Sox/Angels tag at third in 9th

[oyaisee]

What about voluntary release?

[kylejt]

Originally Posted by oyaisee

What about voluntary release?

Not needed for tags of players.

[Dave Davies]

Directly from the Jaksq/Roder ROPB:

"Catch" and "tag" are similar concepts. A tag [2.00] 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, hand/ball, or glove/hand/ball combination.

Such fielder must have complete control of the ball during and after the touch. If the fielder bobbles or drops the ball
during or after the touch of the base or runner, and the bobble or drop is due to his lack of control of himself or the
ball, or due to contact with a runner, it is not a tag.

A fielder shows complete control by

(a) regaining control of his own body after extenuating efforts to make a tag (especially in regard to a fall, dive, or a collision), and
(b) showing that his release of the ball is (or will be) voluntary and intentional.

A fielder need not regain control of his body if he is able to voluntarily release the ball, the voluntary release alone is proof of complete control.

Dave

[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

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by oyaisee

What about voluntary release?

It's been discussed here and other forums; all that is needed is to demonstrate control after the tag. Tonight's call would appear to confirm this is the MLB interpretation.

[DG]

Originally Posted by oyaisee

What about voluntary release?

Required for a catch.

[Dave Davies]

And a Tag, according to J/R

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Dave Davies

And a Tag, according to J/R

Roder does not speak for MLB...just the umpire union.

[justanotherblue]

I felt it was a dropped ball, no tag. In watching the replay, you can see U3 didn't watch the entire play. He was calling the runner out as Veritek (sp?)was falling.

[blue83]

Thinking of a tag at the plate where the tag is made and the catcher falls backwards and the ball falls out of the glove after hitting the ground. Safe. Why is contact with this tag any different? He was not able to fully control the ball. When does the play end?

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by blue83

Thinking of a tag at the plate where the tag is made and the catcher falls backwards and the ball falls out of the glove after hitting the ground. Safe. Why is contact with this tag any different? He was not able to fully control the ball. When does the play end?

Caveat: I have not yet seen the play.

Question: Did the ball drop as a result of the tag or action after the tag?

In the case of the play at the plate cited above, the ball falls out of the glove due to the tag. Compare that with F2 tagging a runner, and then taking two steps towards the infield and then having the ball fall to the ground. Did he hold it long enough?

[kylejt]

Originally Posted by justanotherblue

I felt it was a dropped ball, no tag. In watching the replay, you can see U3 didn't watch the entire play. He was calling the runner out as Veritek (sp?)was falling.

I saw that too. He never watched the catcher bounce, and release the ball. I guess it just didn't matter because he had control of the ball during the tag.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by oyaisee

What about voluntary release?

When it comes to tags and catches of thrown balls (as opposed to catches of batted balls) MLB, for some time, has followed the theory of "long enough" as espoused by Jim Evans.