us an appeal play. Unless the defense appeals specifically you are deemed to have advanced - in a hypothetical where a player on first rounds (but does not touch) second before the ball is caught, continues to round third (but again does not touch or retreat to tag up) and then swan dives clear over home, unless the defense appeals he will have scored.
The rule may or may not be fair, but that is the rule.
@@vonskyme9133 I understand that. I guess my point was that the third base umpire should have called both runners out, once the runner from second was tagged and the third baseman intentionally tagged the base with his foot. How was this not just a replay overturn of the call?
@@birdzilla106 because the umpires deemed it wasn't a clear an unmistakable appeal on R3 for lleaving early, probably because he's holding the tag on R2 the whole time. Even deliberately putting your foot on the bag isn't enough if you aren't sure why you're doing it.
An argument can certainly be made that he intended to appeal both, but the requirement is 'unmistakable', which is less clear on the footage.
I’m still lost. He was off the bag. The ball was caught. The player touched the bag. What appeal are we talking about here? Is the contention here that the fielder touching the bag didn’t narrate his actions? Are you saying players need to verbally tell the umpires what they are doing. “I caught the ball”. “I’m tagging the runner and tagging the base.” Doing so isn’t enough?
I’m more confused now. So runners can leave whenever regardless of the ball being caught and even if the fielders do what they are suppose to in order to double them up if they don’t tell the umpire it doesn’t count? That’s absurd.
That's the rule... kind of. Specifically for missed bags and failed tag ups you need to appeal to the umpire - touching the bag is not automatic.
The appeal doesn't need to be verbal, but it does need to be unmistakably an appeal on the relevant runner. In this case he's tagging R2 the entire time, for that appeal, and appears to step on the bag intentionally but not separately to clearly indicate he is appealing R3. Remember the requirement is 'unmistakable', and you can't accidentally appeal, so even stepping on the bag because everyone else is yelling at you to do so is not enough if you don't know why they're yelling.
The rule may or may not be good, but it is (and technically always has been) the rule.
@@vonskyme9133 If everyone is telling him to step on the bag, and he clearly follows their instructions, just because he didn't know why doesn't mean his action wasn't unmistakable though. It's not like his foot brushed the bag accidentally or something. He clearly and intentionally steps on the bag and KEEPS his foot there.
I think its completely asinine that apparently the umpire can ignore what objectively occurred and instead make a ruling based on what he subjectively thinks a players intent was. Any rule that favors subjectivity rather than objectivity needs to go.
@@bones343 it doesn't mean his action itself is unmistakable, but it does mean it could be mistaken as something other than an appeal (because, in that case, it's not. It's a confused act, not deliberate appeal). I agree the rule could well be worth changing but that's an entirely different argument (while we're at it there are a BUNCH of rules that could be clearer).
While the Nats should have kept the field, the run was not awarded until well after they had left the field. Also just what did the Pirates Manager say to the Umps? Did he appeal the run being scored? Did whatever he said influence the Umps review?
According to commentary after the game the Pirates manager challenged whether the catch at first happened.
Nobody know the rules of the game, no wonder why baseball is dying just like nascar.
Can't protest either.
The manager should have known that if his defense leaves the field, he can't make the appeal.
They already made the appeal, he stepped on the base in front of the umpire and stood on it for several seconds
If the Reds would have appealed R3 not tagging up instead of the 3rd basemen tagging R2 for his not tagging up, then no runs would score. But by tagging R2 after R3 had already scored, then we have R3 scoring! As appealing a base runner not tagging up is a timing play. R3 scored before the tag of R2. Umpire rests his case....
The defense could have made an undeniable appeal of R3 by stating that he left early. A fourth out would be granted negating the run.
I love Lindsay.
Ok, so let me see if I understand this correctly. Let's suppose there is a runner on first with nobody out. A fly ball is caught, but the runner goes on contact and does not tag. If the fielding team just throws the ball to the pitcher who pitches to the next batter, and they do not tag first base, the inning continues with the runner on second and one out effectively as if the runner stole second before the play.
Holy crap that's a clusterfuck. Thanks for your hard work explaining that one Lindsay.
Let me give you guys a perfect example why the run should've never counted. Let's say it's 1 out, man on 2nd and 3rd like this situation. The batter drives the ball to the outfield for a sacrifice fly, the runner on 3rd tags up perfectly on time and come across Home to score. But the runner on 2nd base leaves early when he tags up for 3rd base. The defense makes an appeal to the runner that left early from 2nd and the run gets taken off the board. SAME THING APPLIES HERE.
I’m just going to respond to all your comments and say that you have no idea what the rules of baseball actually are
It could be the same but only if it's a timing play where the out at second occurs before R3 crosses home.
Rule 4.09 specifies how a team scores:
One run shall be scored each time a runner legally advances to and touches first, second, third and home base before three men are put out to end the inning. EXCEPTION: A run is not scored if the runner advances to home base during a play in which the third out is made (1) by the batter-runner before he touches first base; (2) by any runner being forced out; or (3) by a preceding runner who is declared out because he failed to touch one of the bases.
In this case, it's a trailing runner that is being put out, not a preceding runner, making it a timing play.
In that sense, it is the same for one of the potential appeals (R2 tag occurring before R3 crosses home) but not the appeal that would negate the run (R3 leaving early), since the tag appeared to be after R3 crossed home.
Edit - if Adrianza had not tagged R2 and held him on the base, and R2 had run home, trailing R3, only the appeal on R3 would negate R2's run.
It is a bad rule to begin with because it is a situation that happens only in rare occasions and rewards a team for a mistake. It should not be a time play if both runners did not tag
But teams have to be thinking all the time. If even one Nationals player was still in fair territory, they can appeal.
@@AEMoreira81 my only comment is for the rule to change, there should not exist that two runners who leave early without tagging be granted a timed out. It should be a case that when either runner is tagged or base touched out, if that being the third out, then no run should count
The worst thing about baseball's replay/review system is that it just doesn't follow common sense. Baseball has always been too "but the rules say..." focused. It was clear that the runners were out and no one should have scored and the umps should have been able to make that call without the Nats appealing
Yes!!! This!!
This sounds good in practice, and maybe with TV workable. But many times this will go un-missed at least at younger ages because the focus is usually on the ball. The only people that don't do that are the umpires, because the each umpire has a base (or bases if there are less than 4 umpires) they are watching. It's going to be a much bigger mess to try to unwind a situation where a bunch of stuff has played out on the field when the umpire is the only one that saw someone miss the bag. I mean do you immediately call it? Do you wait until a bunch of runs score, and then step and say, "oh no, actually that runner over there was out." Either way you are probably going to generate controversy. Actually even with TV it might be missed. This just helped because all the focus was on one tight spot on the field.
If you don't believe me about TV, there is a great video you can find on this channel about announcers explaining the umpires because each umpire is focused on the base, but the announcers have the advantage because they see the whole field, except that they miss the very obvious obstruction happening right in front of them.
According to the rules, that is not how it works.
According to the rules:
5.09(a) 5: Regarding when a runner is out:
He fails to retouch his base after a fair or foul ball is legally caught before he, or his base, is tagged by a fielder. He shall not be called out for failure to retouch his base after the first following pitch, or any play or attempted play. This is an appeal play;
Adrianza clearly intended to step on third, which would only indicate an appeal as there was no force. In that sense, it would negate the restriction on appeals made after leaving the field because it was made before they left the field.
9:07 That's still bullshit, the umpires got the appeals correct but that completely gets nullified because of the appeal being for the runner on 2nd base which they confirmed had left early wipes off the run of the 3rd base runner. No runs can be acknowledged if separate baserunners fail to get back on an out which was caught in the air. (The only exception being on a rundown)
I think I understand everything here . . . except WHY either the tag or stepping on the base were labeled as appeals and not just the actions of the play. Did I miss time out being called? I'm a year late but just discovered all these awesome videos so I might just be left wondering . . .
