Padres Lose Run as Rougned Odor Called Out for Missing Home Plate Despite His Return to Touch It
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 04. 2023
- San Diego lost a 4th inning run against Atlanta when Padres runner Rougned Odor's run was wiped off the board on appeal, HP Umpire Chad Fairchild ruling that Odor failed to touch home plate...despite Odor returning to touch it after initially missing it. Why is that? Article: www.closecallsports.com/2023/...
Facebook: / closecallsports
Twitter: / closecallsports
Discord: / discord
During Padres batter Trent Grisham's infield ground ball with runners on second and third (R2 Ha-Seong Kim on second base and R3 Rougned Odor on third base), Odor broke for the plate, drawing a throw from Braves first baseman Matt Olson. The throw bounced past catcher Travis d'Arnaud's mitt, as Odor passed home plate-without touching it.
The wild throw to the backstop screen allowed trailing runner R2 Kim to jog in to score, and after Kim stepped on home plate, Odor returned to step on the plate himself to try and correct the baserunning error in missing it the first time by.
After the play, the Braves appealed that Odor failed to touch home plate (despite Odor touching the plate eventually) and HP Umpire Fairchild affirmed the appeal, ruling Odor out for missing a base and taking a run off the board for San Diego.
Official Baseball Rule 5.09(c)(2) governs appeals for missing a base and has this approved ruling: "No runner may return to touch a missed base after a following runner has scored."
It's simple: Odor missed home plate the first time by, then trailing runner Kim touched home plate/scored, and then Odor returned to touch home plate. By rule, this is invalid and Odor thus is considered not to have touched home plate at all, meaning the appeal is affirmed and Odor is out.
This is a different rule than runners passing-so don't compare the two since it is a false equivalence. Runners passing is NOT an appeal play (the defense doesn't even have to tag the runner!). Instead, runners passing is a call the umpire makes on their own as soon as the infraction occurs. This is not runners passing as Odor is considered to have scored UNTIL and UNLESS the defense appeals that he failed to touch his base. - Sport
I've watched baseball for 40+ years (around 10,000 games watched) and consider myself a rules expert. But your channel never ceases to stump me with super obscure never before seen situations. Amazing!!!
I had to laugh when Odor ran back to the plate AFTER his teammate crossed the plate. Ha!! Talk about a dead giveaway…. Ha!!! Don’t do THAT!!! You might as well carry a giant sign…”I missed the plate”!! Ha!! Just to think he could go back and touch the plate [thinking his own run will now count] after watching his own man trot across….is astonishing!!
I agree - I would go with the chance Fairchild didn't notice the missed plate. Well now he knows!
It's kinda like people who aren't wearing their seatbelt when they see a cop quickly reaching to get it on. That movement only means one thing and just begs the cop to pull them over. There's a fair chance a cop wouldn't even notice otherwise.
If he hadn't done that, I wonder if the Braves would have thought to appeal. If they don't appeal, the run counts. Odor really gave himself away there.
@@Stoneham64 Of course Fairchild saw it or he wouldn't have called the runner out.
Saw this when I happened and shouted "he got passed, he's out" and then immediately realized that couldn't be right since the trailing runner is the runner that's out in that situation. So I had to wait for your video to figure this out -- thank you for clearing this up!
I also noticed that the home plate ump didn't give a safe or out signal on Odor. To me, that's an indication that the ump knows he missed the plate.
There is no reason to give a signal when Odor missed the plate because there was no play being made on him. Giving any signal would be wrong.
This is what I love about this channel. I always learn something new about the rules of baseball here.
Rules knowledge adds to viewing pleasure.
@@rayray4192 Absolutely. I thought I knew the rules until I started watching this channel.
I’m definitely not a rules expert; just a casual fan. I also thought it was a “passing the runner” issue.
It’s been fun learning so many nuances & new rules I didn’t know about on your channel lately. Thanks for all the breakdowns.
While it's not identical to passing the runner, it is *like* passing the runner, very similar. Kind of funny for Lin to insist it isn't similar and then proceed to explain it is very similar.
@@davej3781 You're conflating like with same. They're both about the trail runner reaching a point ahead of the lead runner. This isn't even debatable, haha
@@davej3781to the average fan it is along the same lines, to an umpire or a fan who is a rules freak this situation and the passing on bases is like comparing apples & oranges.
