pickoff at 2nd, what's the call?
 

Pickoff try at second base, the runner gets back to second base standing up, the shortstop coming in behind second base has to reach around the runner standing on second to catch the throw. The shortstop, after catching the ball is off balance and leans on the runner, the runner falls to the ground with the shortstop and comes off the base. The shortstop applies the tag from the catch to the ground.
What is the ruling on this play?

Out.

Well..
In your JUDGEMENT....what caused R2 to come off the base?
If R2 was in control of his body, in "control" of the base and the movements of F6 caused R2 to come off the base, then.. "safe" "time!"...and allow R2 to get back on the base. Doesnt sound like anything malicious on the part of F6. Just the momentum of him catching the ball pulled them off.

Or..

in your judgement...R2 was in contact with the base, but didnt appear to be in control of his body/movement, i.e. trying to maintain contact with the base etc...and F6 makes a routine baseball play, and R2 comes off the base...then you got an out.

Sounds like in your play it would be the former..

Really??
 

"Runner gets back to the base standing up"... "reach around the runner standing on second to catch the throw".. "the shortstop, after catching the ball is off balance and leans on the runner"

Without seeing the play in question, it appears R2 had complete control of his body, was standing on the base, which tells me he wasnt trying to maintain control of the base, and F6 comes in trying to take the throw which takes him into the runner, and in the process of that..
"the runner falls to the ground with the shortstop and comes off the base"

Why you picking up the shi**y end of the stick here?

Hey, he won't go back in standing up again will he. ..:D

Thanks
David

Why did the runner go back in standing up?

[QUOTE=David B]Hey, he won't go back in standing up again will he. ..:D

The better choice for the runner is to obviously go back in with a slide. But maybe the play wasnt close? But just because the runner goes back in standing, doesnt mean that F6 can get the advantage and get an out by knocking him off the bag as F6 "leans on the runner".
Yeah, I guess you can get an out. But all the evidence on this play (going with the OP), is on the side of the runner. Runner appears to have gained control of the bag, and his body. However the throw is what causes F6 to knock into the runner, which is what causes the runner to come off the bag.

Without having seen it , maybe it wasnt close. But shouldnt matter, from the post it appears the runner had the bag, and the throw/F6 actions is what caused the runner to come off the bag..

Never pass up a chance to get an out.





:D

Safe. There is no way I am calling the runner out. Bad joojoo can only follow an out call.

Thank you. No way do I call the runner out if he already had control of himself and the base, and I love outs as much as the next guy. I'm not penalizing the runner for poor defensive work, nor am I going to reward the defense with a cheap out.

Now, if the runner was out of control and starting to come off the base on a fairly close play, that would be different.

[QUOTE=LMan]Never pass up a chance to get an out.

....And I wish you continued success in your career as UIC in your local Parks and Recreation League. Calling that play an out at a higher level wont have you there long...

[QUOTE=chuckfan1]
Really? So the guy that called Hrbek out in the World Series had a short career?

That doesn't make the call right. You can't just go around pushing people off the base and tagging them. What kind of bush crap is that?

Drew Coble ruled that Gant's momentum carried him off the bag, not Hrbek's tag. Different than the OP.

From BaseballLibrary.com:

"First base umpire Drew Coble ruled that Gant, who didn't slide on the play, had come off the bag because of the momentum caused by his awkward stand-up return to the bag. "He lunged into the bag," Coble told Rob Rains of USA Today Baseball Weekly. "His momentum was carrying toward the first base dugout. When he did that, he began to switch feet. He tried to pick up one foot and bring the other one down. In my judgment, [Gant's] momentum carried him over the top of Hrbek." In essence, Coble was saying that he would have called Gant safe if he felt that Hrbek's body had forced him off the bag, but he called him out because he felt that the natural momentum of Gant's twisting body had resulted in his separation from the base."

Why not?

MTD, Sr.

Bad joojoo has been following the Indians for some years now. :D

MTD, Sr.

[QUOTE=RichMSN]I wouldn'd call it short. Drew Coble - AL - 1983 to 1999. 16 years isn't bad, and 1999 was the strike year. So alot of umpires ended their careers that year.

Bob:

I respect you posts quite a bit. So I a little suprised by your response. After reading further posts would you change your mind?

MTD, Sr.

No.

Then besides your eloquent one word responses, can you explain how you have an out on a play where it appears (from whats said in the post) that R2 is in control of his body, standing on the bag, has "control" of the base, and the throw takes F6 into the runner..

..."after catching the ball is off balance and leans on the runner"
and
..."the runner falls to the ground with the shortstop and comes off the base"

Why do you give the benefit of the doubt on this to the defense when it was the defense that was the impetus for the runner coming off the base.
So your saying the infielders can pretty much have carte blanche in making contact with the runner? In trying to make a play?