I'm OK with the explanation (totally ignoring what the Washington announcers were saying)... however, let me ask it another way because it seems like this is neither a timing play nor an appeal situation. When the line drive is caught without touching the ground, then a throw goes behind a runner who did not tag, that runner is forced out when the defense touches the bag he left. So, regardless of whether R2 is out by the applied tag, R3 is out because of the foot touching the base he left early. Please explain then, why this even needs an appeal - the ball was still live and they got 4 outs. I understand they're counting the run because they're calling it a timing play, but it's actually a force play for the 3rd out.
It's not a force play, failure to tag up is always an appeal play (ad also a time play - a force play is explicitly only when a runner is forced to advance, not return). In the scenario you gave, throwing the ball behind the player and touching the bag, that's an unmistakable appeal because there is absolutely no other reason to even throw the ball there.
In this case, however, an argument can be made that he only stepped on third as part of general principles rather than as a specific, unmistakable appeal that he is trying to say R3 did not tag up. That's enough in this case (even though you could ALSO argue he did appeal).
@@vonskyme9133 Thanks for your well-worded explanation. Just by way of closure... it seems that if F3 had thrown to the now-vacated 2B, or if F5 had ignored the runner and stepped on 3B, either of those things would have ended the inning without a run scoring. But, because F5 tagged the runner (and R3 already crossed home plate), they still need to appeal. This also makes that 3B umpire look really good because he pointed to R2 and called him out.
@@jfejapan2829 if F5 had ignored the runner and stepped on the bag only (effectively appealing ONLY for R3, not R2-who-happens-to-be-on-3), then yes no run scores. Throwing to second is the same appeal as tagging R2 with the glove, so if they did that and the ball arrives after R3 crosses the plate they still need to appeal at third to stop the run.
This is ridiculous. It might be the right call by rule, but the rule is just absurd and arcane. It's completely nonsensical, nobody in the stadium knows what's going on, and it took a stupid amount of time. MLB really should change this rule. Personally, I think the problem is with the "valid appeal" rule. A rule should never have to determine intent of a player. The fielder touching the base should be a valid appeal, period.
Another cute comment made by the announcers is the one said “put it in protest.” Sorry guys, you can no longer put a game into protest.
If the umps were doing their job correctly there should not be an appeal.
If the umps were doing their jobs correctly, which they were, there HAD to be an appeal. Leaving early and tagging up us only out on appeal, not automatically.
In no way does it make sense that the run counts, no matter what the rules say. Is there such a thing as common sense in baseball?
I'm confused... The correct action for the batter is to tag R2 to put him out, then to tag the base to put R3 out. He did so, so both runners should be out and unable to score. I still don't understand why the run scores due to a rule about an appeal. That's just bizarre to me.
There was already 1 out. The batter hit into a line drive which was caught. That was the second out. Both runners left early not realizing the ball was caught. The ball was thrown to 3rd and dropped. In that time the runner on 3rd scored and the runner on 2nd move to 3rd. The fielder tagged the runner now on 3rd base for the 3rd out.
What the fielder should have done is either touched the base first before tagging the runner, or after tagging the runner, got the attention of the ump, point to the bag and step on the base with intent.
@@brandonfrancey5592 I understand all of that. The fact remains, from the video the fielder clearly makes 2 separate actions, first to tag the runner, then the bag. It was clearly his intent to appeal both runners. But because he didn't say something extra to the umpire, a runner who left early from the base is allowed to score? That's absurd to me.