It’s always important to know the status of the ball. If a baserunner passes his teammate he is immediately declared out, and the ball remains alive and in play. This case play is very different. It’s a missed base scenario. The runner is safe and the run scores unless the defense appeals a runner missed a base. The ball became dead after continuous action do the ball must be made live by the umpire in chief for any appeal to be made and out recorded.
@@closethockeyfan5284 an appeal of a missed base is an entirely different type of rule than passing your teammate while running bases. Very different. One is an appeal play- one is a base running infraction that results in an umpire declaration. This precise language was used in the tutorial video.
Watch the replay again. The catcher DOES NOT have the ball (the announcer says the ball got away from him again), but IS blocking the plate. Shouldn't Odor have been declared SAFE on catcher's interference?
he made an attempt to catch the ball but it got away from him, that doesn't count as obstruction. A catcher can block the plate in the attempt to field a throw
@@poluticon If he's blocking the plate and does not have the ball? Really? He had to have gotten into the position without having the ball since he didn't catch it at all.
@@williammaddock9179: It's a powderpuff, Manfredian rule that is impossible for mere mortals to capably enforce. Why not give runners a "scoring plate," 8 feet from the real plate, just like in coed and senior softball?
If there had been two outs when this occurred, would Odor being called out negate the run scored by that subsequent runner?
Correct. Neither run would have scored had there been two outs
Correct. When an appeal is the third (or 4th) out, no following runners may score. If the runner was forced to the base he missed, no runs score on the play what so ever.
Yes
@@mae2759 there was no force out when the pitch was delivered. Had there been two outs the successful appeal becomes the third out, and no run can score after the third out. The actions of a preceding runner do not affect the following runner unless there are two outs.
Jazz Chisolm was ejected today for arguing balls and strikes. Am eagerly awaiting the video covering it.
I wonder if an appeal play counts as a disengagement for the pitcher during that at bat.
No. It's a separate play.
A good manager asked what runner I guess & ask for the rule and nods his understanding & goes on back to the dug out. No argument.
Probably also making sure that they counted at the one run as well.
Seems like a "duh, of course one of those runs HAS to count" thing, I know. But baseball being what it is, I'd check too...😀
Love your channel, you are the best j
Could the Padres appeal that due to the catcher BLOCKING home plate WITHOUT the ball? Because that is what actually happened. i believe that is interreference on the catcher and was the actual reason the runner missed the plate. IJS
Interference is on the offense- obstruction is on the defense. All Odor had to do was slide, and he would have been safe. Modern players don’t know how to slide. They are not complete baseball players.
I believe catchers are allowed to block the plate if they are in the process of fielding a throw, which he was doing.
The catcher can never commit "interference" except on a swing. You're thinking of obstruction. And no, the missed touch was not due to obstruction.
I do not know if that is reviewable in OBR. Even if it was, after watching it again, F2 is not obstructing and is giving a clear path to at least a portion of the plate.
The baserunner is not allowed to deviate from his direct path to initiate contact with the catcher (or any player covering the plate). Runners are considered to be in violation of this rule if they collide with the catcher in cases where a slide could have been used to avoid the collision.
I was wondering why he wasn't out for not sliding
@@teebob21 no he's not he's going to make a tag and block the plate without possession of the ball. I'd call this an illegal block, he is NOT fielding a throw at time of contact he is turned and attempting a tag without possession of the baseball.
Props to Bob Melvin for knowing the rule himself & having a calm conversation over such a run being taken off the board.
I've learned more about the rules from this channel in a month than I knew in 40+ years of watching. Thank you.
What would happen on review if the catcher did not provide a clear lane without the ball?
Runner would be safe because of obstruction.
I was umping a game once where the batter hit a grand slam. The guy on third scored. The guy on second scored. Before the guy on first touched home plate, he turned around to high-five the batter. The batter then touched home before the guy on first did.
Guy on first was OUT, three runs score.
What are your thoughts on obstruction by F2 being the reason why the runner did not touch the plate?
I was thinking the same thing. He obstructed his path to home without the ball.
There was no obstruction.
@@alanhess9306 there was contact and you can't obstruct the plate anymore without the ball. But the throw took him into the plate and therefore I agree with you. This wouldn't be obstruction. He should have just slid and it would have avoided him missing the base.
@@Weapon12 Agreed.
I've got obstruction here. The throw was on the 1st base side and did not take the catcher over the plate to receive it. He moved over the plate after he failed to catch the ball. It would have been fine if he had the ball but he didn't. He didn't even drop the ball like on the earlier play since he never had it in the first place.
Blame would probably go to Odor - he should've signaled to Kim he missed the Plate and hurried back to tap the Plate, assuming there wasn't a rules violation for the Catcher blocking the plate to Odor (which had seemed to not happen.)
Great analysis ...what was odor thinking, my bad?
He should have immediately pivoted to slap the plate as fast as he could have, however he needed to do it.
And the ignorance! Thinking he can touch a base after his teammate has touched the same base.
Since it's Odor... he probably wasn't thinking.
Does the appeal count as one of the pitcher's two disengagements for that batter?
I would imagine no, since it involved an actual purpose other then to reset.
But I await the rules gurus at CCS to confirm that
I have an inquiry about your interpretation. 1. After the rear runner Kim Ha-sung touches Hong, the right to home touch of Odor is extinguished by the door's out (appeal during in-play in this case) 2. Which item was applied by giving Kim Ha-sung's out (Bold immediate out in this case) in relation to the rear runner Kim Ha-sung's out (in this case)?
The actions of a preceding runner do not affect the following runner unless two are out. Hope this helps. Peace.
Kim was not out; Kim scored. Only Odor was out on this play.
When Mlb schedules games to the 19 or so crews how they get everything right? Im sure it takes alot of time off season to get it right. Do they do it manually?
I don't have first hand knowledge but have used software for similar scheduling. I'm almost certain they simulate it first and then go through it afterwards to correct errors. The logistics of the MLB is a pretty fascinating subject imo!
I think the umpire still blew the call. It should have been a fielder interference for the catcher blocking the plate without having the ball, and making contact with the runner. Lead runner should be awarded home plate, and 2nd runner sent back to third base because the ball would be dead at the moment of interference.
Yes, the catcher missed the ball, but he didn't block the plate. He set up on the 1st base side, then came across to the 3rd base side.
Runner could of touched home but he missed it. If he slides he definitely touches home plate.
Let's pretend I agree with you. Before we go on with the discussion, can you please point me to the rule that defines "fielder interference", because I have been umpiring for the past quarter-century and I don't believe that's a thing that exists in the baseball rules.
You think wrong.
What about challenging for plate blocking?
Kim’s run wouldn’t have counted if that would’ve been the third out? Is that correct?
Correct!
Would love to see a video on the runner's lane violation (yes, another) in today's Astros-Twins game where Tucker was called out when the throw to 1st hit him in the back. Especially since I was listening on the radio :)
The way Houston( and some others)have their infield set up causes all these problems..it's much like the Turner play at Houston during the 2019 series..it makes it hard for a runner to NOT be in fair territory during those plays( especially in Turner's case where he's a RH batter!). Runners establish their straight line right out of the box. Those batters aren't intentionally getting in the way of throws
@@matthewwarren3868 wrong, but thanks for playing. Tre Turner hit a buck sixty nine as a lead off hitter in the World Series. He hit the ball like a little girl. If your little girl contact with the ball causes you to be off balance in the right hand batter’s box that’s a big league hang with em. In other words hit the ball hard like a man and stop whining. All batter/ runners are required to not interfere with a fielder fielding a throw at first base. No exceptions for cry baby right handed hitters. It’s really easy- if you hit a little girl ball around the home plate area, just run with two feet in the running lane until your last stride into first base. It’s not rocket science and it’s really easy.
appeals can be made right during the play before time is called right? it looked like snitker should've just told his catcher to just touch home? i mean no reason not to, right?
Anytime before the next pitch/play while the ball is live yes. Presumably, when Snitker left the dugout the ump called time so at that point he can't till the ball is put back in play.
"Is LIKE passing the runner."
Next question, does this count as a disengagement for the pitcher for the purpose of the pitch clock rule?
It's not part of that at-bat -- it's an appeal of a previous play.
My guess would be yes, it's a disengagement, but I believe since the appeal was successful, you're back to square one when play resumes.
Now for an interesting winkle. R2, knowing they were going to attempt an appeal play, should have attempted to steal 3rd as soon as F1 looked back at him. If either F1 or F2 made an attempt to retire R2 attempting to steal 3rd, then the intervening action nullifies the opportunity to appeal. So the possibilities are R2 retired and Odor's run stands, R2 is safe at 3rd on an attempted pick-off and the run stands, or R2 reaches 3rd on indifference and Odor is retired with his run taken away.
@@michaelfalkner1186 an appeal, yes, but the ball needs to be live, so it is an action that is occurring during the current batter's at-bat.
