http://economics.about.com
Wow.. I didn't even realize the game had started and it's already 3-0 for the good guys.

I wonder if Griffin realizes that the Jays are now just a game behind the Orioles, as Detroit Tiger and Fish Candy P Gary Knotts beat the Orioles.

MP

The Rangers chipped away at Sturtze until it was tied, then took a 4-3 lead on A-Rod's sixth-inning solo shot to right. Sierra barely beat out an infield single, Teixeira doubled him home, and that ended Tanyon's evening on the short end of a 5-3 score.

A terrible call by the home plate ump erased a fourth-inning Hinske leadoff double; on the appeal by Texas, Ron "Mea" Kulpa ruled that Eric missed first base. On CBS Sportsline, they call it a double and say Hinske was picked off at second; ESPN says he grounded out to the pitcher. First base ump Matt Hollowell blew an even easier call when he somehow failed to see Sturtze beat Teixeira to the bag by a step and a half. It feels like one of those games...

Well it just got closed to 5-4.

ESPN would show it as a groundout to the pitcher because that's how the appeal play is scored: 1-3.

My question is, why does a team have to appeal in this sort of situation? Is the umpire supposed to watch carefully as the runner rounds first to be sure he touches the bag, but if the runner misses the umpire just keeps quiet about it unless the team on defense asks? What is the point of that, what does it accomplish?

Faulds has trouble following even the most basic plays. A grounder deep in the shortstop hole with two on produced a routine force at third, but poor Rob was discombobulated; his confusion was still evident during the replay.

The bad calls keep on coming, all the same way -- Kulpa punched out Cat on a full-count slider that was never close to the plate. I hope a supervisor reviews this game and grades these clowns accordingly.

Wells kept the rally alive with an RBI single off A-Rod's glove, then they walked Delgado to load the bases for Phelps. Josh fanned on some good pitches by Cordero, ending it at 5-4. Of course, it's an uphill battle tonight; the difference between Catalanotto earning a walk and being called out was huge.

Jonny, I don't know why, but the defensive team is responsible for watching for mistakes. It's the same with batting out of order -- if a pitch is thrown to the next hitter before anyone complains, play goes on as if it didn't happen.

Creek walked the leadoff man then got a groundout. Aquilino showed no fear of A-Rod; each slider was better than the previous one until he struck him out. Lopez doesn't even mind facing a lefty with 498 HR; he fanned Palmiero too. It would be nice if the Jays rallied to win one for the rookie, who should return for the eighth.

Is it just me, or has the strike zone been huge all night?

There could be a strange CF camera position, but it sure looks like the outside "edge" is moving around quite a bit for lefty batters. Last night, ankle-high was a strike. Today, as Cat will confirm, it's a foot outside.

An excuse-me bloop single by Juan Gonzalez was the only blemish for Lopez, who struck out four of the six men he faced, popping up the other. Let's see what the boys can do against Ugie.

Lopez seems to strike out a huge number of people and his walk rate isn't terrible. He looks like a keeper!

Tonight, it just wasn't meant to be; Cat hit a frozen rope to first (it looked like a double off the bat) and the win streak ends at five.

Some of my favorite Lopez K rates from years past (obviously, his current eye-popper of 14.48 per 9 innings is my absolute favourite):

100 in 70 innings (12.86 K/9) in the Dominican Summer League in '98.

98 in 87.2 innings (9.55 K/9) at single-A Everett in short-season A ball in '99.

79 in 62.2 innings (11.35 K/9) at AA San Antonio in 2001.

He only had 103 in 109.1 (8.48 K/9) last year in AAA, but still that's not bad.

Regarding appeal plays, thank your lucky stars that baseball has cut out 99.9% of the appeals. In cricket, you need to appeal almost every out.

...which now that you mention it, why does cricket do it? Either the player is out or he isn't, the umpire doesn't need a player to appeal to make a judgement call. I suppose the noisy appeal adds to the colour of cricket.

