Correcting Broadcast Blasphemy in Runner Placement Play

When Dodgers broadcasters Joe Davis and Orel Hershiser incorrectly stated that the base award for a thrown ball bouncing out of play is based on the batter-runner's location at the time of the ball leaving the field (in this case, bouncing into and out of the Dodger Stadium camera well), Tmac decided to correct the record.

Official Baseball Rule 5.06(b)(4)(G) states that a runner advances two bases from their position *at the time the wild throw is made."* In turn, because R1 Kris Bryant was located between second and third base (having passed second base) at the time of the wild throw, his two-base award takes him to third base and to home plate, scoring a run.

The umpires initially ruled that Rockies batter-runner Brendan Rodgers had not yet arrived at first base when center fielder Cody Bellinger released his throw, resulting in a Rockies challenge for runner placement, a call that was confirmed as the Replay Official conclusively determined that batter-runner Rodgers was indeed somewhere between home plate and first base at the time of the throw, confirming the on-field umpires' ruling and making Rodgers' two-base award first base and second base.

*Please note there are limited exceptions to this rule, but none of them award bases based upon the runner's position at the time the ball left the playing field. The main exception pertains to a ball thrown out of play by an infielder on the fielder's first play (usually on a ground ball). In such a case, the runners are awarded two bases based on their positions at the time of the pitch.

Video as follows:

Heave the Hawk? When a Broadcast Misinforms

What happens when a team's TV broadcast doesn't see a play or know a rule? Unfortunately, as was the case with a Chicago Cubs vs White Sox game featuring Hawk Harrelson in 2007, it often results in derision of the umpires, even when the umpires get the call right. Joe West may have ejected Ozzie Guillen after just such a play, but even after the game, both indicated a shared understanding about what had transpired.

With none out and runners on first and second base in the top of the 8th inning of the Cubs-White Sox June 24, 2007 matinee, Cubs batter Mark DeRosa hit a fly ball to deep right field. 

If you watched the White Sox broadcast, it went something like this: Hit to the outfield, yada yada yada, Sox tag out two Cubs runners with bad base-running for a double play. 2B Umpire Ed Rapuano called baserunner R1 Angel Pagan out and HP Umpire CB Bucknor called R2 Felix Pie out. Umpires discuss it, inexplicably load the bases and take the outs off the board, and Joe West ejects Ozzie Guillen because in a few year's time, Joe will become a joke to the umpiring profession.

In other words, the Sox were bewildered by the play in front of them, assured their TV audience that they saw everything and the umpires missed something, and that the call was incorrect and egregiously so. After all, replays shown on the Sox broadcast clearly indicated that two runners were tagged out.

If you watched the Cubs broadcast, on the other hand, it went something like this: Hit to the outfield, Cubs runner R1 Pagan runs into White Sox shortstop Juan Uribe who was standing on second base for some reason even though the ball was still in right field, Pagan gets up and runs to third, spurring lead baserunner R2 Pie to run toward home plate, all manners of rundowns ensue, and the White Sox tag two runners, but wait, the umpires will fix it after the play is over.

During their post-play analysis, the Cubs' cast identified the obstruction as well as 2B Umpire Rapuano calling it (and showed a second angle in which 3B Umpire Ed Hickox also called it). For the record, this was a case of Obstruction Type B / Type 2. Official Baseball Rule 6.01(h)(2) states: "If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no further action is possible. The umpire shall then call 'Time' and impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction."

The umpires allowed play to conclude then ruled that had obstruction not occurred, the most likely outcome would be bases loaded, none out, as the obstruction impeded or disoriented the runner from seeing the base coach/lead runner or having the wherewithal to remain on second base.

After the game, ejected White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen said of West's crew, "I think they got it right," while Crew Chief Joe West said of Guillen, "You can't blame him. It was a messed-up play that you don't see very often. Uribe is not known for trying to cheat or get in somebody's way, but it happens. He got two outs and he ended up getting no outs and that's why Ozzie said, 'You're just going to have to run me.'

In conclusion, sometimes the broadcast gets it right and sometimes it does not. The purpose of this video is to show how sometimes even a TV broadcast with all of its replays and cameras can miss the crucial element of an entire play and how sometimes the analysis broadcast to the public is therefore inaccurate or misleading.

Postscript: Perhaps most egregious of all is that the White Sox feed showed a replay featuring a camera angle (and maybe two) that would have shown the obstruction, but the replay was started from a point AFTER the obstruction had already occurred. Was this simple negligence or deliberate omission of a material fact?

Video as follows:

Chicago-Milwaukee's 10-Minute Missed Touch Appeal

During Milwaukee's 6-1 win Saturday vs Chicago, Craig Counsell's Manager's Challenge over HP Umpire Jeremie Rehak's safe call on appeal that White Sox baserunner Yoan Moncada was safe at home plate spurred a 10-minute delay as Tony La Russa questioned the umpires' decision, including Crew Chief Dan Iassogna's acceptance of Counsell's Replay Review request.

The Play: With none out and the bases loaded, White Sox batter Leury Garcia hit a soft ground ball in front of home plate, Brewers pitcher Corbin Burnes throwing to catcher Manny Pina as Chicago baserunner R3 Moncada arrived at home plate.

The Call: With the throw out of Pina's reach and striking Moncada (and Rehak), the run was permitted to score. After a subsequent mound visit and before throwing a pitch to ensuing batter Zack Collins, pitcher Burnes stepped off the rubber and threw home to Pina to appeal that Moncada missed home plate, ruled safe by Rehak, who ruled that Moncada legally touched home plate.

Replay Review: Immediately after Rehak's safe call on the appeal play, Counsell challenged the appeal ruling, resulting in an overturned call when the Replay Official deemed that Moncada had indeed failed to touch home plate.

Controversy: Chicago contended that Iassogna should have disallowed Counsell's challenge because more than 20 seconds elapsed from the initial play at home plate until Counsell's request. However, the umpires allowed the review because Counsell's challenge pertained to Rehak's call on the appeal play, not the initial play, and Counsell did timely file his challenge several seconds (almost immediately) after Rehak's safe-on-appeal call.

Confusion over the Replay Review procedure (which prescribes a 20-second time limit to challenge after an umpire's call) and the appeal play procedure (which can be effected at any time prior to the next pitch, play, or attempted play, regardless of how many seconds or minutes transpire in between [including possible mound visits or other delays]) is apparently so commonplace, MLB saw fit on its website to state, "Appeal plays are not the same as a manager asking the umpire for an instant-replay review."

As to the argument that a request for video review should trump an appeal play (and so should its time limits), refer to Major League Baseball's own Replay Review Regulations: whether a runner touched a base is reviewable, but requires a defensive appeal prior to the Replay Review. In other words, Milwaukee could not have actually requested a review until Rehak ruled on the appeal play.

The Answer: Thus, this is what happened. The initial play transpires with Moncada scoring. The Brewers do not challenge the ruling that the runner has scored. A mound visit then occurs, after which, and before the next pitch is thrown, Milwaukee appeals that Moncada failed to touch home plate, which Rekah replies to by declaring Moncada did touch the plate. In response, and within the 20-second time limit of Rehak's safe-on-appeal call, Counsell challenges the play. Replay overturns the call based on clear and convincing evidence that Moncada failed to touch home plate.

Mechanics: Rehak signaled "safe" after Moncada ran past home plate during the initial play. Ordinarily, an umpire makes no call if either the runner has not touched home plate or if the defense never possessed the ball and never actually attempted to tag the runner. This suggests the initial "safe" call communicated something other than the runner's touch of home plate.

Because Burnes' throw hit Moncada, "safe" could also signal there was no interference on the play, or the general "that's nothing" wave off, similar to a "safe" signal given when a batter-runner and catcher incidentally entangle at home plate or an uncaught third strike eludes the catcher: the runner is "safe" simply because the runner is not (yet) out.

Unfortunately, umpiring mechanics are somewhat limited here in that "safe" carries multiple potential meanings.

Sidebar: The broadcasters mentioned that Chicago should protest the game, and it would be upheld. This is incorrect. OBR 7.04 states, "Protesting a game shall never be permitted, regardless of whether such complaint is based on judgment decisions by the umpire or an allegation that an umpire misapplied these rules or otherwise rendered a decision in violation of these rules."

What the umpires got wrong: When Burnes stepped off the rubber to throw the ball in, Rehak—likely believing that Milwaukee wanted to change baseballs—called "Time" thus declaring the ball dead. By doing so, however, that made any action that followed regarding the appeal attempt void, as if it never happened. The proper call here (other than in keeping play alive, assuming the ball had been put into play after the mound visit) would have been to inform Milwaukee the ball was dead so that the Brewers could return the ball to the mound, allow the umpire to call "Play" to make the ball live, and appeal again.

Realistically: Even though dead ball appeals are not allowed in professional baseball (as opposed to high school, for instance, where they are allowed), the realistic result of this play was an out at home plate on appeal. The umpires could have made Milwaukee execute the appeal again, during live ball action, but the result would have likely been the exact same. It might be time to give the crew chief a microphone.

Related Post: Tmac's Teachable Moments - Let's Fix Replay (1/19/17).

Video as follows:

New York Misinformation - Base Path is Not a Baseline

After 1B Umpire Alan Porter called Tampa Bay batter-runner Kevin Kiermaier safe in the 5th inning of Thursday's #Rays-#Yankees, New York manager Aaron Boone came out to argue as YES broadcasters mused about the baseline and runner's lane. Unfortunately, the rule about a base path has nothing to do with either of those concepts, meaning all within earshot of a television tuned to YES in New York were witness to misinformation regarding the out of the base path rule.

Play: With one out and none on, Kiermaier hit a 0-1 changeup from Yankees pitcher Gerrit Cole on the ground to first baseman DJ LeMahieu, who attempted to tag Kiermaier as he ran to first base.

Call: Kiermaier avoided LeMahieu's tag and 1B Umpire Porter ruled him safe. Yankees manager Boone campaigned for a base-running infraction, but to no avail: the safe call stood.

Rule: Official Baseball Rule 5.09(b)(1) governs this play and states that "any runner is out when they run more than three feet away from their base path to avoid being tagged unless their action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball. A runner’s base path is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base they are attempting to reach safely."

In other words, the runner sets their own base path and is allowed three feet to the left or right of that established position on their way to the next (or previous) base in order to avoid a tag.

Not the Rule: The 45-foot runner's lane painted on the ground to the right of the foul line is rules-relevant for one and only one play: runner's lane interference, which occurs when a batter-runner outside of the lane "interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base" (OBR 5.09(a)(11)). If there is no throw (or no fielder taking a throw), there can bee no runner's lane interference, meaning the lane line is immaterial during a tag play.

The baseLINE, meanwhile, is simply a direct line between any two bases, such as the painted foul line between home and first base. The baseline has no relevance for a base path call such as the Kiermaier play and the only relevance of both the foul line and runner's lane line is that we know, dimensionally, the distance between the two lines is three feet. Thus, we have an impromptu painted ruler or yardstick on the ground that we could conceivably apply to Kiermaier's journey.

Analysis: Accordingly, Porter's only consideration is whether Kiermaier deviated by more than three feet, pursuant to OBR 5.09(b)(1), to avoid being tagged. Umpire Porter could use the three-foot wide yardstick known as the runner's lane to help guide him to determine what three feet might actually look like, but the runner's lane itself is meaningless for this play. All that is relevant is whether Kiermaier ran more than three feet away from his base path—which he establishes well into foul territory—to avoid being tagged. If so, the runner would be out for running away from (or out of) his base path to avoid being tagged. If not, the runner is safe. 

Video as follows:

Critique - Cone Off the Ump Name Calling from the Booth

In this Commentary Critique, tmac reviews Yankees broadcaster David Cone's criticism of 2B Umpire Junior Valentine's start-stop balk in New York, a correct call in accordance with the Official Baseball Rules. Cone called Valentine a name, with a backdrop of a nationwide phenomenon of umpire abuse that has caused officiating shortages across multiple sports, mainly at the youth level.

After Valentine called Yankees pitcher Darren O'Day for a start-stop balk, Cone warned "I want to go off on a rant," before stating, "Barney Fife on second base is going to call it."

In complaining about the call, Cone described the pitcher's actions: "He started his motion a little bit and then stepped off the rubber," still perplexed at the balk call.

