MLB: Beckham tag play on DeJesus
 

Anyone see this play at 2b that occurred in Gm 1 of the ChiSox/Cubs interleague game?

DeJesus gaps a ball to LC, OFer comes up throwing to 2b where the SS, Beckham, takes the throw and runs to the bag reaching glove first for the tag on sliding DeJesus. DeJesus beats the tag with a feet first slide, but as DeJesus pops up from slide, Beckham's momentum carries him into DeJesus and full body contact occurs knocking DeJesus off the bag. Beckham reaches back and applies a tag for the out.

Not a play I've seen much, if at all. Anything "wrong" with the play? Is it ok per rule? Cubs manager argues and is subsequently sent packing.

Has this play been discussed here?

MLB.com Gameday | MLB.com: Gameday

I happened to be watching this play in a restaurant. I actually had no problem with the call as both players did what they were supposed to in trying to make the play. Again I do not know the OBR rules directly, but in NCAA and NF I would call the same based on what I currently know.

Peace

Beckham defiantly knocked DeJesus off the base.

Not sure of Foster's rationale for that call, but that runner's not out in my game. The runner had a good slide and would have held the bag.

Hrbek/Gant

A much more egregious example that evidently set a precedent.

Out. At that level.

Article and video
 

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

As I saw it, the play wasn't over yet, continuing action caused the runner to lose contact with the base, while a tag was still applied. I have an out. It's not like the runner was standing on the base and was pushed off the base and then tagged out.

I'm going with safe. Obviously the fielder did not intentionally push the runner off the bag. But if out is the proper call, doesn't it encourage fielders to use this tactic in the future?

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).

Oh, yes, he can. Your ruling is all interpretation.

Dash, I think you are reading more into this play then there actually was. To me, and clearly this is my interpretation of what I see on the video, this was a train wreck, players doing what they are supposed to do, in continuous action, without any intent to collide.

To extend this to an obstruction ruling is a stretch.

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

JM

Evidently, but the question is why.

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

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.:)

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.

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:

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

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.

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).

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

JJ

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.

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?" :)

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.

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.

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

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.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4VKXIdYHkj4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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."

The explanation given was that Gant's momemtum was carrying him off the bag, and the contact by Hrbek didn't have a material effect. IOW, that Gant would have likely come off the bag without the contact.

As a biased Braves fan, naturally I didn't see it that way.

I thought Hrbek pried him off with his leg.

Momentum nothing, his leg was lifted off the bag. Lateral momentum doesn't turn into vertical momentum in that manner.