MLB: Beckham tag play on DeJesus

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Out. At that level.

Evidently, but the question is why.

I suppose you'll say that he was tagged while off his base.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

By definition, it can't be obstruction if the fielder has possession of the ball.

JM

Not always true. The play that Evans uses to demonstrate this, and one that occurred at the ML level is:

F1 has fielded a bunt near the first base line, as he trips and falls, with the ball securely in his glove, he reaches out with the hand closer to the B/R and grabs an ankle, tripping him, he then tags him.

Ruling: Obstruction

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Evidently, but the question is why.

I suppose you'll say that he was tagged while off his base.

The runner did not yet have possession of his base, he had merely touched it. Similar to a runner at first not having his balance on pick-off attempt to the point the tag knocks him off.

The fielder did not exert exceptional force to knock him off second. They were both doing their job and experienced incidental contact. While losing contact with second, the runner was tagged.

This is roughly the way such a play is explained at proschool, or at least was a little over ten years ago.

BTW, why the sad face? I don't remember ever having issues with you before.

[ILRef80]

Not a chance I have an out on this. While the contact was accidental, it wasn't incidental. F4 knocked the runner off the base. Like was mentioned earlier, I think calling this an out just invites the defense to charge hard on a close tag play and just play through the runner. The runner is going to be knocked off the base the vast majority of the time. Bad precedent to set.

Then again, I'm not working in the big leagues, so YMMV.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

The runner did not yet have possession of his base, he had merely touched it. Similar to a runner at first not having his balance on pick-off attempt to the point the tag knocks him off.

The fielder did not exert exceptional force to knock him off second. They were both doing their job and experienced incidental contact. While losing contact with second, the runner was tagged.

This is roughly the way such a play is explained at proschool, or at least was a little over ten years ago.

BTW, why the sad face? I don't remember ever having issues with you before.

The sad face was not attitude directed at you or your post. When the issue concerned how the runner came to be off his base, I didn't want to hear simply that he was tagged off base.

If you rule the contact incidental, then I'd agree that the out would stand. But in my judgment, the runner was moving TOWARD the base, and the force of the collision drove him AWAY from the base. That's not loss of balance.

To me, that's different from a runner being off balance and the normal force of a tag making him lose contact with the base. No problem getting the out on that play.

What's odd here is the lack of rules support. Even for the play where a fielder walks up and INTENTIONALLY shoves a runner off his base — a runner just standing there — there's no rules support for nullifying the out. You could call it unsportsmanlike, but then somebody has to be ejected (and in the meantime there's STILL no rule permitting you to nullify the out).

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The sad face was not attitude directed at you or your post. When the issue concerned how the runner came to be off his base, I didn't want to hear simply that he was tagged off base.

If you rule the contact incidental, then I'd agree that the out would stand. But in my judgment, the runner was moving TOWARD the base, and the force of the collision drove him AWAY from the base. That's not loss of balance.

Apparently we see different things in the video. Prior to contact, I see then runner foot make contact with the bag.

He is then knocked off with what instructors would call playing action, not an intentional shove or even an extra hard tag.

There may no be word for word description of this in the rules, but there is plenty of accepted precedence.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Apparently we see different things in the video. Prior to contact, I see then runner foot make contact with the bag.

He is then knocked off with what instructors would call playing action, not an intentional shove or even an extra hard tag.

A hard tag would no doubt be playing action. But this wasn't a hard tag - it was a cross-body block by the fielder 3 strides after he caught the thrown ball. The tag did not knock the runner off his base.

There may no be word for word description of this in the rules, but there is plenty of accepted precedence.

Other than the Hrbek play, not really.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Apparently we see different things in the video. Prior to contact, I see then runner foot make contact with the bag.

He is then knocked off with what instructors would call playing action, not an intentional shove or even an extra hard tag.

1) the tag itself did not knock DeJesus off the base. He had already gained a foothold on the base that withstood the initial tag.

2) the thing that knocked him off the bag was the body block that looked more at home in a hockey or football game than in the game of baseball. If the tag had knocked him off the base, I would agree with the out call. What's to stop all fielders from diving into runners after they're already called safe, just to get a cheap, undeserved out. This practice needs to be reevaluated, IMO.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

A hard tag would no doubt be playing action. But this wasn't a hard tag - it was a cross-body block by the fielder 3 strides after he caught the thrown ball. The tag did not knock the runner off his base.



Other than the Hrbek play, not really.

Depends on what you feel is relevant. There have been many, many outs called when a tag or bump results in a runner coming off the bag.


"Cross body block"? No. The fielder fell while making a normal baseball move. He did not throw a block. Runner is out at MLB level.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

1) the tag itself did not knock DeJesus off the base. He had already gained a foothold on the base that withstood the initial tag.

2) the thing that knocked him off the bag was the body block that looked more at home in a hockey or football game than in the game of baseball. If the tag had knocked him off the base, I would agree with the out call. What's to stop all fielders from diving into runners after they're already called safe, just to get a cheap, undeserved out. This practice needs to be reevaluated, IMO.

The fielder tripped in the course of a normal baseball play. He didn't throw a block into the runner. Play on. Runner's out.

[DG]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

The fielder tripped in the course of a normal baseball play. He didn't throw a block into the runner. Play on. Runner's out.

I don't see a trip. I see a charge into the runner.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

The fielder tripped in the course of a normal baseball play. He didn't throw a block into the runner. Play on. Runner's out.

Tripped over what, his own two feet? I didn't see a trip, I saw a tag and then an off balance lunge at DeJesus. Out of control. Like DG said, a charge, which is what it looks like to me after watching it over and over many times. Very similar to a charging call in BBall, withe DeJesus establishing position on the base rather than in the lane. The tag had already come and gone unsuccessfully, the runner called safe, then the impetus of the collision knocked him off. I would rule safe on the play and let the Sox skipper come argue with me. And I'm a Sox Fan/Cub Buster when I slide my fanboy britches on.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by DG

I don't see a trip. I see a charge into the runner.

While running to get into position to make the tag, the fielder, bent over, loses his balance and falls. (trips) The slow mo show this excellently.

If you want to see this as a deliberate dive into the runner, have it.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

While running to get into position to make the tag, the fielder, bent over, loses his balance and falls. (trips) The slow mo show this excellently.

If you want to see this as a deliberate dive into the runner, have it.

Why should it have to be deliberate? Fielders can fake a trip (aka 'acting') and dive right into the runner then. Oops, I tripped, sorry! The only thing that should be able to cause an out in these situations is the tag, not subsequent action. Had the tag dislodged his leg off the bag, I'd be right there with you. But not the fielder losing his balance...that's on him, not the runner. The runner should not be punished for the fielder's clumsiness.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

If you want to see this as a deliberate dive into the runner, have it.

I don't think it's deliberate. But I don't think the runner would have come off the base without getting knocked off.

Given the call on the field, you're obviously correct that this is how MLB calls this play. And ordinarily, I favor the defense. But it seems manifestly unfair to make the runner pay for this collision.

On the other hand, how many times do we see an incidental collision (esp. at the plate) and the ball pops out, runner safe? So maybe we go with this. :shrug: