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.

[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."

[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 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.