Correct call or Did I blow it ??

Coach Stacy · #1 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 24, 2001, 12:31pm

I was PU in 11/12yr old LL District Championship and had a game deciding call. This is the situation: Bases loaded no outs,top of 6th, 2-2 tie gm. Hot grounder to F6 who throws a strike to F2,who is not touching any part of the plate.F2 Catches the throw from F6,turns to tag runner coming from 3rd. In the process F6 steps on home plate then reaches down to tag a sliding R1. I call R1 out,as I look down the ball is rolling out from under R1. I was making the call on the force play not the tag. I really thought F2 was going to make a play on R2 going to 3rd after touching the plate,but instead he made a tag on R1.The contact caused the ball to become dislodged and roll free. I don't think F2 knew he made contact with home. I stuck with the out call,had to eject the coach for some things he said about my mother.This play happened in a bang/bang manner.Did I blow this call?

bluezebra · #2 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 24, 2001, 12:48pm

Good call. When F2 stepped on the plate, the out was made. Anything subsequent to that cannot negate the out. I've made that call dozens of times, with the usual "discussions".

Bob

Bfair · #3 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 24, 2001, 01:11pm

Assuming F2 had control of the ball while stepping on home plate (which it appears he did), then it's the right call.

Freix

mick · #4 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 24, 2001, 01:13pm

Good call, Coach.
Too bad the offensive coach had to go away.
mick

Jerry · #5 (**permalink**) Wed Jul 25, 2001, 11:26am

There may be those that disagree with me, but let's assume it wasn't a force out at the plate. From your description of the tag, the catcher was "holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove" at the time of touching the runner with the "glove holding the ball". At that exact instant, the runner was "Out" due to the tag. The ball did not become loose until AFTER the runner was "touched".

Similar to those arguments of "Hey, blue! The 1st baseman pulled his foot!" No fielder is obligated to hold his foot on a base for an "Out" to occur. It's that instantaneous action that creates the Out. The same is true on a Tag Out. The instant the runner is touched is when the Out occurs. Provided the catcher had full control of the ball at that time, you've got an Out.

You might have to sell it . . . but that's the Rule.

Jerry

Rich Ives · #6 (**permalink**) Wed Jul 25, 2001, 11:38am

Jerry, you wrote: "The instant the runner is touched is when the Out occurs. Provided the catcher had full control of the ball at that time, you've got an Out.

You might have to sell it . . ."

It'll be a MAJOR sell Jerry. Be prepared to eject a whole boatload of people. There have been at least 1,276,438 runners called safe over the years because the catcher, or another fielder, didn't hold the ball. The presumption is that the player could not have been holding the ball securely if it came loose.

mick · #7 (**permalink**) Wed Jul 25, 2001, 11:42am

Quote:

Originally posted by Jerry
There may be those that disagree with me, but let's assume it wasn't a force out at the plate. From your description of the tag, the catcher was "holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove" at the time of touching the runner with the "glove holding the ball". At that exact instant, the runner was "Out" due to the tag. The ball did not become loose until AFTER the runner was "touched".

Similar to those arguments of "Hey, blue! The 1st baseman pulled his foot!" No fielder is obligated to hold his foot on a base for an "Out" to occur. It's that instantaneous action that creates the Out. The same is true on a Tag Out. The instant the runner is touched is when the Out occurs. Provided the catcher had full control of the ball at that time, you've got an Out.

You might have to sell it . . . but that's the Rule.

Jerry

Jerry,
After an outfielder "catches" a ball, crashes into the wall, and then loses control and drops the ball. Does it remain a catch?
Is there a difference between hitting the wall, or hitting a runner's body in this respect?
I think not.
mick

Gee · #8 (**permalink**) Wed Jul 25, 2001, 11:45am

Sorry, I cannot defend the call. The key words in your post were "This play happened in a bang gang manner."

I've got "NO CATCH". As you know from OBR #2 a catch is nullified when the catcher simultaneously or immediately (BANG BANG) comes in contact with a runner....Causing him to to drop the ball.

I interpret your rulings to mean the tag was proper as the catcher had full control of the ball when he stepped on the plate. As I have said, I would rule, no catch.

As to the OBR definition of TAG as well as the interpretation of tag in JEA, there is no post tag action taken into consideration, i.e. intentional and voluntary release.

However J/R interprets the TAG differently than JEA. J/R includes post tag action and requires intentional and voluntary release of the ball before the tag is official.

I will go one step further on that. Let's say there was no throw, thus catch wouldn't enter into the equation.

The batter tops a ball infront of the plate and the catcher went out and picked it up and ran back to the plate and the same thing happened. In that case I would call NO TAG as I need post tag action before I call that runner out.

Another sitch to further my point.

No force at the plate but an R3.

Batter chops one in front of the plate, catcher runs out and picks up the ball and runs back and sets up for R3 coming in WITH TOTAL CONTROL of the ball.

