Very confusing for the average fan but they got the call right. The runner from third never tagged and scored but the nats only tagged out the run that came from 2nd (who also didn't tag) to get the third out of the inning. Once they left the field because the third out was made they lost the ability to appeal that the run shouldn't have scored because of the no tag.
Yep definitely tricky.....the way I'm viewing it, there was already 1 out....then the line drive was caught, which is out #2, which then means the runner standing at 3rd who came down from 2nd became out #3 when they tagged him because he was doubled off 2nd base (if I'm putting that correctly), so technically a 4th out would be when the 3rd baseman stepped on the bag immediately afterward because the runner who came home was doubled off 3rd base...all of this because of the line drive being caught and, unless I'm mistaken, the runners were running on the play....So with all of that being said, I'm not understanding how a run would've counted/scored in that situation.
@@rickmontgomery3037 An appeal on a runner in this situation must be obvious. Tagging the runner that started at 2nd is obvious. His foot landing on 3rd base while he is tagging R2 is not obvious.
@rickmontgomery3037 if you listen to the announcers they say touch 3rd, touch the runner double play. But Adrianza tagged R2, then touched 3rd. So tagging the runner from 2nd was the 3rd out, but the runner from 3rd had already scored. That was not an appeal because the play was still live. The Nats could have appealed an early leave from 3rd (the “fourth out”) but they left the field and lost the ability to do that. Since the runner scored before the 3rd (non-forced) out, it counted. If Adrianza had tagged 3rd before tagging the runner from 2nd, that would have been the 3rd out and the run would not have counted. Interesting play.
I'm with Catman. The touching of 3rd was the obvious appeal attempt. R3 who went home was already in the dugout so the only other obvious attempt at the appeal would have been to tag third and to verbalize the appeal (and perhaps the Nats should have done that in order to be safe in the understanding of the appeal - no pun intended).
Very very interesting play and I think the umps got it completely right. Once the ball is caught for the 2nd out the defense either needs to tag R2 or R3 to record the 3rd out OR throw back to 3rd base or 2nd base and appeal that they left early. You can see in the video that after the catch and the throw to the 3rd baseman that he tags R2 FIRST before touching 3rd base. Once he tags R2 that is the 3rd out of the inning and the inning is over. And since R3 had already crossed home before R2 was tagged the run scores. It would seem to me that even if the Nats had appealed that R3 left early before the team abandoned the field that it would have been too late - the 3rd out was already recorded and the inning was over.
please read up on 4th out appeals... you don't even have to go to some arcane passage in an umpire manual, it's right there in 5.09(c)(4): "Appeal plays may require an umpire to recognize an apparent “fourth out.” If the third out is made during a play in which an appeal play is sustained on another runner, the appeal play decision takes precedence in determining the out. If there is more than one appeal during a play that ends a half-inning, the defense may elect to take the out that gives it the advantage. For the purpose of this rule, the defensive team has “left the field” when the pitcher and all infielders have left fair territory on their way to the bench or Clubhouse."
@@davej3781 yep you are completely right. I had never heard of that 4th out appeal rule. After I left this comment I heard about it in a different video. Thanks!
But I think the Umpires still didn't get it right though, 'cause they shouldn't have considered that R3 scored due to he missed tagging. So the appeal wouldn't be necessary.
@@Aleboyzonic runners can run to the next base whenever they want to. In order for a runner to be out for leaving early the defense has to appeal. If the defense doesn’t appeal then the runner is safe at the next base. So if a runner leaves third early and crosses home plate and the defense never appeals then the run counts.
What an excellent training video. Cool rare situation. I submit that video review should have been used (or requested by Washington) to check the details of the appeal. That fielder was clearly making one, the question is whether the fielder stepping on 3rd base was deemed by the umpires to be intentional (as an appeal). Appeals for not tagging up are rarely accompanied by words or any verbal indication, so it would be perfectly reasonable to deem Adrianza stepping on 3rd base and tagging R2 as 2 separate appeals, both resulting in outs. I don't think this run should have been awarded.
The appeal at third base could have been on R3 leaving early or R2 leaving early. So which runner was he appealing? He must make it clear to the umpire. If he appealed R2 leaving early R3 scores if they don't appeal him. Once the defense leaves the field, there can be no further appeals. The third baseman should have appealed R3 leaving early and the run would not count. Or they could have appealed R3 leaving early for the apparent fourth out before they left the field.
@@alanhess9306 Please explain the first sentence you write. It just isn't possible. Tagging R2 at 3B is an appeal on R2. Tagging the base is an appeal on R3, as EVERY other such appeal has been "unmistakeably" made over the last decades.
@@FactsMatter If the umpires didn't see or recognize the touch of 3B then it wasn't unmistakable. When U3 pointed to R2 and called him out F5 should have further asked for the appeal on R3. He was happy with R2 being the third out.
@@jamesmurray3948 your statement is only true if you assume umpires never make mistakes, literally, and communicate perfectly. U3 shares blame on this one, at the very least.
@@FactsMatter The entire point of the video is that an appeal must be made clear to the umpire. Tagging the base or the runner are not appeals unless the fielder tells the umpire exactly what he is appealing. U3 did nothing wrong, F5 appealed the wrong runner. After appealing R2, he could have then appealed R3, but he didn't make it obvious and unmistakable.
sometimes it's helpful to look at things in reverse: let's say U3 did grant both appeals and negated the run. Would anyone seriously be arguing that U3 was wrong and that F5's actions did not constitute valid appeals on both runners?
Ordinarily, in the case of a fielder with the ball touching a base to appeal on a runner who left without tagging, it is obvious for which runner the appeal is being made. However, in this case, because R2 was there at 3rd base, F5 now has to make it clear to U3 on which runner he is appealing. When F5 tags R2, that appears to make the appeal on R2, not R3. If F5 meant to appeal on R3, with R2 already standing right there, I believe he needed to verbally indicate such to U3 - which I don't believe was done. So, assuming I have the facts correct, if U3 had called R3 out on appeal, there would be grounds to say that call would have been incorrect.
@@larrycopeland2413 if F5 tagging R2 is an appeal on R2, on which we agree, then what is F5 tagging 3B? I'll accept that for whatever reason U3 didn't interpret that as a 4th out appeal on R3, but if he had how could anyone say "no, that's wrong"? How does the defense appeal a runner who didn't tag up during live action? They throw the ball to the base at which he failed to tag up, and they tag the base.
@@davej3781 I'm willing to grant you that F5 might have had in mind to appeal on R3 when he stepped on 3B. However, because F5 was in the middle of appealing on R2, then it seems to me (not claiming to be a rules expert) that F5 needs to make clear to U3 that he is in fact appealing on R3 as well as R2.
Not sure why this is so confusing. Ball is caught without a bounce (1st out). All runners can only advance once they have tagged up. Since everyone advanced before the ball was caught, any baseman is free to tag 2nd or 3rd base to get the runner out OR tag the runner DIRECTLY. The 3rd baseman tagged the runner from 2nd base so he is out directly (2nd out) and the inning is over. Then the 3rd baseman recorded a 4th out by stepping on 3rd base (3rd out) to get the runner who had already crossed home plate out (but he would be out anyways because he ran off the field thinking he scored when he actually didn't, and hence should have stepped at home and run back to 3rd base before the 3rd baseman got there). Similar situation as the 2nd baseman doing the unassisted triple play. 2nd baseman catches a line drive (1st out) while 2nd and 3rd runner were trying to do hit and run. 2nd baseman tags the 2nd runner who has stopped at 2nd base (2nd out). Then the 2nd baseman steps on 2nd base to get the runner who ran to 3rd base (3rd out) cuz he didn't tag up.
Yes - no run would have been scored. Read the umpire's interesting thoughts on the play - he states that in his response. I've never seen this play but it's been (nerdy) fun getting up to speed on it.
yes, I think if F5 had stepped on the bag first and waited for an out signal from U3, that would've been unmistakable as an out on R3. While I believe F5 did correctly appeal on both runners, negating the run with a 4th out appeal on R3, tagging R2 first and trying to do both appeals at the same time did confuse the matter; had F5 waited for an out on R2 and THEN tagged 3B and waited for an additional out call, perhaps while pointing home to indicate the runner who'd scored, that would've made things clear.
Possibly. Honestly, it would have been better for the him to tag the runner from second, let that runner leave the base, and then tag the base for the appeal. If the runner didn't leave the base after being called out, then just point to home and tag third base for the clear appeal on the runner from third.
Wrong. Once the 3rd out was recorded (i.e. when he tagged the runner who went from 2nd to 3rd base), the 3rd out was recorded. HOWEVER, thanks to the 4th out rule, the defense does have the opportunity to replace the 3rd out with the runner who scored from 3rd base, but they would need to formally appeal. A formal appeal is when the pitcher has the ball on the mound, steps off, and throws the ball to whatever base they are appealing. Once the fielder tags the base (i.e. 3rd base in this case), the 3rd out is replaced by the runner who scored, nullifying the run. Once the defense left the field without formally appealing, they waived their right to do so, and the inning was over with the run counting.
@@sawmill035 Now with 3 outs, how does the ball get put into play to appeal the 4th out? The batter will not get into the box as there are 3 outs and the umpire cannot put the ball into play until he does.
They are really not that complicated. Some of them need to be updated, but they are all logical once you know why they were implemented. Unfortunately, the average fan, player, coach, or manager is clueless about the rules.
Once again it is proven that the players and announcers are clueless about the rules of the game that feeds their families. Here's an idea. Put a cpy of the MLB rulebook in your bathroom and every time you take a dump read a couple of pages
The appeal was for the runner on Second base who ran to third without tagging up, and he was correctly called out. What they should have done was to vocalize to the third base umpire that they wished to appeal the runner who went home instead. That would have been the third out and would have taken the run off of the board. Here is a video that details the whole play including the relevant rules involved. ua-cam.com/video/p-DKeVgyUJ0/v-deo.html
Terrible call. The 3rd baseman clearly intentionally steps on 3rd and keeps his foot there for 3 seconds. He probably just tagged the runner because he wasn't 100% sure the runner who went home hadn't tagged up. For the appeal to be "obvious," do you have to scream, "Hey Ump! I'm stepping on 3rd base to get the 4th out!"
They appealed the wrong runner if they didn't want the run to be scored. The Nats appealed R2 by tagging him. When the ball was caught, it then made this play a timing play with 2 outs. R3 scored before R2 was tagged out on appeal. In MLB once the infielders leave the infield you cannot appeal.
This was an obvious and intentional appeal on both R2 (runner tagged) and R3 (base tagged); there's no mystery as to what F5 was doing here. I don't know how the crew convinced themselves they should give the Pirates a free run here.
I don't agree. If he was appealing R3, then he would have indicated that. I don't think he did. However, had you been the umpire and you deemed that the fielder actually did intend to appeal R3 leaving early, then that's a judgement call. I don't think the fielder made it in and way obvious that he was appealing R3.
I disagree. When you are appealing that a runner left the bag early you have to indicate that to the umpire. To me it was clear that the third baseman was only concerned with getting R2 out. You can tell after the play that nobody on the Nationals team ever even considered appealing R3.
@@MH-Tesla to me it's obvious what F5 is doing; there's no reason whatsoever for F5 to tag R2 standing on 3B AND tag the base unless he's appealing both. it's not like he just inadvertently stepped on 3B while walking off the field, he did so quite explicitly while looking at the umpire. and it's not a situation where the runner tagged up and left a little early so the defense may or may not know and we need them to explicitly say that's what they're appealing... literally EVERYONE in the entire stadium knows both runners were off on contact and never tagged up that said, I can certainly accept the argument that U3 may not have noticed the pretty clear tag of 3B and/or that F5 should have made very clear verbally that he was appealing BOTH runners. and we don't know what exactly F5 said to U3, if anything... it's possible he said something, by mistake or not, that seemed to indicate only an appeal on R2
I disagree. This is the most obvious situation to which the fourth out appeal rule applies. The tag of third base was the fourth out appeal, and the run should not have counted. The decision on the field was that the crew couldn't recognize the appeal because the defense appealed after they had left the field, but it is obvious that the fielder purposely tagged the runner and then the base to appeal both runners leaving early.
The rules state that when appealing by stepping on a bag, you must step on the bag and (paraphasing) the appeal must be "unmistakeable" to the umpire. The "and" is important here as the fielder didn't say or intimate "I'm appealing the runner who ran home". There is no "and" when tagging a runner - only when stepping on a bag. Had he stepped on the bag first (for the 3rd out) before tagging the runner, no run would have scored. Please look up the umpire's very detailed comments on the play. I'm not being snarky here - I had no idea of any of this before the play!
@@davej3781 The comments came from the crew chief, Mark Wegner. Ryan Wills was the 3B umpire. I don't see that he's said anything at this point. I suppose it's now down to the definition of unmistakable. My opinion is: when he tagged the runner, the umpire clearly pointed at the runner and called him out. But, he didn't say anything about the scorer being out. I don't think the third baseman knew what he was doing when he tagged and then stepped on the bag and it's possible the umpire didn't notice that he stepped on the bag as he was looking at the face of the third baseman. So, they both made a mistake which, by definition, is not unmistakable...
@@visarr ok, I've found Wegner's comments. all fine from his point of view as U1 and CC. It just seems that U3 missed F5 clearly stepping on 3B and I'm pretty sure F5 believed he was getting appeals on both runners and that the inning ended with no run scoring. They run off the field believing they've stopped the run from scoring, then the umpire tells them "we did score the run, and since you've left the field you can't make the appeal any more". Yes, F5 should have made absolutely sure U3 understood, but he probably also felt what they were doing was patently obvious. When you throw behind a runner whom EVERYONE in the entire stadium knows did not tag up and tag the base he left, it's obvious what you're doing; also tagging a runner at that base shouldn't make tagging the base any less of an obvious appeal. In the end I suppose we'll have to go with "U3 mistook F5's appeal, therefore by definition F5's appeal was not unmistakable".
Very confusing for the average fan but they got the call right. The runner from third never tagged and scored but the nats only tagged out the run that came from 2nd (who also didn't tag) to get the third out of the inning. Once they left the field because the third out was made they lost the ability to appeal that the run shouldn't have scored because of the no tag.
Yep definitely tricky.....the way I'm viewing it, there was already 1 out....then the line drive was caught, which is out #2, which then means the runner standing at 3rd who came down from 2nd became out #3 when they tagged him because he was doubled off 2nd base (if I'm putting that correctly), so technically a 4th out would be when the 3rd baseman stepped on the bag immediately afterward because the runner who came home was doubled off 3rd base...all of this because of the line drive being caught and, unless I'm mistaken, the runners were running on the play....So with all of that being said, I'm not understanding how a run would've counted/scored in that situation.
in my opinion he effectively appealed when he touched third unless you believe that's not why he stepped on third
@@rickmontgomery3037 An appeal on a runner in this situation must be obvious. Tagging the runner that started at 2nd is obvious. His foot landing on 3rd base while he is tagging R2 is not obvious.
@rickmontgomery3037 if you listen to the announcers they say touch 3rd, touch the runner double play. But Adrianza tagged R2, then touched 3rd. So tagging the runner from 2nd was the 3rd out, but the runner from 3rd had already scored. That was not an appeal because the play was still live. The Nats could have appealed an early leave from 3rd (the “fourth out”) but they left the field and lost the ability to do that. Since the runner scored before the 3rd (non-forced) out, it counted. If Adrianza had tagged 3rd before tagging the runner from 2nd, that would have been the 3rd out and the run would not have counted. Interesting play.
I'm with Catman. The touching of 3rd was the obvious appeal attempt. R3 who went home was already in the dugout so the only other obvious attempt at the appeal would have been to tag third and to verbalize the appeal (and perhaps the Nats should have done that in order to be safe in the understanding of the appeal - no pun intended).
Hoping Jomboy does one on this
Very very interesting play and I think the umps got it completely right. Once the ball is caught for the 2nd out the defense either needs to tag R2 or R3 to record the 3rd out OR throw back to 3rd base or 2nd base and appeal that they left early. You can see in the video that after the catch and the throw to the 3rd baseman that he tags R2 FIRST before touching 3rd base. Once he tags R2 that is the 3rd out of the inning and the inning is over. And since R3 had already crossed home before R2 was tagged the run scores. It would seem to me that even if the Nats had appealed that R3 left early before the team abandoned the field that it would have been too late - the 3rd out was already recorded and the inning was over.
please read up on 4th out appeals... you don't even have to go to some arcane passage in an umpire manual, it's right there in 5.09(c)(4):
"Appeal plays may require an umpire to recognize an apparent
“fourth out.” If the third out is made during a play in which an
appeal play is sustained on another runner, the appeal play decision
takes precedence in determining the out. If there is more than one
appeal during a play that ends a half-inning, the defense may elect
to take the out that gives it the advantage. For the purpose of this
rule, the defensive team has “left the field” when the pitcher and
all infielders have left fair territory on their way to the bench or
Clubhouse."
@@davej3781 yep you are completely right. I had never heard of that 4th out appeal rule. After I left this comment I heard about it in a different video. Thanks!
But I think the Umpires still didn't get it right though, 'cause they shouldn't have considered that R3 scored due to he missed tagging. So the appeal wouldn't be necessary.
@@Aleboyzonic runners can run to the next base whenever they want to. In order for a runner to be out for leaving early the defense has to appeal. If the defense doesn’t appeal then the runner is safe at the next base. So if a runner leaves third early and crosses home plate and the defense never appeals then the run counts.
@@Aleboyzonic you always have to appeal failure to tag up. If the defense doesn't appeal, the advance is legal.
What an excellent training video. Cool rare situation.
I submit that video review should have been used (or requested by Washington) to check the details of the appeal. That fielder was clearly making one, the question is whether the fielder stepping on 3rd base was deemed by the umpires to be intentional (as an appeal).
Appeals for not tagging up are rarely accompanied by words or any verbal indication, so it would be perfectly reasonable to deem Adrianza stepping on 3rd base and tagging R2 as 2 separate appeals, both resulting in outs.
I don't think this run should have been awarded.
The appeal at third base could have been on R3 leaving early or R2 leaving early. So which runner was he appealing? He must make it clear to the umpire. If he appealed R2 leaving early R3 scores if they don't appeal him. Once the defense leaves the field, there can be no further appeals. The third baseman should have appealed R3 leaving early and the run would not count. Or they could have appealed R3 leaving early for the apparent fourth out before they left the field.
@@alanhess9306 Please explain the first sentence you write. It just isn't possible. Tagging R2 at 3B is an appeal on R2. Tagging the base is an appeal on R3, as EVERY other such appeal has been "unmistakeably" made over the last decades.
@@FactsMatter If the umpires didn't see or recognize the touch of 3B then it wasn't unmistakable. When U3 pointed to R2 and called him out F5 should have further asked for the appeal on R3. He was happy with R2 being the third out.
@@jamesmurray3948 your statement is only true if you assume umpires never make mistakes, literally, and communicate perfectly. U3 shares blame on this one, at the very least.
@@FactsMatter The entire point of the video is that an appeal must be made clear to the umpire. Tagging the base or the runner are not appeals unless the fielder tells the umpire exactly what he is appealing. U3 did nothing wrong, F5 appealed the wrong runner. After appealing R2, he could have then appealed R3, but he didn't make it obvious and unmistakable.
sometimes it's helpful to look at things in reverse: let's say U3 did grant both appeals and negated the run. Would anyone seriously be arguing that U3 was wrong and that F5's actions did not constitute valid appeals on both runners?
Ordinarily, in the case of a fielder with the ball touching a base to appeal on a runner who left without tagging, it is obvious for which runner the appeal is being made. However, in this case, because R2 was there at 3rd base, F5 now has to make it clear to U3 on which runner he is appealing. When F5 tags R2, that appears to make the appeal on R2, not R3. If F5 meant to appeal on R3, with R2 already standing right there, I believe he needed to verbally indicate such to U3 - which I don't believe was done. So, assuming I have the facts correct, if U3 had called R3 out on appeal, there would be grounds to say that call would have been incorrect.
@@larrycopeland2413 if F5 tagging R2 is an appeal on R2, on which we agree, then what is F5 tagging 3B? I'll accept that for whatever reason U3 didn't interpret that as a 4th out appeal on R3, but if he had how could anyone say "no, that's wrong"? How does the defense appeal a runner who didn't tag up during live action? They throw the ball to the base at which he failed to tag up, and they tag the base.
@@davej3781 I'm willing to grant you that F5 might have had in mind to appeal on R3 when he stepped on 3B. However, because F5 was in the middle of appealing on R2, then it seems to me (not claiming to be a rules expert) that F5 needs to make clear to U3 that he is in fact appealing on R3 as well as R2.
Turn on the mic so we can hear the whole conversation
Not sure why this is so confusing. Ball is caught without a bounce (1st out). All runners can only advance once they have tagged up. Since everyone advanced before the ball was caught, any baseman is free to tag 2nd or 3rd base to get the runner out OR tag the runner DIRECTLY. The 3rd baseman tagged the runner from 2nd base so he is out directly (2nd out) and the inning is over. Then the 3rd baseman recorded a 4th out by stepping on 3rd base (3rd out) to get the runner who had already crossed home plate out (but he would be out anyways because he ran off the field thinking he scored when he actually didn't, and hence should have stepped at home and run back to 3rd base before the 3rd baseman got there).
Similar situation as the 2nd baseman doing the unassisted triple play. 2nd baseman catches a line drive (1st out) while 2nd and 3rd runner were trying to do hit and run. 2nd baseman tags the 2nd runner who has stopped at 2nd base (2nd out). Then the 2nd baseman steps on 2nd base to get the runner who ran to 3rd base (3rd out) cuz he didn't tag up.
If he had stepped on the bag and then tagged the runner would that cancel the run.
Yes - no run would have been scored. Read the umpire's interesting thoughts on the play - he states that in his response. I've never seen this play but it's been (nerdy) fun getting up to speed on it.
yes, I think if F5 had stepped on the bag first and waited for an out signal from U3, that would've been unmistakable as an out on R3. While I believe F5 did correctly appeal on both runners, negating the run with a 4th out appeal on R3, tagging R2 first and trying to do both appeals at the same time did confuse the matter; had F5 waited for an out on R2 and THEN tagged 3B and waited for an additional out call, perhaps while pointing home to indicate the runner who'd scored, that would've made things clear.
Possibly. Honestly, it would have been better for the him to tag the runner from second, let that runner leave the base, and then tag the base for the appeal. If the runner didn't leave the base after being called out, then just point to home and tag third base for the clear appeal on the runner from third.
Wrong. Once the 3rd out was recorded (i.e. when he tagged the runner who went from 2nd to 3rd base), the 3rd out was recorded.
HOWEVER, thanks to the 4th out rule, the defense does have the opportunity to replace the 3rd out with the runner who scored from 3rd base, but they would need to formally appeal.
A formal appeal is when the pitcher has the ball on the mound, steps off, and throws the ball to whatever base they are appealing. Once the fielder tags the base (i.e. 3rd base in this case), the 3rd out is replaced by the runner who scored, nullifying the run.
Once the defense left the field without formally appealing, they waived their right to do so, and the inning was over with the run counting.
@@sawmill035 Now with 3 outs, how does the ball get put into play to appeal the 4th out? The batter will not get into the box as there are 3 outs and the umpire cannot put the ball into play until he does.
For a very simple game they make the rules so complicated.
They are really not that complicated. Some of them need to be updated, but they are all logical once you know why they were implemented. Unfortunately, the average fan, player, coach, or manager is clueless about the rules.
Other sports don't have this problem. Another reason, of many, why baseball is bleeding fans.
Sowinski didn't tag third base before running home. Run shouldn't have counted. Madness.
The defense allowed the runner to advance to home and then failed to timely appeal, allowing the run to count.
Once again it is proven that the players and announcers are clueless about the rules of the game that feeds their families. Here's an idea. Put a cpy of the MLB rulebook in your bathroom and every time you take a dump read a couple of pages
Inb4 Jomboy
Stepping in the base for 5 secs is an obvious appeal. It’s time for robo umps.
The appeal was for the runner on Second base who ran to third without tagging up, and he was correctly called out. What they should have done was to vocalize to the third base umpire that they wished to appeal the runner who went home instead. That would have been the third out and would have taken the run off of the board. Here is a video that details the whole play including the relevant rules involved. ua-cam.com/video/p-DKeVgyUJ0/v-deo.html
WTF are you talking about? You actually think they'll be robots out there? robot ump is the automated strike zone,. jfc,
Terrible call. The 3rd baseman clearly intentionally steps on 3rd and keeps his foot there for 3 seconds. He probably just tagged the runner because he wasn't 100% sure the runner who went home hadn't tagged up. For the appeal to be "obvious," do you have to scream, "Hey Ump! I'm stepping on 3rd base to get the 4th out!"
