This is a tag. Tag has two definitions. The tag of a base, and the tag of a runner. But thats just nitpicking.

The body must touch the bag. The glove is not a piece of the body, its a piece of equipment.

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, because frankly I'd call him out but am curious to know what, if anything, the casebooks have to say about this.

this thread reminded me of "deal...or no deal"

The body must touch the bag. The glove is not a piece of the body, its a piece of equipment.



So what's a shoe?

A part of the uniform... just like the jersey. If a player runs to first base and touches it with his bat are you allowing that? Cricket style...

I'm just saying, I'd like to hear something official on this, because it seems like the glove isn't a part of the body.

But you said the BODY must touch the bag. Now you're adding uniform? You wear a uniform don't you? So wearing something must make it part of the body. Keep going and pretty soon you'll get to glove.


You don't wear a bat.

Listen, you are reading into it to much. Read the definition of a "TAG". The first part. The body must be in contact with the base.

If you think this means glove as well, then fine. I don't. I'd still call him out though, because it makes sense. I'll wait until I hear something from a book about this one before I say which is right or wrong.

From Jim Evans:

A TAG is the action of a fielder in touching a base with his body while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove; or touching a runner with the ball, or with his hand or glove holding the ball, while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove.

Cross References: 6.05(j), 6.09(b)Notes, 7.08(a..l), 7.08(c, d, e, k), 7.l0(a-d)

This definition originally appeared in this exact wording in the recodification of 1950.

The distinction in this definition is clear. When tagging a base, a player may use any part of his body (e.g. foot, hand, shoulder) as long as he has secure possession of the ball in his hand or glove at the time he touches the base.

When tagging a runner; a player must have secure possession of the ball in the hand which touches the runner, or, have secure possession of the ball in the glove which touches the runner.

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.

According to this interpretation, the foot, hand, shoulder, etc., are all considered body parts, even though they may or may not be covered with uniforms, gloves, shoes or other items typical of a fielder.

J/R has this to say:

"Catch" and "Tag" are similar concepts. A tag occurs when the ball is live and a fielder has the ball in his hand or glove (or both) and:
a) a base is touched by his person or
b) a runner is touched by any part of the glove/ball or hand/ball combination.


This interpretation replaces the word "body" with "person" and must include an empty glove, as long as the ball is securely held in the other hand, if it also includes a player's shoes, which are technically not part of his "person" either.

Simply amazing, that this is actually being discussed.

Thanks steve... most of this seems to deal with tags of runners, not bases. "A base is touched my his person" sure is different than body. Don't see where in Evans he considers the glove the body though.

I'm willing to live without an explanation, just curious to know where this comes from. Certainly, I would call the kid out in the original sitch. Just wondering why I would do it.

"Person" is defined in Section 2
 

The OBR includes a definition of "person." So does J/R. It is any part of a players body, clothing or equipment.

OBR is, as is often the case, not consistent in its wording, and so the meaning of body and person is ambiguous.

But J/R is consistent, and its definitions of "tag" and "person", taken together show clearly that touching the base with the glove (if it is worn properly) while holding the ball securely is sufficient for a legal tag of the base.

Well, he said "foot, hand, shoulder" as an example (e.g.). The players don't play barefoot or shirtless, so it is implied that the foot has a shoe on it and the shoulder has a jersey covering it. So, therefore, the "body" is not really touching the base, either, so what precludes an empty glove? It should naturally fall into the same category as the other body parts listed that have something between them and the base. Does this make any sense at all? Probably not! But that's the way I see it.:)

Gracias. Now I will know why I'm calling that an out.

Its like when you are little and looking in the dictionary, and have to look up another word in the definition. A hop is a jump, a jump is a hop, and I didn't know what either meant!:D

Thanks Dave, I guess it would have helped if I had looked up "person" in Rule 2.00. That does it for me!

DG, you got anything else?:D

Yeah. 4 balls is a walk, 3 strikes is an out. Look it up.

This is stupid here. It's stupid there.
Heck, it's stupid everywhere.

Stop feeding the trolls.