As a quick Rules Review, Cone's description is precisely why the balk was called. The two start-stop pitching rules in Set Position relate to going from the stretch to the set and for actions from set to delivery. This is an example of the former, as elucidated in OBR 5.07(a)(2): "Preparatory to coming to a set position, the pitcher shall have one hand on his side [the stretch]; from this position he shall go to his set position as defined in Rule 5.07(a)(2) without interruption and in one continuous motion." The accompanying latter balk rule is OBR 6.02(a)(1): "It is a balk when—the pitcher, while touching his plate, makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch and fails to make such delivery."

Replays indicate that, while in the stretch, O'Day started to moving his hands together, but stopped and then disengaged the rubber by stepping off with his pivot foot. This is an illegal disengagement because he had already started his transition from stretch to set, as in OBR 5.07(a)(2).

As for Cone's name-calling, despite admitting the call was correct and later offering an apology, for the casual fan that sees a simple 10-second video clip, the damage is done.

And with a nationwide referee and umpire shortage generating national headlines and citing abusive fan/coach/player conduct and poor sportsmanship as a top reason for officials opting not to participate in youth sports, the example of umpire abuse at baseball's highest level does no favors.

Video as follows:

Booby Bumbaca - USA Today Criticizes Bucknor While Simultaneously Showing Graphics Exonerating Him

USA Today's Chris Bumbaca executed a most incredible self-own in the very first sentence of an article attempting to criticize umpire CB Bucknor's Yankees-Rays strike zone, writing, "blaming the umpires is a lazy excuse, especially in the playoffs."

Facts and figures cited by Bumbaca himself further cemented the article author's relationship with fatuity, as, while attempting to malign Bucknor for missing pitches, Bumbaca used graphics that accomplished two unintended goals.

First, the article included images from MLB-owned Baseball Savant that clearly indicated Bucknor made correct calls on several pitches Bumbaca alleged the umpire had missed.

And, second, these graphics seemed to expose Bumbaca's rapport with the rules: specifically Definition of Terms' "A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which..."is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone."

Or, alternatively, the unusual critique unintentionally belied Bumbaca's own quality of visual acuity.

Either way, here's a Commentary Critique and fact check: Print Edition.

Claim: Pitch 5 is off the plate.

Claim 1: "Pitch 5 is off the plate" (see graphic)

Factual Analysis: Although UEFL f/x found this pitch was located over the edge of home plate and thus categorized it as QOC = Correct (affirmed after processing), we know the general population prefers graphics, and indeed, Bumbaca's article referenced a Savant Gamefeed graphic of the at-bat. Of all pitches during the at-bat to critique, Bumbaca chose Pitch 5 of a first-inning NYY Deivi Garcia vs TB Randy Arozarena at-bat, which the graphic clearly indicates was indeed touching the strike zone.

We're left with two options: Either the author doesn't know the rule referenced above or the author failed to see the visualization referenced in his article and cited as the basis for the claim. Either way, the claim lacks merit. As for the lower pitches ruled "ball"—recall the post-game processing effect on sz_bot/sz_top and remember the accompanying bot/top strike zone boundaries are inaccurate for this reason. Curious that MLB hasn't yet addressed this issue after at least a decade of having been made aware of this problem.

Fact Check Result 1:  False .

Claim: Pitch No. 3 is a ball.

Claim 2: "Pitch No. 3 is a ball" (see graphic)

Factual Analysis: It would be helpful if the Savant Gamefeed graphic indicated "called strike" versus swings and misses. Nonetheless, Pitch 3 (sidebar: choose a style-guide format and stick with it. Pitch 5 vs Pitch No. 3?) during Tampa Bay pitcher Tyler Glasnow's swinging strikeout of New York shortstop Gleyber Torres was located off the edge of home plate.

Fact Check Result 2:  True .

Claim: Pitch No. 3 is off the plate.

Claim 3: "Pitch No. 3 is off the plate" (see graphic)

Factual Analysis: Once again, if a journalist wants to use a graphic, it would really be helpful to use a plot or chart that actually supports the claim being made. Though less overt than Claim 1, above, this claim relating to Nick Anderson's strikeout of DJ LeMahieu similarly features a graphic indicating the pitch in question actually touched the strike zone. UEFL f/x had it as a correct strike call.

Fact Check Result 3:  False .

There are others, but it's simpler to just list fact check results rather than waste more time: True False True True.

Bucknor's ALDS score on 10/6/20.

The bottom line is really the Bumbaca's lede: "blaming the umpires is a lazy excuse, especially in the playoffs." Even lazier? Not making the connection between graphics being used to denigrate an umpire's performance and the actual facts of the graphics and/or rulebook.

Nonetheless, if Bucknor's 93.6% game Tuesday (higher than one, lower than two others on Tuesday) is to be considered subpar by Bumbaca's standards, what of an article whose own accuracy percentage, pursuant to fact checking, is just 57% (four true claims vs three false ones)? And how is it that certain umpires—who routinely score higher than some and lower than others—routinely absorb criticism while the umpires they score higher than evade such blown-call hit piece critique?

A pending lawsuit alludes to racism.

Expect more science-averse "analysis" from the general public for Angel Hernandez's plate Wednesday night in the Padres-Dodgers series. Does Jamaican or Cuban heritage have anything to do with it; does Hernandez's famous lawsuit against MLB alleging racially-motivated actually portend to a larger systemic problem in the sports world?

I'm sure Twitter will remain civil and decidedly not prejudicial, not even for a second.

Related Post: Ballad of Angel Hernandez - An Umpire's Controversy (10/9/18).

Video as follows:

Kruk Hawks Joe as Crew Calls Backswing Interference

When HP Umpire Vic Carapazza and Crew Chief Joe West enforced the proper penalty for backswing interference (Rule 6.03(a)(3) Comment) during Tuesday's Phillies-Nationals game, Philadelphia broadcaster John Kruk expressed frustration, disgust, and, most notably, a thorough lack of understanding or regard for the Official Baseball Rules.

The following sequence describes what happens when the momentum of a batter's backswing (OBR/NCAA) or follow-through (NFHS) carries the bat behind his back and inadvertently makes contact with the catcher behind him as the catcher attempts to make a play.

Note: In high school (NFHS), backswing denotes pre-pitch bat movement (e.g., when the batter is first getting set in the box) whereas follow-through denotes post-pitch movement.

