Runner on 2nd. 2 outs. Single to right center. Runner tries to score. He gets gunned down by a couple feet or so. When he slides into the catcher (non-maliciously), the mitt comes off the catcher and lays there with the ball still in it. Runner out or safe?

Safe. The catcher failed to maintain control of the ball.

--
jumpmaster al

Safe. It's the same as if the ball popped out and was laying on the ground.

I know this isn't a word usage board, but people who want to be correct might appreciate knowing that the ball was lying, not laying, on the ground; the mitt lies, lot lays, there with the ball in it.

Forgive me, guys!

<i> Originally posted by Huskerblue </i>

<b> Runner on 2nd. 2 outs. Single to right center. Runner tries to score. He gets gunned down by a couple feet or so. When he slides into the catcher (non-maliciously), the mitt comes off the catcher and lays there with the ball still in it. Runner out or safe? </b>

Safe - here's the applicable rule:


DEFINITION OF tag OBR RULE 2.00

<i> A TAG is the action of a fielder in touching a base with his body while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove; or touching a runner with the ball, <b> or with his hand or glove holding the ball, while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove. </b> </i>

Pete Booth

Man, this is a tough room. LOL

OK,
 

It used to be fun here until Mr. Grammar showed up?

What possible reason could you have for making that correction . . .

1) To show you are smarter than the poster?

2) To embarrass the poster

3) Because you are responsible for proper usage in America?

Your post proved no pupose and it wasn't even PHUNNI.

Certainly not to embarrass anyone, but I was aware that somebody might resent my post, so I tried to word it gently. It was just because this common error appeared twice.

I spent many years teaching writing to managers at AT&T, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and several other companies. Most of them didn't know the difference between lay and lie either, but they were glad to learn it. Maybe one of the previous posters feels the same way.

Lie or Lay
 

The improper use of the words "lie" and "lay" is prevalent in literature and usage in the United States. I have an old High School classmate (Class of '66)that is compiling a rather extensive list of where and when he sees the misapplication of either word. I'm forwarding him the posts regarding this very discussion. I'm with you, gray. Especially in honor of the queen's reign, it's good to find another human being that cares about the queen's language. As for the question at hand . . . the definition of "Tag" is pretty clear, wouldn't you agree?

First
 

Never has there been anything more UN-important than "Grammar" when people post on boards like this.

All you guys do is attempt to intimidate some who:

1) Aren't as educated as the "correctors",

2) Don't EVEN speak "The Queen's Language" as their first language,

3) Or don't have time to bring out the usage book before posting from their place of work.

Your points could be well taken if this was a board on "Proper Grammar in America" however it is a group of guys sittin' around having a beer talkin' ball . . .

You have done the page no dis-service but certainly haven't done anything positive for the rank and file.

As bFair says,

Just My Opinion

You Started It!
 

Tim,
Chill, baby! Except for your replies, there hasn't been an intent on anyone's part to ridicule someone's language. What I said was, the improper use of "lie" and "lay" is prevalent in the English language . . . including discussion boards for baseball officials. My reply above, by the way, was given in response to Pete's "tag" definition. I was also replying to graymules question and thought everyone would find it interesting that there's actually someone in the world who's compiling a list of misuses of those two words.

Just let sleeping dogs,lie. Or is it, "lay"?

Jerry

P.S. You do agree the runner's safe, don't you? You didn't make any mention of that in your reply.

Last Sunday, the third baseman for one team objected to my safe call by saying, "C'mon ump, he was out. I tug him before he slud in!" You will be happy to know, Tim, that I did not correct him.

Jerry, please connect me with your friend. I have gathered a lot of material over the years, and he might be able to use some of it.

Incidentally, Fay Vincent was a strong proponent of the correct use of English, and so was his Deputy Commissioner, Steve Greenberg.

But OK, no more corrections. Even the ASA rule book mixes up "lay" and "lie."

Hmmm,
 

I forgot, there was a question? :-}

SAFE.

By the way, my Masters Thesis in Linguistics was a study of the difference between the words fortunate and fortuitous.

Now that would leave you on the edge of your seat.

BTW, we see changes all the time from the "School Marm" grammar rules that were brought to cities in the late 1800's all the time.

Best example I can give you is the current view of the possesive when the word ends in a double letter . . . i.e. if you were talking about the coat that belonged to Ross . . .

Tim,
Don't forget about "its" and "it's"! BTW, my thesis was on the infallibility of "The Peter Principle". (It was a Business Ethics course). Alas, I believe proper English and grammar will become a lost art. Even in Law, concessions are being made to make it understandable to the layman.

No doubt . . . the runner is SAFE!

Jerry :-)

Yes--safe at home.

Now to the important stuff. Tim, my rule book (Chicago Manual of Style), has "Ross's land" as an example in its (OK, Jerry?) self-contained case book (see 6.24). Quite fortuitous I'm sure--but indeed fortunate--that it deals precisely with the play, er, example, you gave.

I can't seem to find it, but I used to have the BRD of grammar and word usage. It took hundreds of grammar and usage plays and then cited how various rule books (Chicago, American Heritage, Fowler, Follet, Schoolmarm, etc.) would call them.

I guess my problem is that I am not only a baseball/softball umpire, but also a grammar and word usage arbiter in my job as an editor.