Off topic:

When people ask me what kind of game cricket is, I tell them it's a bit like baseball. For some reason this seems to enrage people: "But cricket is incredibly boring...". I heard somewhere (might have been New Scientist) that in the late eighties/early nineties cricket bowlers (pitchers if you will) "discovered" something called reverse swing. It used the same aerodynamic techniques on the ball that baseball players had used for years. I have no doubt that cricketers could learn a *lot* more from baseballers because baseball is so much better understood.It would be interesting to see if a cricketer ever started using the equivalent of a knuckleball, or a splitter. (Equivalents of screwballs are common).

http://economics.about.com
My question is, why does a team have to appeal in this sort of situation? Is the umpire supposed to watch carefully as the runner rounds first to be sure he touches the bag, but if the runner misses the umpire just keeps quiet about it unless the team on defense asks? What is the point of that, what does it accomplish?

I'm not 100% sure why the rule makers went that route. Here's my best guess, tho:

On a balk, you kill the play immediately and then move the runners around. It doesn't really make sense to do this on a missed based, because the player could realize his mistake halfway to the next base and run back, plus you wouldn't want to kill the play if there are other runners as well. So it's the kind of thing you'd want to sort out *after* play has stopped.

Since you wait until after the play is stopped, why not have it an appeal play? If the D doesn't notice, then hey.. no harm, no foul. I once umpired a game where three baserunners in a row on the same team missed bases, and the other team didn't notice any of them. To stay impartial, I had to look like nothing at all had happened, when I just wanted to start laughing out loud.

MP

When people ask me what kind of game cricket is, I tell them it's a bit like baseball. For some reason this seems to enrage people: "But cricket is incredibly boring...". I heard somewhere (might have been New Scientist) that in the late eighties/early nineties cricket bowlers (pitchers if you will) "discovered" something called reverse swing. It used the same aerodynamic techniques on the ball that baseball players had used for years. I have no doubt that cricketers could learn a *lot* more from baseballers because baseball is so much better understood.It would be interesting to see if a cricketer ever started using the equivalent of a knuckleball, or a splitter.


As I understand it, Reverse swing was comparitively well known as an idea back in the early parts of the century, the trouble was one of technique no-one was able to bowl it consistently and the practise died out, until it was 'discovered' again by the great Pakistani bowlers a few years ago. I dont know what they picked up from baseball that would make reverse swing work I dont have a clue about the physics of what makes it happen, I do know that to be effective the ball has to be old (50+ overs say) and to have been 'looked after' properly by the other bowlers, one side must be kept highly shined and the other very dull. When Mike Atherton (the then England Captain) got into trouble a few years ago for rubbing dirt into the ball it was beleived he was doing so to keep one side dull to help his bowlers reverse swing.
Moving baseball pitching techniques to cricket has a couple of problems. The shape of the bat and the technique of the hitters. Batsmen in cricket use a technique that keeps the bat perpendicular to the ground, thus the splitter which tends to break down sharply on a straight vertical plain is easy to hit, similarly the knuckler's movement is easier to adjust too when you have three or four times the amount of bat surface. The key to bowling success tends to be producing side to side movement on the bowl rather then up-down movement.

An esoteric discussion of cricket?

On a baseball blog?

Surely, I must be seeing things....

But for those of us unfortunate enough to reside in a country which tries to convince itself every "summer" that cricket evolves into the National Pastime, the previous comments are pretty much on the ball.

However, it should be noted that the fundamental difference between cricket and baseball is that cricketers need to make the ball bounce before it gets to the batsman. Thus you find the distinction between "swing" bowlers and "seam" bowlers, who make their movement to deceive the batsman come from using the pitch to help

My favourite appeal play situation is one in which there are four legal outs in an inning.

Let's see if I remember how this works: suppose that the bases are loaded, and there is one out. The batter hits a fly ball to the outfield, which is caught. The runner on third leaves too soon, and scores on the play. Then, after the runner on third scores, another runner is put out on the bases, and becomes the third out (say, for example, the runner on second tries to advance to third on the throw to the plate).

The run counts unless the fielding team appeals that the runner on third left too soon. If the appeal is upheld, the runner on third becomes the fourth out of the inning, and the run no longer counts.

(I would guess that the runner on second's out is not nullified because the fielders still get credit for assists and a putout on the play.)

Have I got this right, or did I miss something?

This whole notion of having to appeal to an umpire to reverse a decision that he knows to be incorrect has always baffled me.

Why can't he initiate the reversal? Commitment issues? Pathological bashfulness?

Is there any other sport where appeals are required to get officials to cough up the truth?

"Ref, ref, he fouled me on my jump shot. You saw it, right?"

"Yes, okay. I'll admit it. I did see it. You're right. Let's call a foul."

I don't see how the out on the runner going to third counts. My interpretation would be that the appeal play makes that out the third and final out retroactively, thus nullifying the 4th out.

Another, possibly similar, situation: runner on first, two out, two strikes on the batter. The batter checks his swing as the runner attempts to steal second. The runner is thrown out, thus ending the inning. But, if the defensive team asks for an appeal and the batter is called out because he swung, it affects who will bat in the next inning. In the event of a successful appeal, the strikeout becomes the third out, having come before the caught stealing in real time(and thus nullifying the caught stealing).

I may be off-base in my interpretation, but I think it is logically inconsistent to have more than three legal outs in an inning.

I wonder what would happen if there were two outs in an inning and a fielder made two outs simultaneously (e.g. tagging a runner and stepping on a bag to force another at the same time). I suppose it would be up to the umpire to determine (perhaps arbitrarily) which out counted as the third one.

In hockey, if a team suspects that an opposing player is playing with an illegally curved stick, that team must ask the referee to check the opposing stick. If the stick is illegal the offending player gets a penalty, if not the team calling for the appeal gets a delay of game penalty.

This is similar to the old George Brett/pine-tar deal. The ump initially ruled that the homerun was nullified because the bat used had been illegal. Subsequently, it was overturned because the league decided that the opposing team had to appeal before the fact.

Mike Atherton (the then England Captain) got into trouble a few years ago for rubbing dirt into the ball

For shame, Michael. Part of baseball's "appeal" is a long and glorious tradition of cheating.

Our UFA team (which plays Humberside this afternoon and North Toronto tomorrow, so I'll be scarce around here) has been known to employ an illegal trick play. However, we blew it the only time it's been called in a game, and it's not in the book for this condensed season.

In hockey, if a team suspects that an opposing player is playing with an illegally curved stick, that team must ask the referee to check the opposing stick.

Robert, I assume this is in response to my query of how appeals work in other sports.

Of course, the analogy to appeals in baseball doesn't quite hold.

In baseball, the ump knows that the runner missed the base, or left early, or didn't hold his check swing.

In hockey, the referee does not know that the stick has an illegal curve or that the goalie's pads are too wide, etc. He investigates, based on a formal request, but doesn't know beforehand that an infraction has taken place. Unlike the baseball umprire, he's not keeping mum.

And also unlike baseball, as Robert mentioned there's a penalty to the team asking for the appeal if it's a frivolous claim. This is what makes the hockey appeal process superior, in my opinion.

What if a batter was awarded an additional ball on a frivolous check swing appeal? Or an extra base on a frivolous missed base claim? Probably too drastic, but I think we all agree the current process is silly. I'm not in favour of doing away with appeals altogether, because I think overall that would hurt the entertainment value of the game.

My question is, why does a team have to appeal in this sort of situation? Is the umpire supposed to watch carefully as the runner rounds first to be sure he touches the bag, but if the runner misses the umpire just keeps quiet about it unless the team on defense asks? What is the point of that, what does it accomplish?

The ump isn't really keeping quiet though. As I understand it, the runner technically isn't out until the defensive team steps on the missed bag with the ball in hand. So, the appeal process is all part of that, as if to say "hey, we know he didn't touch the bag so watch here umpie as we fulfill our obligation to get the out".

When you're on a 5 game win streak and scored 15 runs your last time out, fortune finds a way of evening things out with a one-run loss. These last two games are the type that can throw of a team's Pythagereon projection.

...the runner technically isn't out until the defensive team steps on the missed bag with the ball in hand.

Yes, but this is part of the appeal construct. Why must the defensive team do so? Why have things been so structured? I don't maintain that there's no good reason for this. I'm just saying I don't know what it could be.

I do agree that there were it the umpire's responsibility to come forth of his own volition to announce that a runner missed a base, there'd be a definite issue of when he should make the announcement. Should he pull a Leslie Nielsen and pursue the runner, tackling him between first and second base? Should he scream at the runner? Should he tattle to the first baseman? Or, more realistically, should he simply wait for the entire play to run its course and make his announcement once the ball has been returned to the mound, before the pitcher makes the next pitch?

I'm sure there are logistics issues I haven't even contemplated, but I just find the whole premise bizarre where a known infraction is only officially recognized if someone on the defensive team catches it and makes a point of raising a flag.

So, the appeal process is all part of that, as if to say "hey, we know he didn't touch the bag so watch here umpie as we fulfill our obligation to get the out".

Yeesh, I'm already starting to waffle.

I re-read Spicol's post and despite my long retort, I can see the argument he's put forth. A little. Yes, the onus is on the defense to touch the base that has been left early. I can sort of buy that.

Still, sans defensive appeal, things could get pretty weird. If a baserunner can miss first base and score, and get credit for the run even if the umpire knows he only stepped on 3 of the 4 bases, what if we extend this.

What if the defensive team were a clueless bunch of Monty Pythonesque Gumbies? The batter could hit the ball and theoretically miss all the bases, except for home, and miss them in a very blatant and showy way, dramatically leaping over them while being sure to remain within the base lines. In the absence of an appeal, the run would count. But isn't this just patently absurd?

Part of me agrees that the Gumbies must touch first with the ball. But another part of me thinks that the rule book would then need to be revised to suggest that bases need only optionally be touched, with the caveat that when not touched, an appeal may be made that will result in the baserunner being called out.

But another part of me thinks that the rule book would then need to be revised to suggest that bases need only optionally be touched, with the caveat that when not touched, an appeal may be made that will result in the baserunner being called out.

It is questionable, no doubt, but I think the rule book is attempting to limit the influence an umpire can have on the game. The umpire couldn't call the runner automatically out for missing the base since the player has to be given the opportunity to go back and touch the bag. So, the only likely alternative to how the rule stands today would be for the umpire to immediately point out that the base runner missed the bag. If that were to happen though, the umpire has then provided the defensive team with a gift, indicating that if they would only throw to the missed bag before the runner were able to scramble back, that runner would be out. The umpire's judgement has then had an undue influence on the game itself, directing how the defensive team should act instead of just evaluating what has already happened. As this stand today, the onus is on the defensive team to earn the out, which is where it should be.

I think Spicol's explanation about the umpire waiting for the team to try to record the out makes sense.

How about the scenario where a player overruns/overslides a base? The umpire doesn't start pointing at the runner, telling the fielding team that he's off the base. Instead, he stands silently until the fielding team tags the runner, at which point he calls the runner out.

In this scenario, an unsuccessful appeal is akin to the runner being tagged while on the base. "Is he off the base, ump?" "No, he isn't."

Just as a missed base can go undetected, a player can (in theory) round second, and just stay there, a few feet off the base, until the next pitch is thrown.

It's not a completely similar scenario, but the same thinking seems to go into the Umpire's role.