I too, like the other poster have always viewed your thoughts with respect...just seem a little surprising youd have an out on this.

I can't asnwer for Bob, but for me, you make this sound like a play that took a long time to develop, whereas I see it as bang bang, as most pick 0ff plays are. Most likely the runner reached the bag and the field was receiving the ball...no way to confirm that the runner was stable and in control of himself. If indeed it was bang, bang...I have an out.

I see what your saying, but the post seems to indicate otherwise.

"Runner gets back to 2nd base standing up"..Back to 2nd says "stable to me


Then the fun starts..."shortstop coming in behind second base has to reach around the runner standing on second to catch the throw"..sounds like contact has started..

..."The shortstop, after catching the ball is off balance and leans on the runner, the runner falls to the ground with the shortstop and comes off the base. The shortstop applies the tag from the catch to the ground..."

Shortstop is OFF BALANCE? LEANS on the runner? After runner was BACK to 2nd, STANDING on the base. Seems like the throw took F6 into the bag and caused the actions described.


I dont think Bang Bang should be determining factor. Its what caused runner to come off base. If runner in reaching for the base, wasnt in control or "stable" as you say, and a "normal" tag was applied, Id lean towards an out.
But with the SS being off balance, the throw taking SS into the runner,thats what knocked R2 off the base. Why should the defense benefit whey they caused the action??

Ridiculously oversimplified answer to a very complex question.

So, Bob...what you are saying is basically that it doesn't matter to you if the runner is firmly planted on the base, it's okay for the fielder to physically remove him from the base to tag him? Why don't we just give the fielder a gun and have him steal the runner's wallet and gold links while we're at it then?

He's not saying that -- his answer was only one word, after all.

If he's firmly on the base a "lean" isn't going to take R2 down, is it?

It seems to me that it is a very simple determination:

Runner's impetus takes him off the base in any manner, OUT.

Runner's impetus is not carrying him off base and then without supplying any of the actual momentum himself, is pushed off the base by the fielder, SAFE.

It would depend on how big and strong the fielder is, or how small and frail the runner is. A big person can squash a little person with just a little force. How hard was the "lean." I lean on counter tops all the time, and they don't fall to the ground (normally.):)

Well, it's why you can't tell the answer to the question without seeing the play. I've called time for a fielder pushing through a runner this year and also called a runner out for going in standing up, easliy coming off from a normal tag, and being tagged out.

I wasn't there, but I disagree with you assessment.

To me it says he didnt' slide.


Again, as demonstrated by your use of "then", you are assuming that this all took some time to happen. In my experience pick-off attempts happen quickly. with most action occurring near simulataneously; not runner gets back... pitcher throws...fielder gloves ball.

A lean caused a stable runner to fall....I don't think so. Throw caused the lean? Who cares?

Rich, come on, from reading your opinions on these kinds of things, youve always seemed like someone who knows the proper calls on plays like these..

You say a "lean". I guess one can read it different, but when the post says..

.."the runner gets back to second base standing up"... "back" means hes in "control" of the base, and his body movements, hes not leaning, or barely hanging onto the base by a fingertip.

and..

...."has to reach around the runner standing on second to catch the throw"

Its says the shortstop is the one whos off-balance. And so the dominoes fall. The shortstop is reaching around the runner to make the catch, which causes him to "lean" on the runner, AFTER making the catch (key point), which causes both to fall to the ground.

We cant see the play, but just playing Colombo here, the circumstantial evidence , to me, is too great to ignore.

Runner back to the base, standing up....................reach around the runner standing on 2nd......then the shortstop AFTER catching the ball makes contact, off balance....taking them off the base. Shortstop has the ball, then makes contact...guilty your honor.

Since when is it required to slide back into 2nd on a pickoff? How is this criteria for judging the play?

Either his momentum took him off the base or it didn't. Period. If it did, he's out. If F6 contacting him was the only force that removed him from the base, he is safe.

I'll bet if I leaned on you hard enough, you'd fall....:eek: :eek: :eek:

This wasnt "easlily" coming off the bag

He didnt slide? So? If he has gotten back to the base, and is in control, slide or no, you cant ding him for that.
I realize this play didnt take long, but, if the post says "back" to the bag, and standing on the bag, and the fielder gets the throw, THEN makes contact, it wasnt a true banger.

Agreed, without seeing the play, we cant fully tell. But from the evidence given it appears it was the shortstops actions that caused the runner to come off. Not the runner not being in control and on the base.
And any Big Dawg official will tell you thats the way it should be judged, not because he didnt slide, and not because it was a banger.

..Coach: "hey you called my guy out? He was standing on the bag, and the shortstop took him off, why is that out?"

Mr Umpire:.."Uhh Coach, he didnt slide".
Does that fit the play?

I do not believe that incidental contact on this play is in the spirit of the rules, whether it is covered directly or not.

Now, a runner and fielder trying to field a ball collide and the fielder falls on the runner preventing him advancing, different story. But a fielder going to catch a ball knocks a guy off of the bag then tags him?

Calling an out is just lazy umpiring. You are looking to go home early, and I hope you are never my partner.

Htbt.

Jesus. I never said not sliding was the reason for anything. I said that when I read "he went in standing up" all it meant to me was that he didn't slide. I was saying I read nothing more into it.

I am, saying, in the real world, at the levels of big boy ball I have worked, that play happens bang/bang....not as a devleoping "happening",. and in that sceario, I've got an out. If that means you disagree and Rei never works with me, I'm okay with that.

Before you twist anything else, I'll just withdraw from this thread.

Because if it's a FED game, the runner shouldn't be wearing gold links in the first place ? :D

Easy Luciano...no reason to retire from the thread, all opinions are welcome, thats what makes it fun, and guys can learn.
I believe you mentioned it twice, about the sliding thing, which, to me, implies it had something to do with the play. Which it shouldnt. No prob.
And you continue to mention how this type of play is bang-bang. All Im saying is so? But, everything in the post seems to indicate it wasnt a true banger.
All Im saying is, on judgement plays we go with the information we are presented with. If a fielder makes an off-line throw to first, and we have to adjust, we are not getting the best look we can, the best information.
On this play, we are going with the information given in the post.
This play should only be judged on one thing. What caused the runner to come off the base.
Was he not stable on the bag, the SS makes a routine play, they both came off, and a tag? An out.
or...
as in this play, the post seems to indicate the runner was on the bag, and based on the post, the runner had the bag, and the throw took the SS into the runner AFTER he caught the throw, off-balance..etc
Yes a judgement call. But judgement should be based on experience, training, knowledge.
A runner appearing to have control of his body, and the bag, and the SS trying to receive the throw, and that throw taking him into the runner. How could you not have a safe??

Bob:

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but if R2 has returned to second base. He is standing on second base and has complete control of his body and F4 is standing behind him and attempts to reach around R2 and knocks R2 to the ground to catch F2's throw, you are going to allow him to tag R2 out?

R2 bas done what he is supposed to do: Return to second base before F2's throw reaches F4 in time to tag R2 out.

MTD, Sr.

Again, I disagree with your assement of the play.

Which is exactly what I have been doing. In my experience this play happens at once, not in stages, and my training and experience has me calling the out.

Says who? That's how you read it. That's not how I read it. That's the basis or our disgreement. Neither of us were there and we are intepreting the OP differently.

I can live with that, can you?

As stated so well by you above: experience, training and knowldege.

Oh, you know you won't.:rolleyes:

I was invited back by the gentlemen with whom I have been conversing. If that violates protocal, let me know.

Hey, I'm just having fun, unlike some others who feel the need to be mean spirited all the time.

For the record, I agree with you most of the time, just not this time.

"Jobu no like curve ball"

[QUOTE=chuckfan1]Your sarcasm attempt was every bit as lame as your failure to note the emoticon I used. :rolleyes:

Interesting responses and opinions. But in thinking about this OP, I seem to recall that I (the umpire) am the sole judge of many aspects of the game. If I judge that a runner was in control of his body, then that is the end of it! It doesn't matter if the manager or the fans agree or not, I am the judge of the situation, not them. If I judge that a runner is in control of his body and is shoved off the base, then the runner is going to stay right there and I may get rid of the offender. If I judge that the runner was not in control of his body because a simple bump from a fielder reaching around the runner knocked him off the base, then "OUT" will be the call when tagged. Again, opinions from others do not matter nor will they be entertained by me. So now as far as the OP goes, I would have to be there to render a proper decision, but I think that I would be leaning to the OUT call for the runners lack of body control.

My thinking on the play was, and is, reasonably along the lines of Mr. Umpire. In my reading, and my mind's-eye, F6 didn't "shove" or take any other action designed to cause R2 to leave the base. All F6 did was catch the ball. It was one continuous-action play. It was just a trainwreck.

ymmv. shrug.

So my guess is that when the batter swings at a pitch and falls over the plate while the runner at first is stealing second and the catcher is blocked, that isn't interference.

I mean, I am just following the thinking here....................

No, you're not following the thinking. You're attempting to take guidlines appropiately applicable, at least according to one proschool, to one situation and apply them inappropriately to another situation in the vain hope of making some kind of point.

Not the point I am making at all. I agree that the play you describe in interference.

I hear ya...but thats not whats described in the post. It didnt say "shove" but it did say R2 was back to the bag, standing on the bag. That seems to indicate the runner had body control, and was on the base.
Then the throw took F6 into the play,,,,had to reach around the runner....off-balance..into the runner, taking them both off the bag. So, from what was described, yes, F6 did take "other" action. He just didnt receive the throw, apply a tag, and knock em both to the ground.
And to me its important, thats its noted that contact was made AFTER f6 recieved the throw. Hes got the ball, and instead of applying the tag, his off-balance actions take them off the bag.

It seems the actions of the play, and F6, with R2 in "control" of the base, are the reason R2 came off. And your going to reward the defense?
What caused R2 to come off? If R2 had control of the base, as the post seems to indicate, then its the actions of F6 that caused him to come off.

Ive ran this by a buddy here in SoCal. He does D1, the Big West Mtn West, and also has done MLB. And currently besides D1, does Independent Minor League stuff here in SoCal also, Golden Baseball League.
Showed him the post. And though he agreed its a HTBT, all evidence points to a safe.
Saying this in not a "normal" play we see. He said if this play happens as described, and an umpire calls this an out, he wont be doing that level for long.
Just another opinion...

Again, in your minds eye. Apparently some of us "see" the play ocurring differently. What's wrong with that?

If it ocurred as slowly as you describe, I would agree with your call. However, in my experience, these plays don't happen that way...they happen very quickly, at least at the levels I work.

So we see the play that we didn't see with different eyes due to our different backgrounds and experiences.

What I don't understand is how you can only imagine one way for this play to unfold.

I wholeheartedly concur with this. Without seeing the play in real time, all we can do is speculate as to what the correct call should have been.

Tim.

I agree with most of what you say on most things. And true each might see it different. But at higher levels, shouldnt there be consistency on this type of stuff? I mean, thats why the Big Dawgs make it to that level. Making the right calls on these types of plays. So, yes...usually these are close plays, not always bangers though. And if we are doing the same levels..college...then we should be close to the same page. But since we dont have a visual, we only have descriptive terms from the post. And the words used to describe the play, to me, lean towards this not being your ususal standard pickoff move.
On a pick, do we usually see both runner and fielder tumble off the bag, and then a tag? I cant remember If Ive seen a play like that.
So, since we have something out of the ordinary, what caused it to happen? Again, with no visual, we have just the post.
And on this play, I dont read it as close-close. When the post says..
"runner GETS BACK to 2nd base standing up" isnt that saying the runner is in full control of his body, and has the bag?

.." has to reach around the runner standing on second to catch the throw..." to me this reinforces that the runner was back to the bag...he says "standing on 2nd"...and the SS now is making the first step in causing them to come off the base. .."reach around the runner"..who is standing on the bag.

..."The shortstop, after catching the ball is off balance and leans on the runner"... It says SS off-balance. Doesnt that mean that the SS is the one not in control? Runner is back to the base, standing. And then LEANS on the runner. Here comes the SS, running to the play, with momentum. Still moving, gloves the throw, off balance, and leans into the runner. Put all that together. You have a stationary R2, and now the SS comes flying in, and off-balance leans into the runner. Doesnt that mean the total movement of the SS from start to finish, is what caused R2 to come off the base?

I realize this all takes place in just a matter of seconds. But its not your normal pickoff play.
What caused the runner to come off? The runner, or the fielder. Im just saying, from the descriptive terms used in the post, and the way I picture it playing out, it was the actions of the SS and his momentum on the play, that caused him to continue on through, with R2 in his path, and that carried them both off the base.
Just too much in the post. "runner gets back"...."standing on the base".."reach around the runner"..."reach around the runner STANDING on
2nd"...."after catching the ball is off balance and leans on the runner"

Doesnt all this support that the SS caused an in-control R2 to come off the base?
You say these plays dont normally happen that way. But rarely do they happen like this. Its usually just a spin and throw by F1, and a tag attempt. Not the F6 doing the Macarena into the runner.
Im going by the terms in the post...I dont see something in there that leads one to think that it was part action by the runner that caused him not to be "stable", and thus come off the base by a "normal" baseball play.
The post seems to indicate otherwise.

I figured there would be some who would disagree, Im just surprised at some of the people on here who would have a safe.
But I guess this thread has gone too long by now. You go with what you have, based on what you think "normally" happens on plays like these, and Ill go with the information given, be it in a post, or on the field, and judge em that way.

No. It tells me he did not slide and beat the tag.

Are you, perhaps, related to a certain large football coach from Waverly Ohio? You both seem to delight in having forceful contact with deceased equines.

At least be honest. You're going with how you interpret the information given, just as Bob Jenkins and I are. The difference is you refuse to see how any interpretation of what was written but yours could be correct.

Yeah your right...Ive ridden this steed as far as I can. Time for me to push this expired equine off the track, unless of course the shortstop pushed him off first :D