The Play: With one out and one on (R2), Phillies batter Alec Bohm swung at and missed hitting a 2-0 fastball from Nationals pitcher Daniel Hudson as Phillies baserunner R2 Roman Quinn attempted to steal third base. After receiving the pitch, Nationals catcher Kurt Suzuki attempted to throw Quinn out at third base, with Quinn sliding into the base ahead of third baseman Brock Holt's tag, eliciting a safe call by 3B Umpire David Arrieta.

Crew Conference: Immediately thereafter, Suzuki and Nats Manager Dave Martinez appealed to HP Umpire Vic Carapazza about potential backswing contact as replays indicate that Bohm's bat appeared to make contact with Suzuki's leg during Suzuki's throw to third base. After crew consultation with Carapazza, Arrieta, and 2B Umpire Junior Valentine, Crew Chief Joe West signaled for Quinn to return to second base and explained his ruling to Phillies skipper Joe Girardi, thus enforcing the penalty for backswing interference, as in Official Baseball Rule 6.03(a)(3) Comment:

If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

Accordingly, West's crew made the correct call—dead ball strike, return the runner to the base initially occupied at the time of the pitch—but that didn't stop Kruk from expressing a Hawk Harrelson-esque exasperation...just as color analyst FP Santangelo on the Nats broadcast properly cited the rule.

Related Post: Follow-Through (Backswing) Contact or Batter Interference? (10/13/17).

Related Post: Case Play 2016-9 - A Backswing on Strike 3 [Solved] (8/26/16).

Video as follows:

Commentary Critique - Broadcast Fed Up with Umps

Mets broadcaster Keith Hernandez took issue with MLB umpires ("Awful!") for a missed HR call (correctly overturned via Replay Review) despite Keith himself having missed the same call during his first (and second) viewing of the play.

With the bases loaded during Friday's Mets-Royals game, 1B Umpire John Libka ruled a home run on a fly ball (line drive) into the right field corner, deeming that the batted ball had left the playing field in fair territory.

Hernandez initially agreed that the ball was fair, explaining upon consulting a slow-motion replay from a press box camera angle, "it disappeared behind the foul pole." Yet moments later upon viewing the play for a third time, the second slow-motion review, from a second camera angle in the spectator area along the right field concourse, Hernandez acknowledged that the ball was foul ("my mistake").

Broadcaster's thought process during Replay.

This is generally germane and not too notable, but what makes this commentary stand out and subject to critique is the veteran New York analyst's following comments regarding officiating in the major leagues: "What's with these umpires? Geez! My God! Awful!"

Obstruction in Chicago - Fielder Must Avoid Runner

1B Umpire Chris Segal's obstruction call during Thursday's Twins-White Sox game in Chicago perturbed some Minnesota media after MIN infielder Jonathan Schoop's botched rundown of Adam Engel resulted in an automatic base award, by rule the proper call, instead of an expected out.

The Play: With the bases empty in the bottom of the 3rd inning, White Sox batter Engel hit a ground ball to Twins third baseman Luis Arraez, who momentarily bobbled the ball, leading Engel to try and advance to second base. Arraez, however, recovered quickly and threw to second baseman Schoop ahead of Engel's arrival. This spurred Engel to retreat toward first base as Schoop pursued. As Engel neared the first base bag, Schoop threw to first baseman Miguel Sano as Engel changed direction and began to run back toward second base, interacting with Schoop, whose attempt to vacate Engel's pathway came up a bit short.

The Call: 1B Umpire Segal motioned "Time" and ruled obstruction, Type A (type 1), as there was a play being made on the runner at the time of the obstruction; Segal awarded Engel second base. Pursuant to Rule 6.01(h)(1), "If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner is obstructed before he touches first base, the ball is dead...The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction."

The Explanation: This edition of Commentary Critique gives credit to the Chicago White Sox broadcast team, which correctly portrayed the fielder's responsibility to avoid the runner in this situation. Once the fielder (Schoop) throws the ball, he is no longer involved in the play and must ensure he does not hinder, impede, interfere, or otherwise obstruct the runner's attempt to navigate the bases.

As the broadcast additionally states, this is not an "out of the base path" issue because there is no tag attempt on the runner at the time he runs into Schoop. The fielder must vacate for benefit of the runner and even if the runner initiates contact, it is obstruction because the fielder has broken a rule by not yielding the right of way to the runner (unless the runner unreasonably goes above and beyond by chasing the fielder in order to initiate illegal contact...this is clearly not the case here).

It does not matter if the runner would have otherwise been out in the rundown...obstruction A kills the play and mandates a base award. OBS A is strict with little wiggle room.

Finally, the runner creates his own base path and the base path should not be confused with the baseline (the baseline is the direct line between two bases; the base path only applies when a tag attempt is made on the runner and is the line between the runner and base he is attempting to reach).

Predictable Sidebar: The fact that first base umpire Segal made this call couldn't dissuade an unhappy Minnesota media from taking a potshot at 3B Umpire Angel Hernandez as the attached image illustrates. Not because Hernandez did anything during this play (he had nothing to do with the call, being at least 100 feet away when it was made), but simply because he exists and has sued the league based on what he believes, a cardinal sin in the eyes of many a fan.
Related Post: Ballad of Angel Hernandez - An Umpire's Controversy (10/9/18).

Video as follows:

Blarge - Obstruction Saves Doomed Runner

Obstruction (not interference) visited Miami during Phillies batter Bryce Harper's long single to deep left field, scoring Maikel Franco and Jake Arrieta after a baserunning blunder turned into a Marlins mishap and umpires' uh-oh when catcher Jorge Alfaro's obstruction on baserunner Arrieta during a rundown led to an automatic base award following apparently conflicting calls from two umpires on the same play.

The Play: With one out and the bases loaded, Harper hit a 3-2 fastball off Marlins pitcher Jeff Brigham to the wall in left field, retrieved and returned to the infield by left fielder Curtis Granderson, to catcher Jorge Alfaro as preceding runner R2 Arrieta and trailing runner R1 Jean Segura both stood on third base. As Alfaro jogged toward and lobbed the ball toward third base, R3 Arrieta sprinted down the third baseline, colliding with Alfaro as the Marlins catcher failed to get out of the baserunner's path, resulting in an obstruction call from 2B Umpire John Tumpane as HP Umpire Ted Barrett ruled the runner out, having called no obstruction as evidenced by his "safe" mechanic in the immediate aftermath of the runner-fielder interaction.

Tumpane and Barrett make conflicting calls.

Analysis, OBS vs Not OBS: Before we get to the obstruction rule itself, let's discuss the general principle of conflicting umpire calls.

Official Baseball Rule 8.03(c) is officiating's catch-all for conflicting calls made on the same play: "If different decisions should be made on one play by different umpires, the umpire-in-chief shall call all the umpires into consultation, with no manager or player present. After consultation, the umpire-in-chief (unless another umpire may have been designated by the League President) shall determine which decision shall prevail, based on which umpire was in best position and which decision was most likely correct. Play shall proceed as if only the final decision had been made."

For MLB/MiLB, this means the crew chief will decide the final call after consultation. This play didn't merit the same level of additional discussion as portrayed in OBR 8.03(c), but why?

Barrett's call technically doesn't happen.

Because Tumpane's call of "Obstruction 1/A" causes the ball to become dead (we'll discuss this later), Barrett's no-call and subsequent out call of Arrieta technically occurs during a dead ball, after the infraction had already been ruled. Thus, Tumpane's call prevails simply because it came first and killed the play prior to Barrett having made any call. Accordingly, we don't technically have conflicting umpire calls since Tumpane's call occurred first and prevented any subsequent "live ball" calls from being made.

In the grand scheme of conflicting calls, a "safe" mechanic in the context of no-calling a violation is a rather tame conflicting call to have, as whether an umpire indicates "safe" or not, the result is the same: the potential obstruction or interference is no-called. The only difference between a mechanic vs no mechanic is "safe" clearly communicates that the umpire has seen the play and observed no infraction of the rules. In general, an umpire's ruling that obstruction has taken place (an active call) takes precedence over an umpire's ruling that no obstruction has taken place (a passive call).

The active vs. passive set of "conflicting calls" is easily correctable—much easier than what Rule 8.03(c)'s purpose is meant for, which would be a set of two active conflicting calls (e.g., "safe" at a base vs "out" at a base, or "that's interference" vs "that's obstruction").

This (conflicting calls) is also one reason why it is important to call "Time" immediately upon ruling that Obstruction Type 1/A has occurred (for Type 2/B, by contrast, play is to be kept alive).

SIDEBAR: We'll use the terms Obstruction 1 and Obstruction A interchangeably, as we will with Obstruction 2/B. The reason for this is the 'old' OBR codification for Obstruction split the types into provisions (a) and (b). The 'new' OBR numbering changed (a) to (1) and (b) to (2); hence 1/A and 2/B).

Analysis, Obstruction 1/A vs 2/B (vs Interference): There are two elements to drill into the audience here. The first is the difference between Obstruction 1/A and 2/B. Succinctly, obstruction type 1 (old OBR: Obstruction A) occurs when a play is being made on the obstructed runner.

This is an example of OBS Type 1/A.

SIDEBAR: Obstruction A also occurs if the batter-runner is obstructed prior to reaching first base on a ground ball to an infielder, whether or not a play is being made on the batter-runner. In the case of a pop-up or line drive to an infielder, obstruction against the batter-runner is identified but the ball is kept alive. If the fly ball is legally caught, the batter is out. If not, it becomes Obstruction A and the batter-runner is awarded first base. In the case of any ball hit to the outfield, the ball is kept alive. The batter-runner, however, is protected to at least first base.

On an outfield hit like Harper's, Obstruction A ordinarily occurs during an ensuing rundown when a fielder hinders or impedes the baserunner's attempt to run the bases. It's important to contrast this with an Obstruction B play, which occurs when there is no play being made on the obstructed runner at the time of obstruction.

If OBS occurs at this moment, it is OBS 2/B.

The 2013 World Series Jim Joyce/Dana DeMuth (Allen Craig/Will Middlebrooks) play is an example of this second obstruction type. Even though the defense may have attempted a play on the runner at some point during the live ball—or may even try to retire the runner later during the same play—Obstruction A only applies to a runner who is obstructed while there is an active play being made on him/her. If, for instance, the defense throws the ball away and the runner is obstructed while attempting to advance while the defense is pursuing the loose ball away from the runner, this would be an example of Obstruction B.
Related Post: Obstruction 1 or A vs 2 or B - The Difference is Crucial (6/23/17).

Graphic: Timeline of Obstruction.

As you read the following scenario, take a look at the attached Timeline of Obstruction graphic for an illustration of when Obstruction B turns to A, and back again: With baserunner R2 leading off from second base, the batter hits a ball on the ground to shortstop F6. F6 notices R2 halfway between second and third base and throws to second baseman F4. F4 catches the ball and runs toward R2, who is attempting to run toward third base. F4 throws the ball to third baseman F5, who misses the catch as the ball bounces toward the third-base dugout and into foul territory. R2 slides into third base.

If obstruction occurs between baserunner R2 and a fielder while the shortstop is fielding the ball but before he has turned his attention to R2, the obstruction is Type B. If obstruction occurs after F4 has started his attempt to play on the baserunner (and before F5 misses his attempt to field F4's throw), the obstruction is Type A. If obstruction occurs after F5 fails to make the catch and while the ball is loose on the field, the obstruction is Type B. Rinse and repeat.

Obstruction A: Play on runner or BR.

Knowing whether a play is Obstruction 1 or 2 is crucial, because the penalties are different. For Obstruction 1, the ball is immediately dead and all non-obstructed runners are placed where they would have been had there been no obstruction. The obstructed runner is awarded at least one base beyond the base last legally touched at the time of obstruction. It's important to note that the nullify-the-act principle explicitly does not apply to the obstructed runner in the sense that the obstructed runner cannot be returned to a base. The obstructed runner must be awarded at minimum one base and may even be awarded two or more bases. The obstructed runner shall not be declared out.

Obstruction B: No active play on runner.

In OBS 2, all runners are placed where the umpire believes they would have been had obstruction not occurred in the "nullify the act" resolution. This means a runner may be declared out under this scenario if the umpire deems the runner would have been out regardless of the obstruction.

Commentary Critique: The second point to drive home is a broadcasting nightmare wherein announcers have a tendency to confuse "interference" and "obstruction." Here's a quick guide:

Obstruction: The defensive team generally obstructs the offense.
Interference: The offensive team interferes with the fielders.

