Sox/Angels tag at third in 9th
 

Anyone see this play in the top of the 9th? I thought it was a great call!


The play: F2 dives, tags R3 (and maintains possession immediately after the tag), then falls to the ground and the impact of the ground knocks the ball out of F2's glove.

What about voluntary release?

Not needed for tags of players.

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.

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

Required for a catch.

And a Tag, according to J/R

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Dave this is an area where Roder and Evans disagree

From Evans

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

Pete Booth

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Please
 

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,

to follow TimC's response

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

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.

Rich, that has always been my understanding.

Ball comes out during tag = no control of ball/not securely held.

Ball comes out after tag = valid tag, as long as ball was secure during the tagging action itself.

Oddly enough, I had just posted the different Evans and Roder criteria for judging the validity of a tag on a thread on the umpire.org site just before this play happened last night.

To me, the Evans interp always made more sense and was more consistent with the actual text of the rules, and I thought Welke's call was correct.

I believe Rich Ives hits the key distinction in his post above - the tag itself did not result in Varitek (involuntarily) losing control of the ball. His lack of body control did.

But, since "voluntary release" is not a criteria for establishing the validity of a tag (unless you subscribe to Roder's hypothesis, of course), and Varitek clearly had "secure possession" of the ball before, during, and immediately after the tag, it's a good tag.

JM

The video...I don't remmeber if anybody posted the link on here or not.

http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/media/v...00013&c_id=bos

Just for the record...
 

I thought it was a good call, except for him not staying with the play, and not asking for a conference. He got the actual play right, but did it the wrong way.

If he got it right, knew he got it right, why would he conference?

I agree that he should've stayed w/ the play...but the conference is not always necessary...I wish more people agreed w/ me on that...maybe I'm the one who's wrong on that?

Whoa!

If you subscribe to the out call, then what he did was perfect. He saw the tag with a controlled ball, and called the out. No need to follow the ball, nor any need to get help. It was all right in front of him. You wouldn't get help on this one, unless it was protested.

Good point!

Bingo!

Okay my children, let's go back to this famous play.

Kit hits a triple, but decides to go for the dish. Evelyn finally hits her cutoff, and the throw comes home. Dottie has the ball, and braces for impact. Kit sends Dottie flying. Whilst in flight, Dottie has a secure hold of the ball. It's only until Dottie's back smacks the ground, and she comes to rest on the ground does she release the orb.

Enter Squiggy. "SHE DROPPED THE BALL!"

So, what was the call here?

Safe - force of the tag caused the ball to come out (because F2 was plowed over while tagging).

Just because the ball came loose and he never even knew it. He should have sucked it up and made sure he got it right.

Dottie dropped it on purpose to give her sister her confidence back.

Beats me. i don't work softball.

Are you brand new?

"Are you crying?!"

That does make sense and seems to be what MLB is saying publicly at least.

Was watching the play over again on DVR and then listening to Showalter explain the play - basically he is right, they didn't execute.

And then trying a squeeze with a LHB is never a good idea.;)

Thanks
David

Squiggy Trivia:
 

David Lander, the guy who played Squiggy (and the scribe in "League"), is an extreme baseball fan, and is actually a former Angels scout and a current Seattle Mariners scout. He lives near where I umpire most of my games, and he actually scouts some of the games.

Which is fine and dandy, except they were playing baseball.:rolleyes: