Tag Play. GB fielded and thrown to F3. F3's foot on the bag. Ball caught. F3 immediately plowed into by B-R. Ball comes out and hits the dirt.

Evans, in his Annotated 1993,contended that B-R was still out. Roder, 2005, says that B-R will be Safe. This play is assuming no Interference or Obstruction, so please don't bring that into the equation.

I would think that both of these sources are considered Authoritative. Jimmy, because of his past affiliation with MLB and his current status as the Boss of his Academy. Roder because of his widespread reference to the MLB Umpire Manual and a former Brinkman Instructor and Minor League Umpire.

Although I am a Jimmy disciple, I agree with Roder's take on this play.

If I have to post specifics of their opinions word for word, I will. I just don't feel like it right now.

Dave
******

i'm in with roder on this one, no out here. section 2 defines a catch, and the first "it is not a catch when..." part falls into this situation. the immediate contact caused the ball to drop, making it a non-catch by the book. ive never had a situation involving immediate contact like this at first base, but i believe i would not have an out here.

[Edited by briancurtin on Jan 15th, 2006 at 01:47 AM]

Well,
 

As we have talked about this type play many times, it comes to the following:

There are two distinct camps:

1) Even those that know that the definition of a "catch" only deals with a ball "in flight" and therefore has nothing to do with a "gloved" ball (Evans terminolgy) there needs to be "some" proof of post possession control for the out. This group is supported by 99.53% of coaches that would wonder "how in the he11 can you call an out with the freakin' ball on the ground!"

2) A very strong belief by another group that feels that the INSTANT the ball is held securely and the base touched the play is complete and the remaining action of the play is moot. This group also rightfully contends that no voluntary release is necessary and therefore the play is over.

I doubt seriously if either side will ever be convinced by the other that they are wrong.

Tee

BTW:

I lifted the majority of this post from another website. The poster said it better than I could.

T

[Edited by Tim C on Jan 15th, 2006 at 10:57 AM]

Evan's out of the JEA, pg 87,

"In establishing the validity of secure possession at the time of a tag, the umpire should determine that the player held the ball long enough and did not juggle the ball or momentarily lose possession before gaining full control and touching the runner. Unlike a catch, a legal tag is based on the status of the ball at the time the runner or base is touched and not on the final proof of possession."

Quote out of the J/R, pg 26-27,

"Such fielder must have complete control of the ball during and after the touch. If the fielder bobbles or drops the ball during or after the touch of the base or runner, and the bobble or drop is due to his lack of control of himself or the ball, or due to contact with a runner, it is not a tag."

I agree with Evans. Since the fielder had control at the time of the tag, the runner is out. Possession is had already been established and the tag made.

I had a tag play in a FED game last year that was argued by one of the coaches in the 99.53%.

R1 stealing, F4 covering, throw from F2 was wide to the 1B side of 2B. F4 reaches out for it, catches, and tage the sliding R1 in the top of the helment, before his feet reached the bag. He then holds is glove up in the air (with ball inside) and I call the out. But F4 is off balance so he takes a step and then jumps up in the air and does a 360 and when he lands the glove hand comes down and the ball drops out. Head coach comes out we discuss and then agree to disagree and he returns to the dugout.

FED helps only marginally with CB 2.9.1. "The ball arrives in time, but as F3 attempts to regain his balance, he drops the ball. Is the runner out? RULING: Attempts to regain balance after receiving ball are considered a part of the act of catching; and if the fielder does not come up with the ball in his possession, it is not considered a catch. In all such cases, judgment is a factor. If the ball is clearly in the fielder's possession and if some other new movement not related to the catch is then made, and the ball is fumbled during such new movement, the umpire will declare it a catch followed by a fumble."

I realize I have mixed catch (of a throw from another fielder) and tag, but they are similar.

I am in the Evans camp on this one.

I did not quote a rule, and a play on BR at 1B is not a force.

Under JEA this subject is covered under TAG - "unlike a catch, a legal tag is based on the status of the ball at the time the runner or base is touched and not on the final proof of possession. So tagging a runner and tagging a base are similar, and unrelated to voluntary release of a CATCH of a batted ball.

My JEA example has nothing to do with a batted ball. I clearly said it was covered under JEA under TAG.

My bad. I misunderstood what your statement out of the JEA was. I see now. I think we're on the same page now. What I getting at was, 2.9.1. in FED covers catch and release of a batted and thrown ball. It's vague for sure. Don't worry player, I get your vibe.

Again, think you made the right call on tag play.
[/B][/QUOTE]The quote form CB 2.9.1 was from the case book, and it did refer to F3 receiving a throw on a play at 1B.

Again, I am in the Evans camp on this subject. Once the tag is made, or the base is touched with ball secure in the glove the play is over. Thus, in my play from last year, once F4 raised his glove hand with ball inside, after putting the tag on R1's helment, his 360 degree jump and subsequent drop of the ball when he landed was just not relevant.

Fitzpatrick of PBUC agrees with Evans - and me. Tag of a base is NOT the same as tag of a runner.
This is one of the times when the NHFS is out in front. (2-24-2)

See BRD section 483 for the full story.

I think it comes down to what you have to tag and with what.

If you are trying to tag a player you must perform that action with a securely held ball. If it comes loose immediately after the tag, barring some illegal action, you can't have an out.

If you tag a base, the only way you can lose possession of a ball and not get the out (assumming it was securely held to beging with and the runner did not beat you to the base) is if you tagged the base itself with the securely held ball. If you tagged it with any other part of your body, the requirements to get an out are fulfilled.

D

What about a fielder who show's secure possession initially, losing the ball after diving to touch a bag with the glove on a force?

How much leeway would you then give him on the tag of the base?

Do you consider the touch of the bag an immediate out, or do you require the fielder to begin to lift the glove from the bag to call the out?

Tim.

Day game or night?

If the defense has possession of the ball and tags the base, the runner is out. IMHO

If the defense is tagging the runner, I would need to see that possession is maintained after the tag as the ball could come loose during the tag.

So if the defense dives at the runner and tags him on the thigh and holds onto the ball until he hits the ground, I've got an out. I don't care if he drops the ball after he hits the ground.

Same as if F3 jumps for a high throw to the home plate side, catches the ball and swipe tags the runner going by. If he still has the ball in his glove after the tag, I have an out even if he hits the ground and the ball pops out. As long as he maintains possession through the tag, it should be an out. IMHO.

It's hard to believe that MLB has never clarified this play. (After all, even the Amateur Softball Association has decreed that a ball cannot be knocked loose on a force play or an out at 1B. Instantaneous possession is enough.)

On the crash on the throw at 1B, I call an out unless the catch, crash, and drop appear to occur practically simultaneously. I usually see it when the throw draws F3 into the runner and the collision occurs immediately after the ball hits the glove. If F3 holds the ball for any discernible time and <i>then</i> the crash occurs, it's an out. I do not require the same kind of maintaining of possession that I would with a tag or a catch in the outfield.

In a related (but admittedly rarer) play, what would you call here?:

Ground ball to F3, who throws to F1 covering 1B. F1 catches F3's throw but stumbles before he reaches 1B. As he is trying to regain his balance, he sticks his foot out and kicks the bag, takes another stumble step, and falls to the ground and the ball comes out. I admit I don't know how to call this one.

Out, he has possession of the ball at the time of tag.

If you subscribe to the instantenous out on a tag of a base, then the answer is: He's out.

The fact he lost the ball when he hit the ground is irrelevant since what he did was "glove" a ball. You cannot "catch" a thrown ball.

That's the separation I was talking about.

Instead of runners and bases, think of them as items you need to tag and if you need to tag them with the secuerly held ball, then the time frame is the same.

If the ball pops out as a result of tagging the object, you can't have an out. Freaky things like "what if the fielder tage the base with his glove at the same time the runner steps on his glove and the ball pops out?" require the umpire's judgement.

D

How can you not subscribe to the "instant" out in this situation? Do we need to start using the "voluntary release" test on plays at first then?

While I find great value in J/R from a theorectical perspective, I place greater weight in the JEA from a practical, ease of use perspective.

Evans just makes more sense.

Bob

Sadly Carl, even though I own a 2005 BRD, I still went to the JEA and the J/R to pull the quotes.

Little did I realize that the relevant quotes would be right there in the BRD.

Silly me...

If the requirement for an out includes the touching of some object while in possession of the ball, the instant that object is touched while the player is in possession of the ball, you have an out. (This applies to any instance of getting an out by touching a base with anything other than the ball or a gloved ball).

If the requirement for an out includes the touching of some object (ie the runner or a base) with the ball itself or a gloved ball, and the ball becomes dislodged because of the contact between that object and the ball or the gloved ball, you don't have an out (this applies to any tag (whether a force play or not) and any instance where a fielder is attempting to touch a base with the ball or gloved ball).

Seems wordy, but it's easy to interpret and easy to back up via rule.

The unfortunate part of your post is
that most of us don't know because the
J/R is easy to aquire. Lots of us (obviously),
would love to own a copy of JEA.

But Evans said "Unlike a catch, a legal tag is based on the status of the ball at the time the runner or base is touched and not on the final proof of possession." This was under the definition for TAG, which included touching a base while holding the ball, or touching a runner with the ball or glove holding the ball.

How can one obtain a JEA? (And what do the letters stand for?)

What you're missing is the nature of a tag of a moving object as opposed to a stationary one: The fielder must have control of the ball </i>during</i> the tag, which is not instant but continues through the play. Let's say you see a fielder swipe tag a runner on his way to first, and the ball comes out: Now try to sell that the runner was out and the dropped ball means nothing.

JEA stands for Official Baseball Rules Annotated by Jim Evans: J(im) E(vans) A(nnotated). Jim Porter gave it the name when the book first surfaced on the internet.

And,
 

I believe at the "Florida Classic" Jim Evans announced that it would soon be available on CD to the general public.

Tee

It's available on pdf. I have a copy.

Tim.

would you be interested in sharing that? i have plenty of webspace, and plenty of bandwidth to share if you are interested in making this available to others.

**assuming it doesnt break any licensing, etc. i have no idea how you got it, so i just mentioned that. if it would be pirating to do this, dont share it.

[Edited by briancurtin on Jan 17th, 2006 at 05:29 PM]

Brian:

I left you a personal message on the ABUA board.

Tim.

Folks,

Sharing a copyrighted work without permission is against the law & may result in significant civil penalties.

I can assure you that Mr. Evans will protect his work and rights in this regard.

Let me jump in on this. I have had a legal copy of the Annotated since 1993 and have put it on disk in Word and Wordperfect. I also have it on my laptop.

I, however, will not provide this body of work to anyone, paid or not.

The reason Jim didn't put the Annotated on disk in the first place was because of piracy concerns.

I would sincerely discourage anyone from providing this material at ANY cost to anyone.

If you DO provide illegal copies to others, just make sure I don't know about it.

Dave
******

i dont know anything about the JEA except that its the JEA, thats all and thats why i asked. if its copyrighted (figured it was), i dont want anything to do with distributing it, so we are done with that side conversation.

i know there are endless types of licenses out there, and asked solely because everything deals with redistribution of digital materials differently. i do not intend to restribute piracy of this document.

[Edited by briancurtin on Jan 17th, 2006 at 09:18 PM]