Catcher's Interference: A limited exception to the general principle occurs with catcher's interference against a batter (an illegal act by the catcher against a runner is always obstruction), but CI can only exist during a pitched ball. Once the ball is no longer pitched (e.g., it is batted, becomes a passed ball/wild pitch, etc.), illegal hindrance by a defensive player against a runner is referred to as obstruction, not interference. NFHS makes it even easier and replaces what OBR/NCAA ordinarily refers to as "catcher's interference" with the term "catcher's obstruction."

Official Baseball Rules, Obstruction:
[Definition of Terms]: "OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner."
Rule 6.01(h)(1): "If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner is obstructed before he touches first base, the ball is dead and all runners shall advance, without liability to be put out, to the bases they would have reached, in the umpire’s judgment, if there had been no obstruction. The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction. Any preceding runners, forced to advance by the award of bases as the penalty for obstruction, shall advance without liability to be put out."
Rule 6.02(h)(2): "If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no further action is possible. The umpire shall then call 'Time' and impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction."

Video as follows:

MLB Ejection 095 - Tripp Gibson (2; Brandon Hyde)

HP Umpire Tripp Gibson ejected Orioles Manager Brandon Hyde (runner's lane interference; QOCY) in the bottom of the 4th inning of the Red Sox-Orioles game. With one out and two on (R1, R3), Orioles batter Keon Broxton bunted a 0-1 slider from Red Sox pitcher Colten Brewer on the ground to Brewer, who threw toward first baseman Michael Chavis as Broxton arrived at first base. Replays indicate that although Chavis caught the ball, Broxton ran to first base completely in fair territory and out of the three-foot running lane his entire journey down the line; Gibson's RLI call was made prior to the first baseman's catch of the baseball, meaning the ball was already dead prior to the apparent putout at first base. As such, the interference penalty is enforced because it occurred prior to the apparent out (by rule, the apparent out at first base never officially occurred, since the ball was already dead prior to Chavis' tag of first base) and the batter is declared out, with the runners returning to their bases occupied at the time of the pitch, the call was correct.* Play was reviewed and affirmed by the UEFL Appeals Board (7-0), the call was correct. At the time of the ejection, the Red Sox were leading, 2-1. The Red Sox ultimately won the contest, 8-6.

This is Tripp Gibson (73)'s second ejection of 2019.
Tripp Gibson now has 9 points in the UEFL Standings (5 Prev + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 9).
Crew Chief Mark Carlson now has 4 points in Crew Division (3 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 4).

*Official Baseball Rule 5.09(a)(11) states: "A batter is out for interference when—In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line, and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead."
Wendelstedt's interpretation states: "A runner that is running the entire distance outside of the running lane will not be protected if he interferes with a play at first base, even if it is in his last stride or step to the base. In order to be protected, this last step must be when he first exits the running lane" (a runner cannot exit a lane that he has never entered.
Related Post: Runner's Lane Interference - 2018 World Series Edition (10/28/18).

Gil's Call: Call the infraction when it occurs and enforce the prescribed penalties. In the Replay Review era, there is no "easy way out" with the play at first base. For instance, take the "let's ignore the call because the first baseman made the catch" philosophy. Suppose Hyde challenges the call and Replay Review overturns 1B Umpire Bruce Dreckman's out call to "safe." Video evidence clearly indicates the batter-runner violated the running lane rule, yet the umpires failed to call it because of the aforementioned lesser of two evils philosophy... Given the batter-runner's illegal run inside the foul line (not within the running lane), there is no rules-correct way here to call the batter-runner out while allowing the runner from third base to score. To be clear, the infraction occurs at the moment at which the batter-runner's illegal act has impeded the fielder taking the throw, often a fraction of a second before the out/safe play at first base. When RLI is enforced, it is a dead ball that wipes out the subsequent out/safe play at first base.
Commentary Critique: Just a friendly tip for broadcasters...just because you don't understand the rule doesn't mean the umpire's call isn't correct.

This is the 95th ejection report of the 2019 MLB regular season.
This is the 50th Manager ejection of 2019.
This is Baltimore's 4th ejection of 2019, 1st in the AL East (BAL 4; TOR 3; BOS, NYY 2; TB 0).
This is Brandon Hyde's 2nd ejection of 2019, 1st since April 15 (Mark Wegner; QOC = N-c [Replay]).
This is Tripp Gibson's 2nd ejection of 2019, 1st since June 13 (Brian Snitker; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: Boston Red Sox vs. Baltimore Orioles, 6/16/19 | Video as follows:

MLB Ejection 040 - Paul Emmel (2; Aaron Boone)

HP Umpire Paul Emmel ejected Yankees Manager Aaron Boone (ball two/HBP no-call; QOCY) in the top of the 7th inning of the Yankees-Diamondbacks game. With none out and none on, Yankees batter Tyler Wade squared to bunt and pulled his bat back as Diamondbacks pitcher Yoan Lopez's 1-1 slider bounced in the dirt near Wade's left foot, ruled a ball. Having lost his Manager's Challenge on an upheld force play at second base in the top of the 5th inning, Yankees Manager Boone was unable to challenge the Wade pitch and unable to request a Crew Chief Review.* Replays indicate the pitch did not appear to contact Wade's foot, the call was correct. At the time of the ejection, the Diamondbacks were leading, 3-1. The Diamondbacks ultimately won the contest, 3-2.

This is Paul Emmel (50)'s second ejection of 2019.
Paul Emmel now has 0 points in the UEFL Standings (-4 Prev + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 0).
Crew Chief Paul Emmel now has -1 points in Crew Division (-2 Previous + 1 Correct Call = -1).
*Commentary Critique: This play could not have been reviewed via video. In 2017, MLB changed its Replay Review Regulations for Crew Chief Reviews on non-home run calls for a team out of challenges. The 2014-16 rule stated these Crew Chief Reviews could begin in the 7th inning. In 2017, this was changed to the 8th inning. As such, Boone could not request a Crew Chief Review for this play, which occurred in the 7th inning (see: "Crew Chief Reviews Now Begin in the 8th Inning").
Related Post: 2017 Rules Mods, Including IBB Change, Announced (3/2/17).

This is the 40th ejection report of the 2019 MLB regular season.
This is the 17th Manager ejection of 2019.
This is New York's 2nd ejection of 2019, 2nd in the AL East (BAL 3; NYY 2; TOR 1; BOS, TB 0).
This is Aaron Boone's 2nd ejection of 2019, 1st since April 20 (Jerry Meals; QOC = Y [Replay Review]).
This is Paul Emmel's 2nd ejection of 2019, 1st since April 21 (Mickey Callaway; QOC = N [Check Swing]).