@@Fire5485 Doesn't matter. The moment he tagged the runner, the inning was over. 3 outs. If there were none out it would have been, line drive, tag, base. 3 outs, no run. Stepping on the base with 3 outs is irrelevent because the inning is over. The point of the appeal is to say to an ump, hey, we have 4 outs here. We want this runner to be the 3rd out that ends the inning. Also keep in mind, not tagging up isn't illegal. If the other team doesn't catch you and the next play happens, it counts.
So reconstruct the inning with the runner on 3rd tagging up. Line drive, 2nd out. Runner on 3rd tags and scores. Runner on 2nd goes to third and is tagged out. Inning over.
@@brandonfrancey5592 stepping on the base with 3 outs is the proper method for executing an appeal on R3, so it is most certainly not irrelevant. That's exactly what the fielder did, therefore the run shouldn't count.
@@davej3781 I agree with most of what you're saying. I'm just frustrated that it relies on the umpire "accepting" the appeal. Why is it not reviewable that "hey, the fielder did actually tag the base and appeal R3 in addition to R2"? I get the rule, I'm just frustrated that a run counted due to a stupid technicality that, in my opinion, should be fixed.
Announcers don't know the rules ????? Tell me it isn't so ! . . . Great Explanation
Granted this isn't a Mets broadcast, but both three Mets' TV and radio broadcast teams generally do a good job of getting the rules right. #InHowieGaryKeithRonAndDometimesWayneITrust
Announcers don't get 24 hours to get a statement from MLB to make a video, like this cunned stunt does.
@@randychase305 good commentators should know the rules of the game they're commentating on.
God the Nats announcers are so much worse than the Pirates crew
This whole situation and analysis is fascinating.
@CloseCallSports you are not clear about what happened here.
Agreed. Tagging the runner and stepping on third gets BOTH runners out for leaving early. There is no need for any appeal. Had he not immediately stepped on third, then I could see why the appeal would be necessary, but he already got him out, so it's a done deal.
On this day, baseball baseballed. And it baseballed hard.
So, basically, if 3B, tags the runner for out 3, he needs to also alert the 3BUmp that, I am also appealing R3 by stepping on the base, then they get to choose which out sticks?
Had he touched 3rd first, and not tagged R2 at all, would that have sufficed?
Yes, he needed to appeal R3, not R2.
YES. Tag the out you want. Step on third alone. Do separate appeals for two players, not to mention the fielder didn't seem to know what he was trying to do anyways since he didn't do anything until he realized people were yelling at him to tag the runner.
@Damian Wrong, Stepping on the bag without making it clear what he was appealing is nothing. All F-5 needed to do was to tell the umpire he was also appealing R3 leaving early. He didn't do that. An appeal must be obvious and unmistakable.
@Damian The umpire was correct. While verbal appeals are not required, the rule does require the defense to make it clear and unmistakable who they are appealing. Your belief that it was clear and unmistakable is nothing more than your opinion, which means nothing. If the umpire genuinely missed the tag of the base, all F-5 needed to do was tell the umpire that he was appealing R3 leaving early. He could still have made the appeal after R2 was called out, but instead the defense left the field, making a further appeal invalid. The defense screwed up, not the umpires.
@Damian The umpire may not have realized initially that F-5 stepping on the base was the intention to appeal. But that that does not negate the fact that the fielder could have gotten the umpire's attention by saying "I'm appealing R3 left early" or something to that effect. F-5 obviously didn't understand he could get the fourth out.
Looks simple to me, ball was caught, runner on second going to third is tagged out and the runner on third going home is out because the fielder touched third with the ball before he could return. I am no expert, but I did play little league. I see, the refs got it wrong, and the appeal is the question here? I guess?