As to why the ump can't just call the runner out, can't the runner just go back and touch the base at any time? (Just as a guy who overruns a base can go back) A guy could go to third, have his third base Coach tell him to go back and touch second, and he can do it, can't he? So when, exactly, would an umpire call him out? No matter how long an umpire waits, it could be argued that the runner was going to go back...

Spicol, George, you've pretty much convinced me. The onus should be up to the defense to detect, and rectify, a base running gaff by the offense.

Now convince me why the first or third base ump should be formally appealed to, to weigh in on a check swing. Should the home plate ump not be the one looking for the help, rather than the pitcher or catcher? Why should his wrong call of "no swing" stand when a base ump knows otherwise but is not asked? (This is actually a moot point since basically every check swing is appealed by the catcher.)

Should the home plate ump not be the one looking for the help, rather than the pitcher or catcher? Why should his wrong call of "no swing" stand when a base ump knows otherwise but is not asked?

Great question. That, I cannot justify.

http://filebox.vt.edu/users/mjhansen/baseball.htm
Being a HS umpire, I can somewhat weigh in on most of these issues, since they're the same for in any level of baseball (except the balk, which is bad enough for it's topic). Anyways, here's a few things I picked up on:

The batter could hit the ball and theoretically miss all the bases, except for home, and miss them in a very blatant and showy way, dramatically leaping over them while being sure to remain within the base lines. In the absence of an appeal, the run would count. But isn't this just patently absurd?

Technically, the runner doesn't even have to touch home plate for the "run" to count. This has happened plenty of times in games I've done where the runner failed to touch the plate, I never signed to count the run, but the defensive team never picks up on it. It leads to the problem that it never was a run but everyone THINKS it is, so they just go on their merry way. Another strange nuance of baseball.

Next: Now convince me why the first or third base ump should be formally appealed to, to weigh in on a check swing.

For the same reason that the umpire missed the call at first base in last night's game. Umpires are not infallible, especially the homeplate ump, who has the worst view of a checked swing, since his first concern is to call the pitch. Therefore if the umpire feels he needs help he'll ask the corresponding base umpire to help with the call. Note that this isn't automatic, since the call is a judgement call to begin with, and the home plate umpire can stay with his orignial call.

One more thing, in the NFHS rule book (the federation covering US HS baseball), runners USED to be called out automatically for missing bases or leaving the bag early on fly balls, but that provision was taken out. I don't remember why they had it in or decided to take it out, but that was the case.

http://filebox.vt.edu/users/mjhansen/baseball.htm
Should the home plate ump not be the one looking for the help, rather than the pitcher or catcher? Why should his wrong call of "no swing" stand when a base ump knows otherwise but is not asked?

Same reason why other umpires can't overrule an obvious blown call by another umpire. Checked swings are the obligation of the home plate umpire. Now, any umpire can go to the other umpires for help if they see fit, but that's very much the exception rather than the rule. If it was the rule, then you'd have one team or the other appealing on every single play, to other umpires that don't have such a good look at the play, the system breaks down, anarchy ensues, you get the picture.

Therefore if the umpire feels he needs help he'll ask the corresponding base umpire to help with the call. Note that this isn't automatic, since the call is a judgement call to begin with, and the home plate umpire can stay with his orignial call.

From Rule 9.02 (c): "The manager or the catcher may request the plate umpire to ask his partner for help on a half swing when the plate umpire calls the pitch a ball, but not when the pitch is called a strike...Field umpires must be alerted to the request from the plate umpire and quickly respond...Should the base umpire call the pitch a strike, the strike call shall prevail."

Thanks for the explanation from your end, Mike. Having read the MLB rules though, I'm not sure it's the same. The fact is that the plate ump has a terrible vantage point when it comes to swings. He should stick to calling whether or not a pitch is in the strike zone and unless it's obvious enough to call a swing a strike from home, he should leave swing calls to the base umps. I don't really see this as an overruling type situation since there could be a clear delineation of responsibilities.