R3 slides in, you have the catcher, with full posession, and you see the catcher, as clear as daylight, tag the runner.

He then drops the ball simultaneously or immediatly upon contact. Are you going to call that runner
out while looking at the ball on the ground.

I'm not. If you do you had better have a cell phone handy to call 911. Think about it. G.

Jerry · #9 (**permalink**) Wed Jul 25, 2001, 12:29pm

A "catch" and a "tag" are two completely different definitions. Mixing "apples" with "oranges" only complicates the discussion, if we're only talking about apples. In fact, the definition specifically says your description is NOT a catch. There is no such exception in the definition of "Tag".

If a runner is TOUCHED by a fielder holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove . . . it's a TAG. Period. Because the ball is dropped after that TOUCH doesn't alter that definition one iota. The only judgement that needs to be made is whether or not the fielder had secure and firm possession of the ball AT THE TIME OF THE TOUCH!

As I started out in my earlier reply . . . there will be those that disagree. Obviously you're among them. That doesn't change the fact that the PU could have called R3 out on the tag . . . and be fully justified in his judgement.

That's all.

Carl Childress · #10 (**permalink**) Wed Jul 25, 2001, 12:32pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Gee
Sorry, I cannot defend the call. The key words in your post were "This play happened in a bang gang manner."

I've got "NO CATCH". As you know from OBR #2 a catch is nullified when the catcher simultaneously or immediately (BANG BANG) comes in contact with a runner....Causing him to to drop the ball.

Gee, et. al.:

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

You are right that a fielder must demonstrate possession AFTER the catch, whether of a batted or thrown ball. A fielder who gloves a batted ball is not under the same compulsion, as we know from an official interpretation via Cris Jones (PBUC) posted on eteamz.

But notice that a catch is always established when a fielder in control of the ball goes to "do something" germane to the game. That's the case here, and I'm sure you'll agree after reflection.

There are three distinct elements to this play:

The fielder gloves the ball while accidentally stepping on home plate in a force situation.

The fielder goes to tag the runner (unnecessarily).

The force of the slide knocks the ball loose.

Therefore, when the catcher moved to tag the runner while still holding the ball, that was an action inherent in the game and demonstrated beyond doubt control of the ball. The slide knocked the ball loose AFTER the out was registered.

Good call, coach!

Bfair · #11 (**permalink**) Wed Jul 25, 2001, 01:24pm

Agreed, Childress, but I think if you re-read the last few posts you might see that the play being discussed between Jerry and Gee had changed to a non-force tag being applied to a runner at home and not to the original situation which started the thread.

Just my opinion,

Freix

Rich Ives · #12 (**permalink**) Wed Jul 25, 2001, 01:25pm

Carl - the discussion is about the "not a force" situation. Runner coming, fielder has the ball, ball comes lose on the tag as a result of the impact. Jerry asserts that this is an out the instant the fielder touches the runner, without regard to the fielder losing the ball. Most of us seem to have observed over the years that if the ball comes loose, the call is safe.

Comment?

Gee · #13 (**permalink**) Wed Jul 25, 2001, 01:32pm

We've been down this same highway before. You must remember that the original post of the sitch said that the play was a bang/bang play. That is the Whole play. The catch, the slide the touching of the plate and the tag. I.E. Simultaneous and immediate.

You can disect the play in your mind but you can't change the timing.

I will stay with my above calls. 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. G.

Carl Childress · #14 (**permalink**) Wed Jul 25, 2001, 02:20pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Gee
We've been down this same highway before. You must remember that the original post of the sitch said that the play was a bang/bang play. That is the Whole play. The catch, the slide the touching of the plate and the tag. I.E. Simultaneous and immediate.

You can disect the play in your mind but you can't change the timing.

I will stay with my above calls. 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. G.

Gee:

Anyone with your attitude is a matter of concern, not humor. I am amazed that in two years you now profess to give advice to experts.

Amazing!

Further, your bragging about such stubbornness is more than sad. Every time I think you're becoming open to learning, you post some nonsense like the above.

When will I learn...?

Carl Childress · #15 (**permalink**) Wed Jul 25, 2001, 02:24pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Ives
Carl - the discussion is about the "not a force" situation. Runner coming, fielder has the ball, ball comes lose on the tag as a result of the impact. Jerry asserts that this is an out the instant the fielder touches the runner, without regard to the fielder losing the ball. Most of us seem to have observed over the years that if the ball comes loose, the call is safe.

Comment?

Rich:

If you'll notice Mr. Lucy's latest post, you'll see I knew more about what he was saying that you did. (grin) He has been stuck in this bog since he learned to read the J/R, which -- as we know from the PBUC -- is just wrong on this point.

Now, to move to the play YOU want dissected.

That's an even easier call to make: Safe!

Gosh, haven't we been teaching umpires for years that, when in doubt, they should scream: "Show me the ball! Show me the ball!"