The appeal must be "unmistakable." Now, on a normal tag up double play, the appeal *is* unmistakable because there's only one possible appeal that the defense could be making, appealing that the runner who started at the base being thrown to left the base early. But in this case, there are *two* possible appeals that the defense could be making-the appeal on R2 and the appeal on R3. In this case, it is the responsibility of the defender to make an "unmistakable" appeal. His first action is to tag the runner. That action is an unmistakable appeal (because you're tagging a runner who's clearly standing on a base so you're not trying to claim an ordinary out for tagging a runner.) The defender definitely touches the base, but he does so after the tag and he doesn't (in the opinion of the umpire and of Lin and of many of the commenters here) make an unmistakable appeal. In my personal opinion, the third baseman isn't 100% sure of what he's doing here. He doesn't look confident about his actions and he certainly doesn't verbalize an appeal on R3. If he had, it would have been given.
@@Tickenest I read all of that, very informative about the appeal process and I agree the officials applied the appeals rule correctly. I just assumed they were also officiating tag ups as that is the meat and potatoes of this play after the ball was ruled a catch.
How is tagging a base after the runner leaves early on a caught fly ball considered an appeal?
I've never seen that play called an appeal before.
Catch the ball throw to either 2nd or 3rd first and have a triple play.
Double play if there was already an out before play.
Me neither, but apparently all such plays are technically "appeals". Usually you don't have to do anything besides step on the base to indicate the "appeal" and the umpire signals the out.
Edit- on "bang bang" plays like on fly outs where a runner may or may not have left early, then it typically goes into a more formal appeal process, but still the team has to stand on the bag with the ball and look to the umpire for them to make a decision.
Triple play. Hitter out on catch....both runners out by virtue of not tagging up as third baseman tagged third causing the runner going home to be out and tagging the runner on third causing him to be out because he had no legal right to the bag because he also did not tag up.....triple play.
Great clip with explanations thanks - subscribed.
So, in effect, the 3rd-base ump made two, maybe three, incorrect calls: he called R1 safe at home and scoring (even though R1 failed to tag up and then left the field of play) when initially he should have signaled nothing and he missed the appeal move by the third baseman. Or what am I seeing wrong?
The appeal is not unmistakable, in my mind, and thus not validly made (although I admit it's arguable). If no appeal is made the runner scoring is the correct call, tagup or no tagup.
@@vonskyme9133 Open for debate I'll grant you, but do you disagree that the umps missed the non-tag-ups AND that the 3rd-base ump should have not signaled the run scoring until the play was dead?
@@TCizauskas I'm not sure on the scoring signal (edit: actually, on rewatching I can't see any run scoring signal while live, but run scoring signals are required on time plays - no idea on live or dead requirements. What timestamp do you see one?), but I do disagree on the non tagups. They saw them, but they literally aren't allowed to do anything about them without an appeal. A batter who leaves first, never tags up, rounds all bases without touching any of them, including home plate, has legitimately scored under the rules unless the defense appeals the baserunning infractions. The rule may or may not be fair or make a lot of sense, but that is the current rule.
This is clearer than the other explanations I've seen; thanks.
R2 is tagged, player steps on the base with the ball, how is that not an appeal on R3? If R3 had come running back it would have been an appeal without question and the fielder wouldn't have needed to say anything, usually it's appeals where they missed a bag that you need to specify what you're appealing. Tag ups are usually a given in this situation. I guess when appealing tag ups with this crew you're going to have to announce what they're intending?
Tag ups are usually "a given" because its "unmistakable" that's the purpose of stepping on the bag.
Think about it here. Why did the fielder step on third base? To appeal? Because that's the direction his momentum was taking him? It's not clear. And if it's not clear then, by rule, it's not an appeal.
This is unequivocally proven because, if the fielder had been intending to appeal R3, he would have said so when the umpire called R2 out instead.
@@Renegade605 Right, so every single tag up appeal is going to have to be announced for this crew because they're confused by basic baseball
@@JosephJamesScott it's the players' responsibility to know the rules just as much as it is the umpires'. This is the correct ruling, by the book. If the players understood "basic baseball", as you put it, this wouldn't have happened.
Not only is it not the umpires' job to explain to the fielders how to make this appeal, it's explicitly prohibited for them to do so.