Remember, for the ball to be placed into play, pitcher in mound, catcher in catcher's box, 7 other fielders in fair territory, and batter in batter's box.
No. Appeals are separate from pitch deliveries.
@@francissager3133 pitcher on pitching plate, not mound.
Was play at the plate obstruction or tangle?
Tangled.
Catcher was making a legitimate attempt to field a thrown ball.
@@francissager3133 He wasn't blocking the plate when he was attempting to field the ball. He moved to block the plate with a tag motion while not in possession of the ball. Even if the catcher thinks he has the ball, intent is not required for obstruction.
@@francissager3133 The Armbrister tangle interpretation does not apply to a thrown ball or a runner. It only applies to the batter-runner and a batted ball being fielded by the catcher. In this case, we have a train wreck, with both players doing exactly what they should be doing. No call is the correct call.
@@davej3781 I can agree that he was no longer in the act of fielding the ball but I see no hindrance of the runner.
Rule 6.01(i)(2) Comment: A catcher shall not be deemed to have violated Rule 6.01(i)(2) unless he has both blocked the plate without possession of the ball (or when not in a legitimate attempt to field the throw), and also hindered or impeded the progress of the runner attempting to score.
Now with the appeal. Could SD have challenged the appeal saying that the runner did touch HP? I know there’s a time limit to challenge a call but since they had no reason to challenge the initial call till the appeal. Does the challenge timer start after the result of the appeal?
Ooh, good question. 🤔
If the appeal play results in a successful appeal, can the play that was being appealed then be appealed? 🍌
I don't know. (And I'm too lazy to try to look it up.) But, since the appeal play was when the runner was first called out, I think that call SHOULD be appealable.
Couldn't have said it better than Dave J. Theres actually a video on this channel that covers pretty much this situation (or at least a very similar situation). Not exactly sure anymore, I'd have to look up the video, but as far as I recall the runner missed home plate and on appeal was originally called safe. Defense Coach challenged the call on the appeal which was then overturned an the runner called out.
Genuine question about this play. D'arnaud blocks home plate without possession of the baseball. Buster Posey Rule. Shouldn't Odor be ruled safe. He wouldn't have to touch if ruled safe due to an illegal block.
I am more confused why Odor didnt slide? all seemed very odd and D'arnaud now off fir concussion protocols.
Had the appeal throw from a the pitcher hit the batter, would there be a consequence?
No, it wouldn't change anything. The catcher could retrieve the ball and step on the plate and make the appeal.
Why was this not ruled obstruction? D'Arnuad was not in the act of fielding the ball, which at the point of his collision with Odor was well beyond the plate. (This seems similar to Joyce's obstruction call at third in the World Series.) The catcher certainly didn't *try* to impede the progress of the runner, but it sure seems he made it far harder for Odor to step on home.
I thought the same. It wasn't Odor's fault he couldn't tag the base immediately
There's no obstruction because Odor was given a visible line to the plate. The attempted tag by the catcher, albeit without the ball, still does not remove a visible lane to touch the plate. If Odor slides, he touches the plate with ease, and there would be no bizarre video to debate.
@Don Keylips except that it is. And accept that it is.
@Don Keylips actually yes it is, d'Arnaud is making an attempt to catch a thrown ball. Had he not been, then yes it would have been obstruction, but this is a clean play.
what are you guys looking at? He had the ball (or thought he had it at least) when he went to block the plate. There was a clear lane to the plate before that.
Why wasn't it obstruction since the catcher never had possession of the ball?
As Scooby Doo would say"rutt-ro". I know what was going to happen as soon as I saw the following runner come into the frame.
The catcher obstructed the runner - absolutely no doubt about it.
You are joking, right?
@@alexlackner1945 No. He wasn’t in possession of the ball when he crossed into the runner’s path.
@@ChrisWaters He was in the act of fielding the throw (even though he didn't catch it). The catcher did not block the plate. The runner was not impeded. There was no obstruction.
@@alanhess9306 That’s an interesting interpretation. So what do you say *would* constitute obstruction then? He obviously *wasn’t in possession of the ball* BEFORE he pivoted and entered the runner’s path.
@@ChrisWaters The only part of his body that was in front of the plate was his arm as he moved to make a tag. He gave the runner a path to part of the plate and the runner would have been safe if he had slid. Nothing the catcher did hindered the runner.
Odor should have just walked back like he did touch it lol gotta sell it man
Now I want to see a lead runner miss a base, then get passed by another runner for an out, after which the lead runner gets called out on appeal. The ensuing chaos would be amazing.
