out or safe cant find in book

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

As long as he is doing it with the obvious intent to secure an out and it is not accidental, it is an out. Even if the only thing touching the base is the baseball. The glove is not his body; it is considered to be equipment. So, now, he cannot touch the base with his glove? Yes he can and so he can touch the base with only the baseball, and it is still an out.

I guess it depends on how we read 2.00 PERSON, which refers to "his equipment" as being part of his body. The glove is clearly "his equipment," but the ball is less clearly his.

In practice, I'd call this out too. I was surprised to see the rule, though.

[bniu]

Originally Posted by dig-z

pitch is hit stop is made throw to 1st is dropped fielder pulls foot from base,he does mannage to regain possesion of ball, but its is in his throwing hand reaches and tags 1st with glove... out? or safe?

if it's a force play, he can touch the base with the bill of his hat if he wants to (provided the hat is still on his head...) or the tip of his nose, or whatever goofy thing he wants to do, as long as the base is touched and the ball is in his control. if it's a tag play and a tag is made with a glove, the ball has to be in the glove or it's not a tag.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by HokieUmp

I know that you're trying to rip Blue37, not me, but I have a question: you're ripping him for "changing the rules," but I'd suggest your solution is basically the same thing.

I might need to go back and re-read my rulebooks, but can you tell me where exactly in the rulebook you'd find the "Dump the Dufus for showing up his opponent" rule? And not only the rule, but the rule code as well?

If, in fact, there really isn't such a thing - aside from a 9.01(c) type clause - then how is your proposal any less of an integrity compromise?

I'm asking this as a serious question, not a veiled attempt to rip with sarcasm.

Sorry, but the OP doesn't say what rules code they're playing under. I assumed that since it was an "18-under travel ball" team they were playing FED rules. Unsportsmanlike conduct in FED is punishable by ejection (3.3.1.g.2). If they were playing OBR, then rule 9.01d applies.
Hope this helps.

JJ

[umpjong]

Ejection for unsportsmanlike conduct is valid in all codes...... Travesty of the game also comes to mind for twinkle toes............

[DG]

"When tagging a base, a player may use any part of his body (e.g. foot, hand, shoulder) as long as he has secure possession of the ball in his hand or glove at the time he touches the base".

If he has the ball in his bare hand and touches the base with his glove hand, this seems to me to be a valid tag. If he has ball in hand the other hand has glove on it normally. I don't think we can expect him to throw off his glove so he can touch the base with his bare hand to record a valid out. He does not touch the bag with his foot either, because foot is inside shoe. Foot-shoe, hand-glove, same thing.

[HokieUmp]

Originally Posted by JJ

Unsportsmanlike conduct in FED is punishable by ejection (3.3.1.g.2). If they were playing OBR, then rule 9.01d applies.
Hope this helps.

That's fair enough, but the rules also say that the umpire's judgement is final (other than appeal plays and check swings), and arguing balls and strikes is insta-EJ. And yet the practical application is not to do that - leaving one's place to argue balls and strikes is dumpable, but virtually everyone out there will at least throw a verbal caution or 'the stop sign' first. Also, HCs don't come out to make sure we've applied a rule correctly - they're out to try and argue that we got a call wrong.

So what I'm saying here is that an unsportsmanlike EJ might have a high bar, too. And I'm not even going to use "making a travesty of the game" as a rationale, as mentioned by someone else, unless it's for the specific rule in the book that uses the phrase.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by DG

"When tagging a base, a player may use any part of his body (e.g. foot, hand, shoulder) as long as he has secure possession of the ball in his hand or glove at the time he touches the base".

If he has the ball in his bare hand and touches the base with his glove hand, this seems to me to be a valid tag. If he has ball in hand the other hand has glove on it normally. I don't think we can expect him to throw off his glove so he can touch the base with his bare hand to record a valid out. He does not touch the bag with his foot either, because foot is inside shoe. Foot-shoe, hand-glove, same thing.

\

correct...but I think that the posters are saying he can't throw his glove at the base...or something weird like that...for example, in FED, if a ball lodges in his glove, the pitcher can't take off his glove and throw glove w/ lodged ball to F3...in OBR he can. (not to hijack) but I don't think anybody is saying that he has to remove his hand from glove to touch 1B w/ hand versus hand-in-glove.

[gordon30307]

[QUOTE=JJ;598621]

Originally Posted by Blue37

He literally prissed (skipping with his hands at shoulder level and limp wrists) to the base, bent at the waist, and touched the bag with the ball. I called the runner safe. I would love to say they got the message and the game ended with no further incidents, but I cannot remember how it went after that. I do know there were no ejections.
QUOTE]

Let's see...."there were no ejections"...that kid that danced to first base should have been an immediate ejection. And...."I called the runner safe"...so YOU decided to change the rules of safe-out to "send a message". Shame, shame.....
Dump the dufus and if folks don't get the "message", TCB as needed. But don't compromise your integrity (and mine and every other umpire) by changing rules to "send messages".

JJ

He who is without sin let him cast the first stone. Don't know what levels you work. But do you mean to tell me that your strike zone would be the same for 9 year olds and 18 year olds?

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

As long as he is doing it with the obvious intent to secure an out and it is not accidental, it is an out. Even if the only thing touching the base is the baseball. The glove is not his body; it is considered to be equipment. So, now, he cannot touch the base with his glove? Yes he can and so he can touch the base with only the baseball, and it is still an out.

I would like to revise this. I got 2 different issues mixed up when replying. To get an out on a force play does not have to be intentional. Still, the only thing touching a base can be the ball and as long as it is in the player's possession, I consider that to be his equipment until he lets go of it.

I just couldn't let this remain posted without a correction.

[umpjong]

[QUOTE=gordon30307;599056]

Originally Posted by JJ

He who is without sin let him cast the first stone. Don't know what levels you work. But do you mean to tell me that your strike zone would be the same for 9 year olds and 18 year olds?

Trust me, the levels he works, he doesnt have these problems. He is just stating what he believes.....