Sox/Angels tag at third in 9th

[Rich]

Regardless of how we feel, the call was verified by the MLB head of umpiring (Leppard) and a new standard was set that (for better or worse) we'll be expected to uphold cause everyone will remember this play.

I like the call. It was two distinct motions -- he held the ball securely during and after the tag and only then did he fall and have the glove bang on the ground. I always felt J/R was pissing into the wind on this particular play anyway.

[mbyron]

I agree with Rich. Welke was right on top of this, and judged that the ball was held long enough. Replay demonstrated two distinct motions, the tag and then the fall.

I didn't like the call in live action, but it looked right on replay.

[BretMan]

The most refreshing aspect of the play:

Hearing the announcers (I believe it was Eckersley), after numerous replays, say something along the lines of, "Was that the right call? I don't have any idea. I've always wondered about something like that".

So much better that the made-up playground rule myths many announcers pass off as "expert" commentary!

One announcer even noted that, "Unlike football, the ground can cause a fumble".

Okay, I was half asleep when this play happened- actually had just woke up on the couch right after the play and during the replays- but here's what it looked like to me.

It looked like Varitek lunged and made a tag (at least, what the umpire could have reasonably ruled a tag from his position- the first swipe at the runner looked like maybe there was a couple of inches of air between the mitt and the runner), held onto the ball, then lunged a second time making, apparently, another tag (I wonder- just to be "sure", or because he knew he missed the first tag?).

After the second tag, the catcher's momentum carried him to the ground where the ball subsequently popped out after he hit the ground.

Sound about right? If the first attempt was ruled a tag, it seems that Varitek did have control throughout that initial tag (runner out), then lost it and the second swipe and ground contact (which would all be moot if the first tag was ruled valid).

But I do remember thinking that if the umpire had paused a second longer, "safe" could have been an easy sell! I haven't seen or read any follow-up discussions on this call since watching the replays with one eye closed last night.

[David B]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

if you watch the play in regular speed, not super slow-mo, I don't think the correct call was made. The ball most certainly didn't meet the "long enough" standard. I've seen outfielders catch balls and then run five or six steps into the wall and lose possession, and these have been emphatically called, "no catch." Varitek did nothing to demonstrate either control or voluntary release as well. It is my opinion that if Varitek had held the ball after colliding with the ground, then as he was showing the ball it fell out, it would be an out, and he would have had it long enough. But to tag the runner then hit the ground in the same motion dropping the ball on impact, that's stretching it a little.

Varitek tagged the runner and in the same motion his mitt slammed into the ground dislodging the ball. In the meantime, Tim Welke was already signaling and calling the out before the ball even popped out. He called the out the nanosecond the tag was applied and did not even see the ball pop out. Absolutlely terrible timing on his part. I know that he was trained as we all were to see the entire play through until the action stops before making his call. He most definitely did not do that on this play.

If I were making the call, I would have waited until action had ceased, while keeping my eyes everalastingly on the baseball (as the rules instruct). I would have seen the ball rolling away and called the runner safe. This isn't football...the ground certainly can cause a fumble.

Exactly my take on the play. Also I was bothered by the constant explaination that there is a difference at home vs at other bases on a tag play.

Then I heard the same thing on Sportscenter this morning -

Thansk
David

[PeteBooth]

Dave this is an area where Roder and Evans disagree

From Evans

JEA (discussion following Rule 2.0 Tag:

"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."

The call last night was "text book" Evans and is the way it is called in a major league baseball game.

Pete Booth

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

In the meantime, Tim Welke was already signaling and calling the out before the ball even popped out. He called the out the nanosecond the tag was applied and did not even see the ball pop out.

That's what I saw too. Welke kept his eyes on the spot of the initial tag, and couldn't have seen the ball pop out. The rest was a sales job (and a good one at that). If Hargrove had persisted and convinced Welke to consult with his partners, I think there's a very good chance the call would have been reversed (and the post game sales job would be 180° different).

Now imagine what Welke was going through. He had to sell the out call (control when the tag was made, before the ball popped out, blah, blah, blah) having no idea when or why Varitek dropped the ball. I would have been soiling my drawers.

[rulesmaven]

Originally Posted by BretMan

It looked like Varitek lunged and made a tag (at least, what the umpire could have reasonably ruled a tag from his position- the first swipe at the runner looked like maybe there was a couple of inches of air between the mitt and the runner), held onto the ball, then lunged a second time making, apparently, another tag (I wonder- just to be "sure", or because he knew he missed the first tag?).

I didn't see it that way. It looked to me like Varitek got him the first time and knew he got him. On the way to ground, he held the glove up in the air a bit to show that he had the ball. (He had been holding it in his hand to possibly throw it and transferred it just before the tag.) I don't think there was a second lunge, just a continuation of the action. It appeared to me that once Welke saw Varitek hold the ball up, he decided he'd seen enough.

[Kevin Finnerty]

I'm sorry to disagree, but Varitek didn't "hold the ball up." Did anyone else see it that way?

And then regarding what Dash said, if Welke never saw when or how the ball came loose, how in the hell did he get away with not conferring with the rest of the crew? If there was ever a call...

It is an interpretation of a rule on top of a tough, exploding play. It cried out for a conference.

[kylejt]

Originally Posted by rulesmaven

I don't think there was a second lunge, just a continuation of the action. It appeared to me that once Welke saw Varitek hold the ball up, he decided he'd seen enough.

Welke wasn't looking at Varitek after the tag, and never saw the ball come out. He was focused on the point of the tag the whole time.

[BretMan]

Okay. I finally had a chance to see the replay- fully awake this time!- and run it frame-by-frame on the DVR.

I think that what I was seeing as a "second tag attempt" was just Varitek's momentum carrying him forward and his arm whipping to the ground as his elbow hit the dirt.

Here's what I did see:

- Varitek lunges and tags the runner- right in the tooshkie- with the ball firmly held in glove, approximately six to eight feet before the bag.

- Umpire pointing to signal the tag and out right at that point.

- Ball still firmly held in the glove as Varitek's momentum carries him forward.

- Varitek's elbow hits the ground about even with the bag and that jars the ball loose. His mitt is actually about two feet past the bag when the ball pops out.

Sounds like a textbook "out" under the Evans interpretation.

[rulesmaven]

Originally Posted by BretMan

- Varitek lunges and tags the runner- right in the tooshkie- with the ball firmly held in glove, approximately six to eight feet before the bag.

- Umpire pointing to signal the tag and out right at that point.

- Ball still firmly held in the glove as Varitek's momentum carries him forward.

- Varitek's elbow hits the ground about even with the bag and that jars the ball loose. His mitt is actually about two feet past the bag when the ball pops out.

Sounds like a textbook "out" under the Evans interpretation.

That was my thought too -- looked like the ball came loose a good 9 to 11 feet after the tag. Under the Evans interpretation, it's no doubt this was an out, IMO. Under a voluntary release rule, it's much closer.

As for whether or not Varitek was showing the mitt to Welke or not, I stand by my original interpretation -- Varitek was clearly holding the mitt aloft for a moment, until his elbow hit the ground. Not sure that would matter under voluntary release interpretation, though. But if the right question is whether Varitek maintained control throughout the tag, I think they got it right.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Having the mitt extended as he was falling was not holding it up to show that he still had the ball. It is a big stretch. He was totally out of control. And if regaining control of himself was an issue in the rule interpretation, then it may have been a blown call. Welke not staying with the call was pretty bad, too. A conference would have helped, but you have to be more interested in getting the call right and not maintaining your pride. We found out what Welke's priorities are on that one.

[rulesmaven]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

And if regaining control of himself was an issue in the rule interpretation, then it may have been a blown call.

Edit: Nevermind, I'm out my league here and will leave it to the experts.

[Tim C]

re-read RichMSN's post.

Steve Palermo just gave the "official ruling" (I am sure some of you can find it and post it) that said:

"At the instant of the tag the fielder was in secure possession of the ball and anything that happened after that is moot."

(My paraphrase from the sound bite I heard.)

This is dangerous territory as we know F2's are often in full possession and control when they are steam rolled at the dish YET if the ball comes loose traditionally the call has reverted to "SAFE".

I find this entire situation very interesting.

Regards,

[johnnyg08]

to follow TimC's response

http://losangeles.angels.mlb.com/new...=.jsp&c_id=ana