What I don't quite understand is why the passing runner rule was not in play. Should the ump have called Kim out immediately for passing Odor? Was that the 'correct' call?
I can see why that answer is no. The only way he could make that call is if Odor did not touch home plate, but that's an appeal call.
In fact, this should (help me on this) be TWO OUTS on the same appeal play, no run scores.
Now I'm curious about how the official scorer had scored the play before the appeal. You see the broadcast take off the run after the appeal, but since the umpire never made a safe call for Odor in the first place, I don't think his run should have ever been added. Essentially it was too late for Odor to correct the play, but he also hadn't scored, so until the defending team appealed, he was just a runner in the ether, neither safe nor out. If the defending team hadn't appealed, would the inning have gone on without recording a run or an out for Odor?
@@davej3781 There wasn't a tag, but you'll often see umpires make safe calls even when the defender is clearly not in possession of the ball so that the result of the play is clear to everyone. I'm trying to look for the exact rule that says when a safe/out call is required, but it's not that easy to find.
@@davej3781 Correct. A runner who passes a base is assumed to have touched it for scoring purposes. If he did not in fact touch the base, that is appealable until the next pitch is thrown.
@@samtremblaybelzile You would do well to look into the umpire manual. When a base is missed and the runner is not legally tagged, the recommended mechanic is to give no signal.
@@teebob21 I know that much. The mechanic I wasn't sure about was whether the run is counted when there's a play at home, the umpire gives no signal and the defending team doesn't go back to tag the runner or appeal the play. From what I understand from Dave's comment, the official scorer would count the run as soon as the runner crosses home without being called out, even if he never touches the plate. It still seems like a strange approach to me, but I haven't found the exact rule that relates to this with a quick search. I'll look for it when I have more time.
@@samtremblaybelzile If there is a play at home and the runner passes but does not touch home plate, nor is tagged, the correct umpire mechanic is no signal.
If the play is not appealed, the run scores and is official on the next pitch or attempted play (such as a pick-off).
There is no particular guidance about how to score a run which SHOULD have been appealed for an out, but was not. For scoring at umpiring purposes, the unappealed violation is ignored as if it never happened. The remainder of the scoring guidelines are listed in OBR Rule 9. A putout on appeal is credited to the nearest fielder at the time of the appeal, in this case F2 (scored U2).
What happens if machado catches the ball or hits it do they loose appeal
No. He would be out for interference. The Braves would then appeal the runner's failure to touch the plate and choose that out to negate the run.
Interesting
MLB needs to clean up some of these rules. How was the trailing runner supposed to know not to score there? And also the only reason why the first runner didn't touch home plate was because the catcher blocked him without possession of the ball. The outcome, while compliant with the rules, seems wrong to me and not in the spirit of the game.
What the trailing knew or didn't know is totally, 100%, absolutely irrelevant.
This one is for everyone talking about catcher obstruction...
Since Melvin isn't the least bit upset and doesn't appear to ask about the obstruction ( I would think that there would have been a review had he asked), there must be a quirk in the rule that applies here.
I don't believe it should be the "act of feilding the ball" part because the act had already occured (he missed the ball, but that was his attempt to field).
Is there an exception for if he THINKS he has the ball? In the moment, did everyone possibly think the tag attempt knocked the ball loose?
There HAS to be a reason Melvin didn't challenge or get upset.
@CloseCallSports Can you offer a reason obstruction did not apply here?
Darn. You cant "at" people here, can you?
What if Odor's out was the third out of the inning? Would that allow the trailing runner's score to count?
If it was the third out, then the following runner’s would not count.
Why didn't Odor put his hands up to tell the runner to not touch the plate until he does?
Because players don't know the rules; and even if he did, he's not that smart in the moment.
What if Odor never went back? Would the trailing runner's run count or would he be called out?
Could a case be made for obstruction as the catcher did not have the ball and was blocking the lane?
Why wasn't this obstruction?
The runner only missed home because the catcher threw himself across the plate in front of the runner without the ball
This is why Mook Manfred's New, Improved Shiteshow is systematically ruining MLB: powderpuff rules like this, too flawed to consistently enforce. If this were the old days, the umpire's call would be correct. It would have been Odor's task to collide with the catcher and then find a part of the plate to tag for his run to be counted. I've got obstruction, too. No reason for the catcher, not possessing the ball, to be set directly above the baseline in front of the plate, by today's rules.
