C2, I have read your posts and they do not desrve an answer.

I thought you cleaned up your act, sorry to see you haven't. G.

Gee,
I agree. That post was puzzling.
mick

One thing, mick: You sure aren't puzzling. You're as transparent as spring water.

Gee: You never cease to amaze me. You write: "You well know, or should know by now, that it would take more than a village to change my mind on that. It is set in marble. You can have fun with that statement."<p>So, when I take you up on your dare....

You're right. I didn't learn. But I have now. You and one other internet "expert" are the only two posters I know who are NEVER wrong. I've been able to take the vow on the other. Let's see if I can do as well with you.

Huh?
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

One thing, mick: You sure aren't puzzling. You're as transparent as spring water.

Carl,
I still don't get it.
mick

Re: Huh?
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mick

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress Quote: One thing, mick: You sure aren't puzzling. You're as transparent as spring water. Carl, I still don't get it. mick

I'm guessing he's praising you somehow, 'cause let's
face it, you're a pretty good guy. But hey, I'm not
one of them internet experts so what do I know (well,
I actually am an internet expert but probably not in the
sense that a certain Grumpy Gus might use the term, not
to mention any names but jeeze Carl lighten up already
fer gawd's sake). Anyway I like ya and I don't care
what they say about you! :p

Re: Re: Huh?
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by mick Quote: Originally posted by Carl Childress Quote: One thing, mick: You sure aren't puzzling. You're as transparent as spring water. Carl, I still don't get it. mick I'm guessing he's praising you somehow, 'cause let's face it, you're a pretty good guy. But hey, I'm not one of them internet experts so what do I know (well, I actually am an internet expert but probably not in the sense that a certain Grumpy Gus might use the term, not to mention any names but jeeze Carl lighten up already fer gawd's sake). Anyway I like ya and I don't care what they say about you! :p

Thanks for that, Sparky.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

You're close, but "out" by a whisker. (grin)

Carl, leave me out of this, I have not
posted on the subject. :D

The other gentlemen are giving you enough
static. grin

glen (whiskers_ump)

OK, No post tag action considered when determining a legal tag. Per JEA, C2, Jerry and others.

The catcher took two steps to glove the ball in front of the plate. He then took two steps back to set up for R3 coming in on a non force play. That, in itself, proves total control. Now you see, clear as day, the catcher put the tag on the runner, BEFORE he gets to the Plate.

After all you have said about this play, you now say, show me the ball, safe, NO TAG. Wow. Is that a contradiction. I'll stick with J/R on that, post tag proof. Good luck. G.

If it's the tag <b>of a player</b>, then I agree -- the fielder needs to hold the ball after the tag.

But, if we change your play slightly and F2 steps on the plate (assuming it's a force play, of course), THEN runs into the runner, it's a tag <b>of a base</b> and the runner is out even if the contact causes the ball to come loose. That's because F2 demonstrated control when he caught the ball and ran the two steps to the bag. Unless the force / act of tagging the bag caused the ball to come loose (say, for example, F2 was on the ground and reached back with his glove and the ball popped out as F2 touched the plate with his glove), the fielder still has control upon tagging the base. Action that is subsequent to tagging the base, and unrelated to tagging the base that causes the ball to come loose doesn't affect the tagging of the base.