MLB: Beckham tag play on DeJesus

[DLH17]

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

[JRutledge]

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

[Steven Tyler]

Beckham defiantly knocked DeJesus off the base.

[mbyron]

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.

[Rich Ives]

Hrbek/Gant

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Hrbek/Gant

A much more egregious example that evidently set a precedent.

[MrUmpire]

Out. At that level.

[SAump]

Sveum ejected after arguing call at second | cubs.com: News

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

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

[RPatrino]

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.

[Jay R]

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?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

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.

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).

[Matt]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

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.

[RPatrino]

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).

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.

[UmpJM]

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

JM