This was awesome. I love it when you call out announcers for not knowing the rules, but I would have been guilty on this one too, thinking "passing the runner".
shouldnt odor be safe since the catcher blocked the plate without control of the ball anyway?
Does an appeal count as a disengagement?
The first runner shouldn't have gone back to touch home because it just drew attention to the fact that he'd missed before. He had a better chance at no appeal if he'd just gone to the dugout.
Yea. I agree.
It looked like the ump noticed it and didn't make the call, and I do wonder if Snitker would have noticed that or not without Odor going back. He may have, but who knows.
But Odor going back just really highlighted it.
We can reasonably be sure the umpire saw that Odor missed the plate. It is one of the things the umpire must look for on a play like this.
They need to make a rule that the Braves must wear these uniforms regularly.
Bruh odor could've easily faked going back to third base and then try to touch home plate or like touch the plate after the catcher was already not at home plate
Why was the first runner not called out for running over the catcher? The Buster P. rule.
Catcher moved into his running lane.
The Posey rule is a 2-way street.
Pete Rose would have touched the plate
Now that’s an intelligent comment. Rose would have slid or knocked the catcher over, but he definitely would touch home plate.
A couple of things. Funny batter almost wears the appeal toss. Odor stinks up the play missing the plate. Other runner might have alerted Odor the missing th red bag
I'm curious how the appeal acts as a force when it was initially a tag play. Is that just how it works?
The runner gave himself up returning to the dugout, also a tag does never has to be made on the runner at home plate if the runner leaves the vicinity of the plate.
I can see how it can be confusing and seem that way. It's not about treating it as a force, just using the base in question where the (potential) infraction occurred. In this case, the infraction occurred at home plate, so that's where the appeal also had to happen.
In my opinion, it would be much better, simpler, faster, etc. (stronger too, why not) to let the appealing team just say, "Hey, blue, we want to appeal that the first runner didn't touch home before the second runner" and then the umpire gives the ruling. If we think about it from a neutral perspective instead of deferring to the preexisting rule, I don't think there's a compelling argument to force the team to do all this hokey pokey on an appeal after the play in question is dead.
I agree. This whole hokey pokey thing can become quite a mess on lower levels of play.
Also the whole thing of forcing the defence to make a play to deny them the chance for an appeal is interesting in terms of tactics, but I would still prefer just having that as a verbal thing while the ball is dead, it just feels like neatening up the game and actually rewards a team noticing a minor rule infraction.
@@closethockeyfan5284 it’s not “ hokey pokey.” Runners are usually out when the ball is live. The umpire can’t make the ball live until the pitcher places his pivot foot in the pitching plate. There are dead ball appeals in high school ball. A player or a coach can appeal to an umpire with a dead ball in National Federation of High Schools rule set.
When the pitch went to home plate there were runners on 2nd and 3rd base . There was no force out. The batted ball forced zero runners to advance. The only time an appeal is on a force out is when a base runner misses the first base he is compelled to advance to because the batter transitioned from batter to a batter/ runner. Except on a walk or a hit by pitch. All runners are awarded their advance base, not forced to their advance base. Almost all appeals are timing plays, and are not on force outs.
to the best of my knowledge the ball must "always" be live, at all levels of baseball, for an appeal to be accepted.
No, HS allows a dead ball appeal.
The worst part is that if you go to :46 and go frame by frame, you can see his foot ON home plate and then off. He touched it. Should have left well enough alone.
Have your eyes checked, he never touched the plate.
@@alanhess9306 Yep, you are correct. There is a good 2 inches of dirt visible between his foot and the plate at that time mark.
R2 should have taken off for third base immediately.
Even if he gets thrown out, at least he saves a run.
Oooh, then you get the even more rarely seen “fourth out” situation. The defence can appeal after the 3rd out has been recorded for the purpose of removing a run that was illegally scored
@@Simba65315
Not in this situation.
Ball goes into play. If R 2 breaks for 3rd and defense makes a play on R2, then the defense has given up their chance to appeal by making a play.
The 3rd out would have had to happen before play relaxed/time called for the 4th out appeal to happen.
@@JPINFV ah, ok. I was assuming you meant to save the run by the runner giving themselves up for the the 3rd out, avoiding the appeal procedure entirely.
Softball umpire here, we avoid all of this by allowing dead ball verbal appeals.
@@davej3781 NO. THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS. Even if play continues after a missed base, continuation of the ongoing play does NOT negate an appeal opportunity.
