MLB: Beckham tag play on DeJesus

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Me too, although I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a rule to support keeping the runner at 2nd.

"Rule 10.3.1 - Hey, you can't do that."

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

In the Hrbek play, I believe it was ruled that the force of a hard (and legal) tag caused the off-balance runner to lose contact with the base. That's not the case here. The runner's foot kept contact with the base before and throughout the tag. He was about to pop up directly over the base when he was barreled by the fielder's body.

I'm killing it and keeping the runner at 2nd. If the coach comes out and wants rule support for my not calling the runner out, I'm going to tell him quietly that if he forces me to do that, it can only be type A obstruction and the runner will get 3rd (which he cannot protest).

I'm keeping him at 2nd as well --- tagging a player and having him come off the bag is completely different from being knocked off the bag by the body of the fielder.

However, taking this to OBS is just wrong. For many reasons - the most obvious of which being that the fielder had possession of the ball.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

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.

It doesn't matter that it was a normal baseball move... it matters that his body hit the runner, completely changed his direction and pushed him off the bag. This being called an out is a HORRIBLE precedent. (And no, this is nothing like the Hrbek play).

[JJ]

How can anyone - even the calling umpire - justify calling this runner out?
My, oh my!

JJ

[ILRef80]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

It doesn't matter that it was a normal baseball move... it matters that his body hit the runner, completely changed his direction and pushed him off the bag. This being called an out is a HORRIBLE precedent. (And no, this is nothing like the Hrbek play).

Yep. It amazes me that anyone would call this an out. I think it's one thing to have it happen quickly and make the call on the field. But, after really thinking about what happened, you are just asking for trouble if you call this an out.

[DLH17]

Three pages deep, and the best we can come up with is opinions - good ones at that - but opinions, just the same. No supporting rules or case studies. I guess the situation is one of those that is right in the middle of a gray area.

[rpumpire]

Originally Posted by DLH17

Three pages deep, and the best we can come up with is opinions - good ones at that - but opinions, just the same. No supporting rules or case studies. I guess the situation is one of those that is right in the middle of a gray area.

How about "Common Sense and Fair Play, 1.01?"

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by DLH17

Three pages deep, and the best we can come up with is opinions - good ones at that - but opinions, just the same. No supporting rules or case studies. I guess the situation is one of those that is right in the middle of a gray area.

It has always struck me as odd that there's no rule that says you can't push a player off a base while in possession of the ball. There's interps. There's common sense, and there's unwritten understandings... but seems this should be in black and white.

[D Ray]

This play seems a reversal of fortunes compared to crashes at the plate. I feel that if your game allows crashes at the plate, unless there is a written directive to the contrary, this crash at 2nd is "okay" and the out is righteous. In the games I (and most on this board) work, I think the call should be safe. No way do I want to open the Pandora's box of allowing fielders to crash the runner in an attempt to knock him off the base, whether intentional or not.

On a separate line of thinking, at what point do you consider MC (in FED of course) on the part of the fielder?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by D Ray

This play seems a reversal of fortunes compared to crashes at the plate. I feel that if your game allows crashes at the plate, unless there is a written directive to the contrary, this crash at 2nd is "okay" and the out is righteous. In the games I (and most on this board) work, I think the call should be safe. No way do I want to open the Pandora's box of allowing fielders to crash the runner in an attempt to knock him off the base, whether intentional or not.

On a separate line of thinking, at what point do you consider MC (in FED of course) on the part of the fielder?

You are comparing apples and flight attendants. The crash at the plate happens when the catcher has the ball or is receiving the ball. The runner is still doing his job, which is trying to touch the plate or dislodge the ball. The fielder, after applying a late tag, knocked the runner off a base that he had already acquired, and that's not part of his job.

[D Ray]

SDS - I agree with you. I was trying to divine why this would be acceptable in MLB. I was not very clear as I opened my reply. By allowing the out, it broadens the job of the fielder. The whole play smells. The defense did not execute in order to earn the out. This is not like the Hrbek play

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by D Ray

...This is not like the Hrbek play

Do you guys consider the call on the Hrbek play to have been correct?

[Jay R]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Do you guys consider the call on the Hrbek play to have been correct?

Most seem to think so. I didn't think it should have been an out. He hauled Gant's leg off the base IMHO.

[mbyron]

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Do you guys consider the call on the Hrbek play to have been correct?

At least it can be argued that Hrbek's tag knocked the runner off his base (resulting in an out). I don't think you can make the same argument with Beckham's "tag."