Out or no out
 

Fed rules.
Ball is hit to F3, ball is held securely in his hand, F3 touches 1st base with his glove before the runner reaches 1st base. Is the runner out or safe ?

Out.......

ILBlue,

Out. This is a legal tag of the base (assuming the glove is being properly worn, of course), which is all that is required.

JM

Does anyone know the Fed rule on this ? I can't seem to find it.
Thanks.

This must be "topic of the month" :D

See 8-4-1f

Let's look at this another way. If it is legal for F3 to hold the ball in his glove and touch the base with his foot, why would it not be legal for F3 to hold the ball in his hand and touch the base with his glove?

I thought this was an out, but another ump insisted the runner was safe.
Thanks

:rolleyes:

Safe?
 

That's funny, and it would be nice to hear his justification of how he was safe. Umpiring can be so difficult sometimes ... (g)

Thanks
David

"Is the hand part of the glove?"

He probally confused tagging a base and tagging a runner:confused:

"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..."

Unless the glove is a part of his body, something in casebooks or another rule must contradict this.

I'm in agreement that he's out, but would just like to see a ruling.

This isn't a TAG of a runner, it's a TOUCH of a base. Completely different.

FED 8-4-2j: 'Any runner is out when he fails to reach the next base before a fielder either tags the runner out or holds the ball while touching such base..."

FED 2-24-1: "A force-out is a putout.......or is put out by a fielder who holds the ball while touching the base toward which the force runner is advancing...


Doesn't matter where the ball is as long as it is legally held; then any part of the body that touches the base during/after such a legal catch/hold completes the force.

Is his shoe part of his foot???

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.

I agree, how dare anyone want to understand such a rule!!
In fact, how stupid can you be to not know the answer to this.
It's in the rules, and the rules are so clear and concise and besides, it doesn't matter what the rule says anyway, baseball tradition is the final arbiter on this matter. Right MC?

Get a life Tuss:mad:

I feel your pain MC:( .
Daily having to put up with the trolldom of this board. Putting up with the minions of those who have not risen to the level of god of the rules.

I salute you MC for your baseball acumen, your ability to decipher good rules from bad, and your unending fight to eliminate the trolls among us. (though I be a troll myself, I have come to realize my worthlessness to society and am struggling daily to elevate my standing)