In the rule you have cited, an example of any play or attempted play would be a pick-off attempt or a pitch or a balk.
@@davej3781 Yes, like I said: a pick-off attempt or any play.
What happens if the appeal throw back to the catcher hits the batter?
It’s not a “pitch”, it’s a thrown ball. If the batter was to hit it intentionally it would count as interference.
Not a pitch. So nothing but a really bad throw.
Ball would be live and in play.
After an errant throw, no further appeal may be attempted. But since it was not a pitch, no bases are awarded.
@@geoffroi-le-Hook throwing the ball into dead ball territory means no appeal is allowed. If a throw is poor an appeal is still allowed.
Does it make a difference if Odor never went back to touch the plate? It appears he was never tagged.
Scoring out of order. Odor touched but after the trail runner. The better question is the catcher, who is turning and attempting to make a tag without possession of the baseball. The turn and tag attempt shows it's not the act of fielding the throw that brought him into the runners path. I think this could be a missed call on the catcher illegally blocking the plate, in which Odor would not have to touch if ruled safe for the catcher violating the Posey Rule.
@@maniacmatt1782 What makes me think that there is some part of that rule that made this not a possibility is Melvin's calm demeanor and not even attempting to appeal it.
Could be a missed call on Melvin's part, but I really find it hard to believe everyone saw that play and this thought didn't even creep into their minds.
My best guess is I think the catcher thought he had the ball when he started his tag. So maybe something in that nullifies the obstruction.
My question is:
why do the Braves have to appeal?
Why can't the umpires just rule that Odor never touched home plate, and he is out?
Because baseball is a sport which requires the teams to ask for a ruling when the other team makes a non-obvious violation. Baseball is descended from cricket, in which all catches or tags are appealed: "Howwzatt?!?!"
@@teebob21 Interesting, but what constitutes "non-obvious"?
@@EvanEscher By the book, appealable "non-obvious" plays include runners who miss a base while passing it, runners who leave their base before a caught fly ball is touched, unreported substitutions, and batting out of order.
@@teebob21 thanks
@@teebob21 An unreported substitute is not a violation so there could be no appeal. 5.10(j).
But not called obstruction
The play at the plate was tangle/untangle.
@Ryan Ceason it was not
@@davej3781
Rule 6.01(h) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: An infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball
From 6.01(I)(2)
"Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire shall call or signal the runner safe. Not withstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(2) if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field the throw (e.g., in reaction to the direction, trajectory or the hop of the incoming throw, or in reaction to a throw that originates from a pitcher or drawn-in infielder). In
addition, a catcher without possession of the ball shall not be adjudged to violate this Rule 6.01(i)(2) if the runner could have avoided the collision with the catcher (or other player covering home plate) by sliding."
I have a good no call. The runner missed the plate, and is out on appeal.
not obstruction, know the rule please.
@@davej3781 sorry, pasting it from my phone, on a tiny screen, I didn't realize it got cut off, or I missed it was on the next page of the PDF.
This isn't obstruction at any level. Unless you have the judgement of Angel Hernandez.
How was he not out for bashing into the catcher?
Catcher moved into Odor's path, so that was actually on the catcher.
I think the cather believed he had the ball when he started to attempt the tag, so I have no idea where that leaved him on an obstruction call.
I imagine Melvin knew he couldn't appeal on that or couldn't win an appeal, and he didn't look the slightest bit upset, so I don't even think he brought it up.
Obstruction?
If he had not come back and touched home, would he still have been called out?
Yes Because he did not touch the plate
Only on an appeal however.
@@alexandrelambert4923 Which they did.
Maybe.
Odor could have yelled to his team mate to hold off scoring until he touched home plate, or he could have simply acted like he touched home and gone back to the dugout.
By going back and touching home AFTER his team mate scored, he sent up a big red flag to Atlanta that something wasn't right.
@bushputz true. Though it would not change anything for Fairchild who already knows he missed the plate.
Announcers should refrain from commenting on the rules. Last week in a game with two runners on second Bob Costas said "The runner who got there first gets the base'. unbelievable.
Gotta agree with John on his second sentence. That arm-blocks-leg should (imh-non-umpire-o) be an automatic safe in the new safety era. You can’t allow catchers to do things like that AND say you can’t steamroller them. That catcher is getting the benefit of the new safety rule while being permitted to go for the runner’s legs like it’s 1940.
Odor could have jumped into the plate two footed like an angry soccer player. It would have been the safest way to 'slide' into the plate in the situation because going in a typical baseball slide could have got his ankle/leg/knee tangled up or spiked into the dirt, and probably would have and snapped the catchers arm in half. Not a lot of safety in that situation.
@@bigpoppa1234 baseball can be a contact sport. Sliding feet first was the best choice. Players don’t know how to slide. A hook slide would have been a good strategy.
@@rayray4192 Yep. Odor should have gotten down on a play like this.
Wouldn't it technically BE a passing the runner issue? I get that you have the rules and all, but if the ruling is that he did not touch home plate (and that there was no blocking of home plate by the catcher), then the other runner did touch home plate before he did, rendering it a passing...
Odor is not out, but since he admits he didn't touch the base by his actions, he also hasn't scored (should the other team appeal). So wouldn't 5.09 (b)(9) apply, and isn't 5.09 (b)(9) the basis for the Approved Ruling (since it's a missed touch that activates the rule, etc. and so forth and blah blah blah)?
In fact, would they not BOTH be out?
If a runner passes a base they are assumed to have touched it until the appeal happens.
No. Can't pass someone who is no longer running the bases. A runner who crosses the plate no longer has runner status.
@@teebob21 Interesting interpretation...
@@michaelfalkner1186 Not only interesting, it is also a correct interpretation.
How about him barreling into the catcher with no slide and catcher blocking home plate
I thought this as well, but it looks like in the MLB, there's no requirement to slide (Buster Posey rule).
Odor should have been out for not sliding
There is no rule that would have a runner out for not sliding.
@@alanhess9306 it's called the Buster Posey rule
@@billymuellerTikTok I know the rule. There is no requirement to slide, ever.
@@alanhess9306 the rule is avoid contact which he did not attempt to do
@@billymuellerTikTok In reality, the rule is to attempt to avoid contact. The runner cannot alter his path to hit the catcher. He did not alter his path. You were wrong to say he should have been out for not sliding.
Is everyone blind? The catcher knocked the base runners legs away from home plate. You can’t do that. Both base runners are safe. Baseball has collectively lost its minds. All these new garbage rules and all of a sudden everyone forgets the fundamental rules of the game. Great, the game is only 2.5 hours now. But its 2.5 hours of suck. Baseball is awful right now.
I don’t agree that baseball is awful, but I do agree that the catcher should not be allowed to do what he did. In the old days where it was more violent? Tough luck, Odor. Now? It’s unfairly one-sided.
John, first of all please take your meds. Second, the catcher is allowed to do that in the attempt to field a throw.
Go read the rules. The ball is 3 feet to the right of the plate in between the catcher and Ump. The catcher is faking a tag a foot to the LEFT of the plate. 1. You can’t block the plate unless you have the ball. He doesn’t. 2. You can’t impede the runner from touching a base unless it’s in the process of making a tag. What is anyone’s motivation to disagree with me? Watch the play. Read the rules. Have a good day. I always regret making comments on the internet bc only the morons reply with their moron comments.
No, everyone is not blind. Your question has been answered.
I’m a baseball lover. None of the new rules take away from the greatest game ever invented.
This is why I don't think appeal plays should be in baseball. The refs should be officiating the rules, not requiring the outfield team to officiate it themselves then ask the officials to do their job. Must have taken forever to sort through as well and ended with both teams talking to the umpire.
Also what happens if someone at 3rd happened to steal home before the appeal was made? That was a wild throw and a fast enough runner could have got to the plate first, or the catcher distracted by the appeal process ignored a runner going home? And can you still appeal after if there was a wild throw and a runner scored?
They are umpires, not refs. High school rules required umpires to call a runner out for missing a base without an appeal. The rule was only around a few years. Umpires refused to use the rule. It’s up to the defensive team to be vigilant to observe touches of bases. It’s the way baseball works.
Run scores. No appeal can be made I’d the ball is thrown into dead ball territory.
I think it was Ron LeFlore who missed second on his way to third and tried to steal home to prevent an appeal. He figured the slim chance of stealing home was better than the automatic out at second.
Is that proof that Odor stinks?
No such proof was needed.
The rules committee might want to take a look at this one and make this a dead ball challengeable play.
Why? And what aspects of the play would you like to be made reviewable? What parts of this very simple play do you feel were so improperly officiated in real-time that the review rules should be expanded?
Mark Grant, the announcer for San Diego has been a joke ever since he took the job. He has no clue what he is talking about. He should be banned from talking about rules.