Wrap: New York Yankees vs. Arizona Diamondbacks, 5/1/19 | Video as follows:

MLB Ejection 022 - Mike Estabrook (2; Rocco Baldelli)

HP Umpire Mike Estabrook ejected Twins Manager Rocco Baldelli (dead ball strike three call; QOCY) in the bottom of the 8th inning of the Twins-Blue Jays game. With one out and none on, Twins batter CJ Cron swung at a 2-2 changeup from Blue Jays pitcher Daniel Hudson, ruled a dead ball strike. Replays indicate the pitch appeared to make contact with Cron's hand as he struck at the pitch, thus touching the ball as he has attempting to hit a third strike, the call was correct.* At the time of the ejection, the Blue Jays were leading, 5-3. The Blue Jays ultimately won the contest, 5-3.

This is Mike Estabrook (42)'s second ejection of 2019.
Mike Estabrook now has 8 points in the UEFL Standings (4 Prev + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 8).
Crew Chief Paul Emmel now has 0 points in Crew Division (-1 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 0).
*Rule 5.09(a)(6) states, "A batter is out when—he attempts to hit a third strike and the ball touches him."
*Commentary Critique: The color commentary for this play requires us to address a significant rules inaccuracy stated by Twins color analyst Jack Morris and play-by-play personality Dick Bremer. Despite the broadcasters' claim, the hands are NOT part of the bat.
Related Post: Close Call of Week: Hand Part of Basket—Not Base—Ball (12/17/13).

This is the 22nd ejection report of the 2019 MLB regular season.
This is the eighth Manager ejection of 2019.
This is Minnesota's 1st ejection of 2019, 1st in the AL Central (MIN 1; CLE, CWS, DET, KC 0).
This is Rocco Baldelli's first career MLB ejection.
This is Mike Estabrook's 2nd ejection of 2019, 1st since April 11 (Joe Maddon; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: Toronto Blue Jays vs. Minnesota Twins, 4/15/19 | Video as follows:

MLB Ejection S-3 - Alfonso Marquez (1; Carl Edwards Jr)

HP Umpire Alfonso Marquez ejected Cubs pitcher Carl Edwards, Jr. (throwing at Mariners batter Austin Nola; QOCU) in the top of the 6th inning of the Mariners-Cubs game. With one out and none on, Mariners batter Kyle Lewis hit a 0-1 pitch from Edwards for a home run. Following a Tim Lopes fly out, subsequent Mariners batter Nola took a 0-0 pitch from Edwards for a hit-by-pitch, the third hit batsman of the game. Video replays are unavailable, the game was not televised, though it was broadcast on radio, the call was irrecusable.* At the time of the ejection, the Cubs were leading, 5-3. The Cubs ultimately won the contest, 6-4.

This is Alfonso Marquez (72)'s first ejection of 2019 Spring Training.
*Commentary Critique: How does one mispronounce Fonzie's name? See attached audio clip.

This is the third ejection of the 2019 preseason.
This is the 2nd player ejection of 2019 Spring. Prior to ejection, Edwards' line was 0.2 IP, HR, HBP.
This is Chicago's 1st ejection of 2019 Spring, 1st in the Grapefruit League (CHC 1; [All Others] 0).
This is Carl Edwards' first ejection since September 8, 2018 (Gabe Morales; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).
This is Alfonso Marquez's first ejection since April 24, 2017 (Jeff Banister; QOC = N [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: Seattle Mariners (aren't they in Japan?) vs. Chicago Cubs, 3/19/19 | Audio as follows:

Critique - ESPN's Triple-A Rant Was Over Full-Time MLBU

This edition of Commentary Critique is a fact check. During ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball, broadcasters claimed MLB assigned too many minor league umpires to big time games. Problem: The ump referenced is a full-timer.

Stu Scheurwater is a staff umpire for MLB.

The Claim: With Stu Scheurwater behind the plate for Sunday's Angels-Astros game, ESPN play-by-play voice Matt Vasgersian and color commenter Alex Rodriguez took aim at the umpiring crew (what else is knew), and particularly the home plate umpire, criticizing the league for assigning two minor league umpires to a pennant chase game (for Houston, that is).

Said Vasgersian during the game's top of the 4th inning:

It is a pair—not just one, but two Triple-A umpires on this crew this weekend, one at third and then Stu Scheurwater at the plate is also a Triple-A umpire. That's Ramon De Jesus at third...Am I nuts for suggesting that in a meaningful game in September —Astros have just a two-game lead in the division—I think it's exceedingly rare to have two backup umpires working a September game with pennant implications.

Added Rodriguez:

Gary Cederstrom, the crew chief at first base...love to see him in a big game behind the plate, one of the best umpires in baseball. To have two youngsters—uh, it's a lot with a game with such recourse.

Fact Check: FALSE. As we first reported in December 2017, and later confirmed in February 2018, contrary to Vasgersian's repeated criticism, Scheurwater is a full-time, MLBUA-member umpire.

Corollary Fact Check, K-Zone: What's worse, Scheurwater's ball four call, which jumpstarted Vasgersian's remarks about Triple-A umpires, received a QOC of Correct.

Even 3D K-Zone doesn't paint the entire picture.

When Vasgersian said, "Not that we have any skin in the game... you kind of want to see the game called the right way. I don't get it," he relied on ESPN K-Zone in making a determination on Scheurwater's ball four call.

Too bad 3D K-Zone is misleading, just like 2D K-Zone.

Math: Angels batter Eric Young Jr.'s bottom of the strike zone, as measured by sz_bot, was 1.763 during this pitch, while Cole's pitch height (pz) was 1.737. Accordingly, had an ejection occurred, Scheurwater's call would be deemed correct because pz was less than sz_bot. And that's before MOE.

Conclusion: The computerized strike zone box, whether 2D or 3D, is still not a pitch calling panacea.
Related Post: Analyzing Strike Zone Analysis - Not So Easy or Simple (10/27/16).

Cederstrom crew schedule, 8/26 - 9/3.

A-Rod as Umpire Scheduler: Furthermore, to address Rodriguez's remarks, the Angels-Astros series was a four-game set with Sunday's game the series finale; accordingly, Cederstrom had the plate for the first game of the series on August 30.

