Ask UEFL - Caught Fly Ball Tagging Up Appeal Play: Philadelphia Edition

Baseball quirks are always more omnipresent than would first appear, and in the case of Wednesday's Pirates-Nationals appeal play fourth out chaos, we have a Braves-Phillies appeal play to discuss. Article: https://www.closecallsports.com/2022/...

CloseCallSports on Discord:   / discord  
Related Pirates-Nationals article: https://www.closecallsports.com/2022/...

The compare-and-contrast sequel to the complex appeal play explanation in Washington, when a runner is appealed for failing to tag up, leaving early, or timely retouch their base, drills into the "unmistakable" component of the appeal rule, as in OBR 5.09(c).

What makes the Philadelphia play unmistakable while the Washington play did not satisfy this "clearly intended" criterion is that in Philadelphia, Braves fielder Orlando Arcia stepped on second base while no other runner was standing on the base or in the nearby vicinity for that matter, whereas in DC, Nats fielder Ehire Adrianza tagged Pirates runner R2 Hoy Park while Park was standing on third base, with Adrianza stepping on third base while holding the tag on Park.

In other words, the Philadelphia story is "unmistakable" while the Washington play is open to ambiguity due to the presence of a second runner who is being appealed to have left early.

In the case of a play wherein the defense has two potential appeal plays to make at roughly the same time on two separate runners, the fielder should specify to the runner which runner is being appealed so that the confusion and "unmistakable" nature of simply not knowing what is precisely being appealed is removed and the umpire can then rule on the proper runner, followed, if applicable, by ruling on the other runner.

And that is the primary difference between the plays in terms of why one appeal on a lead runner was honored and other was not.