It sucks for the Nats, but it's baseball.
@@FoxtasticGaming he's not. And there's no doubt about that.
But even if he was, the umpire clearly pointed to R2 and called him out. If he had intended to appeal R3, he would have said so at that time.
How is it that folks here consider stepping on third to be an obvious appeal but don't consider the umpire pointing as he calls an out to also be obvious?
@@FoxtasticGaming they didn't miss anything and it doesn't get much clearer than this. If you're frustrated with how the rule works and the interpretations of it, that's one thing, but this is officiated correctly by the book.
This is 100% great learning for umpires
This does not matter... If there was no out on the play it would of been a triple play... It does not matter if he touched the base or the runner due to the runner on third not tagging up on a fly ball... The explanation is great, but does not apply to this... There never should of been an appeal it should have never needed to be appealed... The fact that there was no valid tag up on a fly ball the bag or the runner at 3rd could be tagged as an out... This was a complete circus by the umpires
Failing to tagup is only out on an appeal, it's not automatic. You can argue whether or not he made an unmistakable appeal on R3, but he definitely does have to do so.
@@vonskyme9133 the issue with this play is it should not have required an appeal.... If there was no outs and the first baseman catches that ball as he did.. he can tag the runner and the base and it's a triple play... The umpires screwed this up from the jump. Rule 8-2-6 extracts this from being a time play because the runner who was tagged at third never made an attempt to go back to his original base making it a force out so the run should not have counted regardless of an appeal...
@@roadmaster3531 a force out under OBR is only when a player is forced to advance, not return (the rulebook is wonnderful in its wording as always, defining it as 'a play in which a runner loses his right to legally occupy a base by way of the batter becoming a runner'. It doesn't mention that the force is removed if the batter or a preceding runner is out explicitly, but that is the way it works). Tag ups are covered by rule 5.09 (c), which specifically refers to an appeal play.
There is no rule 8-2-6 in the current baseball rules. There is an 8.02 which refers to appealing an umpires decision, but it us different to what is being argued in this case.
@@vonskyme9133 well must be looking at an old rule book then... Bottom line Manfred is worst commissioner in Sports, Angel Hernandez is garbage and these umpires screwed up
@@roadmaster3531 you can argue the first two by all means, but the third one they did absolutely by the rules as they've stood since at least 2010 (older rulesets are harder to find online).
this is the correct ruling to a dumb rule. he stepped on the base to make sure both runners were out. having to say it out loud "I'm appealing" is silly and serves no purpose.
Great job by the umpire crew
What I don't get is this. The appeal has to be made during a live ball. The third out was registered, how can the ball be live (to make an appeal valid) with the defensive team still on the field?
As I understand it from the wording of the 4th out rule, the appeal has to be made before the pitcher and all infielders leave the fair territory. Based on that I'd suggest the ball is still live until then.
The dead ball law doesn't list 3 outs as one of the reasons the ball goes dead, so it doesn't disagree. The ball may even stay technically live between innings from my reading.
Edit: if it IS dead, though, the correct procedure is to ask the umpire for the ball, take your positions and appeal as normal. This can even be done after the game is theoretically over, for example because someone got excited and missed a base in a walkoff home run.
(Deleted comment) I get it now. It's one very needed step clearer at the linked article. I'm really not sure how stepping on the base isn't an unmistakable appeal, and not a combined appeal.
Yes, the time play is the part you're missing. The runner who started on third crossed the plate before the runner who started on second was tagged for the third out. There is no force play involved, so the run scores.
@Damian There was a runner standing on third when the third baseman stepped on third. It wasn't made obvious to the umpire that the step on third was appealing the runner who started on third. Just stepping on the base is not enough to appeal like was explained in the video.
Josh Bell's face was almost permanently like that in Pittsburgh.
Can you explain why the runner was sent back during the Angels Vs White Sox 5th Inning, Wade was sent back to first on a 3-1 count because batter made contact on back swing, it wouldn’t batter be considered out?
Maybe Lindsay will cover it, but if I remember correctly from the prior videos, with backswing interference, the runner is sent back. Batter's interference is separate from backswing interference, and has to involve interfering by stepping in front of the catcher on his throw. Batter's interference results in the batter being out. Backswing interference just sends the runner back.
@@linollieum3742 makes sense, thanks for explaining!
If this was a backswing contact situation, here's a video on the subject by the prior guy: th-cam.com/video/csOWV8-ypPo/w-d-xo.html
stopping on the first one... you dont know the rules well do you. he went back and stepped on second as he had to for the ground rule double. Didn't miss first to go back... just needs to retouch second. What did he do for the ground rule double? he went back and touched second because that was the base he is entitled to.
The Nats had to have the tag the base at 3rd, despite not being entitled to hoke? Also, if part of the Nats went to the dugout, but two players remain on the field, can they appeal the play?
I'm ok w/ the ruling, but not sold on 3B not making an unmistakable appeal. It's obvious that he purposely stepped on the base; he didn't do it accidentally. Does he have to make a verbal appeal at that point? But the crew needed to explain what happened beyond leaving the field. That's why they have the mics.
No, it's not obvious. He stepped on the base following his tag of the runner standing on third. The focus of the fielder was OBVIOUSLY on the runner he was tagging, not making an appeal on the runner that scored that left early. You can't "accidentally appeal". This call was 100% correct. Don't be swayed by a terrible broadcast.
@@FirstBitewithDan No, the fielder wouldn't have tagged the runner standing on the base if he wasn't playing the catch, and he likewise wouldn't have touched the base for any reason other than to appeal the lack of tagging up--there was no R1 in this situation. Both plays were 100% in line with playing the catch. Fourth out was touching third, which as Lin explained the Nationals could elect to take precedence over the tag of R2 to negate the run. Ump was so focused on calling Park out that he neglected the additional appeal of Suwinski.
@@closethockeyfan5284 That's utterly ludicrous! Now we're trying to read the fielder's mind, which is impossible, but that said, the manner in which he tagged the runner and then his momentum carried him towards the base implied that he wasn't really sure what he was doing because of the unusual situation. There's no doubt here that the fielder was NOT trying to make an appeal on the runner; if by some unusual chance he was, his actions didn't signify his intentions. AGAIN, we have a good call here. Case closed.
@@FirstBitewithDan Sorry, but that just doesn't align with the facts. The only uncertainty came from the soft call of catch on the batted ball. The appeals were both made correctly, and your logic falls apart because if he was so confused, then how does the tag appeal count as such either? No, this was a blatant fourth out appeal. The only ones who clearly didn't know what they were doing were the umpires, otherwise there would be no rules check and no 10-plus minute debacle. I love umpires.as one who's been there and had my share of tough calls. I will largely defend them. But they blew this one.
@@closethockeyfan5284 Since there's not any real way of knowing what was going on inside the fielder's head, we can't err to the side of giving him the benefit of the doubt. Simply running to the base doesn't constitute an appeal. Stepping on the base and pointing towards home saying "THAT runner is who I want out, he left early" or something to that effect would have made more sense. Even supposing his mindset was "I'll tag the runner and then tag the base for the appeal", his actions didn't coincide with that logic. It would have been no trouble at all for him to point and say "He left early" but he didn't, and since you can't accidently back your way into an appeal, there's no other logical call except this one.
I understand how this is the correct application of the rules but I’m not sure I understand how this is the right outcome. It’s quite clear watching live that the fielder both tags the runner and the base. It seems ridiculous to require players, while the play is going on, to know the intricacies of the appeal rules and know the tag the base before the runner.
It seems ridiculous that a player who gets paid millions of dollars to play a game doesn't know the rules of that game.