Sox/Angels tag at third in 9th

[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?

[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.

[soundedlikeastrike]

Pool night, juke box playing, but I caught the blown squeeze attempt outta the corner of my eye, only saw it once; but it looked like the end result was safe:

Here's why I disagee and agree:

Safe call; nobody bats an eye, per definitions above. I'd almost agree with that..

Out: sure, and what he called. F2 made the tag, gathered himself (like he thought he missed him) and made a "second" (unessacary lunge and tag) which was then followed by the drop, seems "long enough" was the call.
And from what I saw, blue, called the out when he saw "F2 gather himself".

So what's "long enough" looks like, if you have the ability to "re-tag an already out runner", that's long enough.

[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.

[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,

[Rich Ives]

I'm thinking that the difference is that if the force of the tag is the cause of the ball coming loose - it's not a tag. Rationale: if the ball came loose you didn't have secure possession.

Getting steamrolled could therefore be looked at as the force of the tag causing the ball to come loose.

In the Varitek play the tag was over and subsequent action caused the ball to come loose.


Just my 2 cents.

[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

[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.