Little confused on this one
They appealed the wrong runner if they didn't want the run to be scored. The Nats appealed R2 by tagging him.
When the ball was caught, it then made this play a timing play with 2 outs. R3 scored before R2 was tagged out on appeal.
In MLB once the infielders leave the infield you cannot appeal.
@@Drob86 that's what I was thinking but wasn't 100% sure
This was an obvious and intentional appeal on both R2 (runner tagged) and R3 (base tagged); there's no mystery as to what F5 was doing here. I don't know how the crew convinced themselves they should give the Pirates a free run here.
The step on third wasn't so obvious.
The step on third was not obvious, and you have to know what you are appealing.
I don't agree. If he was appealing R3, then he would have indicated that. I don't think he did. However, had you been the umpire and you deemed that the fielder actually did intend to appeal R3 leaving early, then that's a judgement call. I don't think the fielder made it in and way obvious that he was appealing R3.
I disagree. When you are appealing that a runner left the bag early you have to indicate that to the umpire. To me it was clear that the third baseman was only concerned with getting R2 out. You can tell after the play that nobody on the Nationals team ever even considered appealing R3.
@@MH-Tesla to me it's obvious what F5 is doing; there's no reason whatsoever for F5 to tag R2 standing on 3B AND tag the base unless he's appealing both. it's not like he just inadvertently stepped on 3B while walking off the field, he did so quite explicitly while looking at the umpire. and it's not a situation where the runner tagged up and left a little early so the defense may or may not know and we need them to explicitly say that's what they're appealing... literally EVERYONE in the entire stadium knows both runners were off on contact and never tagged up
that said, I can certainly accept the argument that U3 may not have noticed the pretty clear tag of 3B and/or that F5 should have made very clear verbally that he was appealing BOTH runners. and we don't know what exactly F5 said to U3, if anything... it's possible he said something, by mistake or not, that seemed to indicate only an appeal on R2
I disagree. This is the most obvious situation to which the fourth out appeal rule applies. The tag of third base was the fourth out appeal, and the run should not have counted. The decision on the field was that the crew couldn't recognize the appeal because the defense appealed after they had left the field, but it is obvious that the fielder purposely tagged the runner and then the base to appeal both runners leaving early.
we agree 100% this time Eric, I have that as a clear and obvious appeal on both runners
The rules state that when appealing by stepping on a bag, you must step on the bag and (paraphasing) the appeal must be "unmistakeable" to the umpire. The "and" is important here as the fielder didn't say or intimate "I'm appealing the runner who ran home". There is no "and" when tagging a runner - only when stepping on a bag. Had he stepped on the bag first (for the 3rd out) before tagging the runner, no run would have scored. Please look up the umpire's very detailed comments on the play. I'm not being snarky here - I had no idea of any of this before the play!
@@visarr to me, stepping on the base the way he did is unmistakable as an appeal on R3...
did U3 actually comment on this play?
@@davej3781 The comments came from the crew chief, Mark Wegner. Ryan Wills was the 3B umpire. I don't see that he's said anything at this point. I suppose it's now down to the definition of unmistakable. My opinion is: when he tagged the runner, the umpire clearly pointed at the runner and called him out. But, he didn't say anything about the scorer being out. I don't think the third baseman knew what he was doing when he tagged and then stepped on the bag and it's possible the umpire didn't notice that he stepped on the bag as he was looking at the face of the third baseman. So, they both made a mistake which, by definition, is not unmistakable...
@@visarr ok, I've found Wegner's comments. all fine from his point of view as U1 and CC. It just seems that U3 missed F5 clearly stepping on 3B and I'm pretty sure F5 believed he was getting appeals on both runners and that the inning ended with no run scoring. They run off the field believing they've stopped the run from scoring, then the umpire tells them "we did score the run, and since you've left the field you can't make the appeal any more". Yes, F5 should have made absolutely sure U3 understood, but he probably also felt what they were doing was patently obvious. When you throw behind a runner whom EVERYONE in the entire stadium knows did not tag up and tag the base he left, it's obvious what you're doing; also tagging a runner at that base shouldn't make tagging the base any less of an obvious appeal.
In the end I suppose we'll have to go with "U3 mistook F5's appeal, therefore by definition F5's appeal was not unmistakable".