I have a suggestion for eliminating the appeal on a missed base.

If the runner touches another base (or home plate) after missing first base, the umpire should be able to immediately make an out call (pointing to the missed base), on the grounds that the bases were touched out of sequence. I think it was always intended that the bases had to be touched in sequence, but the appeal play seems to have wormed its way in and now exists as a loophole.

I realize that this isn't the way the rules are interpreted at the moment, but it would cut down on the appeals a bit too early if it were changed.

Similarly, if the runner leaving third on a sacfly attempt leaves early, he should be called safe or out by the home plate umpire first, and subsequently, if called safe (meaning he touched home plate), the third base ump can point to third and call him out. No appeal.

the rule book is attempting to limit the influence an umpire can have on the game.

I agree with Spicol. Robert, your suggestion would save time, and it would work fine, but it contradicts that traditional principle.

Should the home plate ump not be the one looking for the help, rather than the pitcher or catcher? Why should his wrong call of "no swing" stand when a base ump knows otherwise but is not asked?

if the umpire feels he needs help

He never does, because umps are omnipotent. It's part of selling their calls. Asking for help indicates doubt, so the catcher's request that the plate ump consult his partner is respectful to this myth of infallibility.

Today at the UFA game (which we lost to Humberside, but we'll get North Toronto tomorrow) our scorekeeper noticed one of their players batting out of order. The bases were loaded with two outs, so I waited for the illegal batter to hit an RBI single before pointing out the mistake to the plate ump. After a brief discussion, the run didn't count because the illegal batter was declared the third out. Had I complained before the end of his at-bat, the correct batter would have simply taken over with the current count; had I waited until a pitch was thrown to the next hitter, the ump would have shrugged and said, "that's interesting." Making the correct appeal at the right time, we got out of the inning. Not all the protocol makes sense at first glance, but it's part of the game.

This has happened plenty of times in games I've done where the runner failed to touch the plate, I never signed to count the run, but the defensive team never picks up on it. It leads to the problem that it never was a run but everyone THINKS it is, so they just go on their merry way.

So consider this hypothetical scenario: The Home Team scores 2 runs in the bottom of the first, but both runners fail to touch home. The umpire is alert and doesn't signal a run for either of them, but everyone else thinks they did in fact score. The Visitors score 1, legit, in the top of the 3rd. The game continues merily along with no further scoring and thus ends with the Home Team supposedly ahead 2-1.

After the game, the Visitors are reviewing the tape and they realize that the Home Team in fact missed the plate on both of their runs. At this point they appeal to the league that they should in fact be up 1-0 going to the bottom of the ninth.

Is there anything in place to stop this sort of thing from happening? After some period of time or some event in the game (the finish of the game?) are all legitimate appeals denied as being too late?

http://economics.about.com
After the game, the Visitors are reviewing the tape and they realize that the Home Team in fact missed the plate on both of their runs. At this point they appeal to the league that they should in fact be up 1-0 going to the bottom of the ninth.

Is there anything in place to stop this sort of thing from happening? After some period of time or some event in the game (the finish of the game?) are all legitimate appeals denied as being too late?

A snippet of Rule 7.10:

Any appeal under this rule must be made before the next pitch, or any play or attempted play. If the violation occurs during a play which ends a half inning, the appeal must be made before the defensive team leaves the field.

So they couldn't appeal to the league.

Appeals to the league can only be made on the grounds that an umpire misinterpreted a rule. Since no rule was violated, the visitors do not have grounds for an appeal.

MP the Umpire.

With all due respect, I don't see how eliminating some appeal plays as I have suggested violate the tradition of limiting the umpire's influence. All safe/out and ball/strike calls are decided by the umpires. That is their function - so long as they perform their tasks properly, there can be no question of them exercising undue influence over the game.