Generally speaking (and it might be a CBA issue, too), umpires won't work the plate twice in less than a four-game span (in-game injuries and other events can lead to a one-off situation where an umpire works the plate more frequently), and, furthermore, the only series to feature plate duplicates was, generally, the best-of-seven League Championship Series and World Series up until just a few seasons ago, when MLB integrated the Replay Official into a seven-umpire crew, thus eliminating the former two-plates-per-LCS/WS rotation schedule.

Even so, the Cederstrom crew's series prior to Angels-Astros was Mets-Cubs; like the Astros, the Cubs are similarly competing for a postseason berth...the Cederstrom crew's schedule pertaining to plate work from August 26 through early September is attached; the crew was off the field the week beginning 9/3.

History: Though Scheurwater was a minor league fill-in umpire through 2017, he had 253 games of Major League experience heading into 2018, following his 2014 debut in Los Angeles. De Jesus, who is on the fill-in slate, had similarly officiated over 200 games at the big league level as of the 2018 All-Star Break.
Related Post: Future MLB Hiring Outlook at the 2018 Break (7/16/18).
Related Post: Source - Stu Scheurwater Hired to Full-Time MLB Staff (12/23/17).
Related Post: Major League Umpiring Debut: Stu Scheurwater (85) (4/25/14).

Gil's Call - Philosophical Question: How might one hope to get young umpires big league experience without putting them behind the plate during a game with, per Vasgersian, "pennant implications"?

Or, perhaps it might be wise to start with the correct information about which umpire holds which employment status before suggesting how MLB assign its umpires, or to understand why Umpire X is at first base instead of behind the plate before criticizing base assignments within the crew.

Video as follows:

Commentary Critique - Ball is Live After Missed Base

Welcome back to Commentary Critique, where we respond to a broadcaster's statement about the rules of baseball with book-supported analysis. In this edition, we listen to YES Network's summation about a runner's missed base during Thursday's Rays-Yankees game.

Appeal failure leads to Pham's advance.

The Play: With none out and two on (R1, R3), Rays batter Tommy Pham doubled to Yankees left fielder Shane Robinson, scoring Rays baserunner R3 Joey Wendle as R1 Jake Bauers attempted to advance to third base as Robinson's throw arrived in third baseman Miguel Andujar's glove. Bauers successfully slid to avoid Andujar's tag, failing to touch third base in the process, and continued advancing toward home plate, where he was ultimately tagged out by Andujar.

The Call: 2B Umpire Nic Lentz (3B Umpire Jordan Baker was in the outfield due to the rotation play, leaving Lentz to cover the play at third base) kept play alive and made no call until Andujar physically tagged Bauers, upon which HP Umpire Jerry Layne declared Bauers out and U2 Lentz called batter-runner Pham safe at third base.

Commentary Critique, Statement: As Yankees Manager Aaron Boone ("10% Boone") exited the dugout to argue the call, Yankees broadcaster Michael Kay surmised that the umpires should have declared baserunner Bauers out after he passed third and continued toward home plate without having touched third base.

Said Kay, "Once he takes off for home, the third base umpire should call him out and you can defend third against Pham. Instead you go into a full rundown that isn't needed, and that allows Pham to get to third."

Boone argues the call with Layne & Gibson.

Commentary Critique, QOC: This statement is inaccurate (QOCN). While advancing past a base without touching it is illegal, the defense must still put out the violative runner, either via a tag while off his base, or via claiming violation of the rules by virtue of an appeal. The ball remains live and "Time" shall not be called simply because a runner failed to touch a base. A runner is considered to have achieved a base when he passes it, whether or not he physically touches it.

Commentary Correction: If Kay's statement were to be accurate, it should have been, "Once he takes off for home, the third baseman should appeal to the umpire that the runner missed third base, which would allow him to defend third against Pham. Instead, the fielder goes into a rundown that isn't needed, and that allows Pham to get to third."

The Rule: Official Baseball Rule 5.09(b)(4) is the rule that describes how the Yankees retired Bauers during this play: "Any runner is out when—He is tagged, when the ball is alive, while off his base."

OBR 5.09(c)(2) states, "Any runner shall be called out, on appeal, when—With the ball in play, while advancing or returning to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he, or a missed base, is tagged."

Diagram of when a runner passes a base.

This appeal procedure under 5.09(c)(2) references violation by the offense for failing to satisfy Rule 5.06(b)(1), which states, "In advancing, a runner shall touch first, second, third and home base in order."

This appeal can only be effected when the runner has run past the base and continued to advance or made no attempt to return to (re)touch it (e.g., overrunning first base without touching it...see references section below). Regardless of whether or not the runner has physically touched the base, said runner is considered to have passed a base "if he has both feet on the ground beyond the back edge of the base or beyond the edge of the base in the direction to which he is advancing."

Conclusion: In this case, R1 Bauers clearly runs (or slides) past third base without touching it. As previously stated, the ball remains live during the entirety of this play, whether or not an appeal is made.

Bauers briefly considers trying to touch third.

Once Bauers continues his advancement having failed to touch third base, the appeal may be executed by communicating to the umpire an intention to appeal while tagging the allegedly missed base. Had F5 Andujar tagged third base while holding the ball as R1 Bauers was running home, the proper call would be to declare Bauers out on appeal for missing third base. Obviously, the runner may be tagged out while standing off his base, as in Rule 5.09(b)(4), but this is not an appeal play unless the tagging fielder makes it clear to the umpire that he is appealing the runner's baserunning violation.

Why is this distinction important? If, with R1 and R3, there were two outs and R1 Bauers missed second base on Pham's hit to the outfield, and the defense successfully appealed that Bauers missed second base, then the appeal would result in both a force out and the third out of the inning, meaning that R3 Wendle's run would not count and the batter would not be credited with a hit.

Naturally, the defense could get both the third out via a standard 5.09(b)(4) tag and a fourth out via appeal (the fourth out would take precedence over the third out, thus becoming the official third out).

References: The so-called real-time appeal play is a rare, but quite practical occurrence in baseball.
Related Post: Rare Real-Time Appeal Retires Runner over Retouch Rule (6/15/17).
Related Post: Officially Speaking - Hanley, an avid Hunter...of Outs (6/23/16).
Related Post: UEFL Series: Baseball Rules in the Real World (Fourth Out) (1/18/14).

Video as follows: