What constitutes a Tag?

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by celebur

The words "unlike a catch" are important in understanding what JEA is saying. I think JEA is trying to say that control must be maintained during the tag, and if the ball is bobbled, re-establishing control before it hits the ground does NOT make the tag valid (unlike a catch).

What I don't like is the "at the time the runner or base is touched," which implies anything AFTER the touch has no value in whether the tag is legal or not. While we both agree that control has to be maintained, the wording in JEA is a bit ambiguous.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by yawetag

What I don't like is the "at the time the runner or base is touched," which implies anything AFTER the touch has no value in whether the tag is legal or not.

That's exactly the point.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by yawetag

What I don't like is the "at the time the runner or base is touched," which implies anything AFTER the touch has no value in whether the tag is legal or not.

Anything after the tag does have no value. IOW, if the ball is dropped after the tag is complete, then the tag was legal. If the ball is dropped while applying the tag, then the tag isn't legal.

In the Varitek play, the drop was AFTER the tag was complete which had no value. The fact that he dropped it was NOT caused by applying the tag. He dropped it b/c he hit the ground which was subsequent to the tag being applied.

This is why it is "unlike a catch". The ground can cause the fielder to drop the ball and it NOT be a catch. A tag is different in that the force of hitting the ground and coming out has no bearing on the outcome of the tag if the tag was completed prior to. Also, "unlike a catch", the fielder can bobble the ball during the act of catching it and regain possession before it touches the ground, an offensive player, or an umpire. The ball has to be secure during the tag attempt. If bobbled during the attempt and possession is regained after the attempt, then the tag wasn't legal and anything after it has no value(regaining possession).

[lawump]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

Anything after the tag does have no value.

That depends if you follow JEA or J/R. The Varitek play is a difference in interpretations between these two fine sources.

We hammered this to death on the various boards when this play actually happened. There were those in the JEA camp and those in the J/R camp. As I went to Joe's school, which used J/R as its textbook, I would have (and did actually call similar plays) had a "no tag".

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by lawump

That depends if you follow JEA or J/R. The Varitek play is a difference in interpretations between these two fine sources.

We hammered this to death on the various boards when this play actually happened. There were those in the JEA camp and those in the J/R camp. As I went to Joe's school, which used J/R as its textbook, I would have (and did actually call similar plays) had a "no tag".

This play was brought up at several clinics last year - the consensus from MiLB clinicians is that they got it wrong. Should have been "no tag."

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by bossman72

This play was brought up at several clinics last year - the consensus from MiLB clinicians is that they got it wrong. Should have been "no tag."

And, at the time, MLB upheld the ruling made by the umpires on the field - valid tag.

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

And, at the time, MLB upheld the ruling made by the umpires on the field - valid tag.

Correct, which points to:

1. MLB agreed with Evans
2. There are differences in rulings between MLB and MiLB.

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

And, at the time, MLB upheld the ruling made by the umpires on the field - valid tag.

Have you ever heard of MLB disagreeing with a call publicly?

MiLB guys said since it was in the heat of the world series, they stuck by the umpires. Ultimately, it was wrong.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by bossman72

Have you ever heard of MLB disagreeing with a call publicly?

MiLB guys said since it was in the heat of the world series, they stuck by the umpires. Ultimately, it was wrong.

I think the MiLB guys are wrong.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by bossman72

Have you ever heard of MLB disagreeing with a call publicly?

MiLB guys said since it was in the heat of the world series, they stuck by the umpires. Ultimately, it was wrong.

Wendelstedt agrees with the "tag" ruling as well in their interpretation. So, they have MiLB and J/R as being wrong as well. And, I agree with the MLB interpretation.

Even NFL agrees the ground can't cause a fumble.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

Anything after the tag does have no value. IOW, if the ball is dropped after the tag is complete, then the tag was legal. If the ball is dropped while applying the tag, then the tag isn't legal.

According to how I read JEA, unless the fielder is in the act of dropping the ball at the time of the tag (not drops it immediately after the tag, or because of touching the runner), the runner is out. The key phrase for me is "at the time the runner or base is touched".

Am I reading this wrong?

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by yawetag

According to how I read JEA, unless the fielder is in the act of dropping the ball at the time of the tag (not drops it immediately after the tag, or because of touching the runner), the runner is out. The key phrase for me is "at the time the runner or base is touched".

Am I reading this wrong?

Think of it this way. If the fielder drops the ball while tagging the runner or base, did he have possession of the ball? The answer would be "no". If he drops it after the tag is complete(meaning the act of tagging is complete and the fielder is no longer in contact with the runner or base, or all action has stopped and the fielder still has secure possession), then he had secure possession during the tag.

Remember this, a tag is not complete the moment the fielder touches the runner or base. It is complete when he is no longer touching the runner or base. Or, he still has secure possession at the time action has stopped. To imagine or see all nuances to this requires experience on the field.

It's kind of hard to explain in writing, easier in motion.