Tag/No Tag

[johnnyg08]

Your thoughts?

[rbmartin]

Obviously U1 didn't see the tag that the replay clearly showed. Odd because U1 seemed to be at a pretty good angle to see it.

Runner did not leave his baseline IMO.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

Runner did not leave his baseline IMO.

Interesting take. I thought he did leave his baseline because his slide took him too far to the left of the bag for him to touch it, and an arm's length is usually considered the gauge for OOB calls.

Unlike Ichiro's play, where he was well to the right of the foul line as he headed for home, Blanco's baseline was on the line directly between second and first base (see 0:35 into the video). He then started his deviation from the line as he approached Craig, and went even further away from the line to avoid the tag. When he hit the dirt, his hand was another two feet or so away from the bag.

As expected, the pundits are screaming for expanded IR for tag/no tag plays. I don't see how these plays can be covered with IR because of possible follow-on action that could take place. But with what happened here and in the Cano play the night before, it's tough to argue against it.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Interesting take. I thought he did leave his baseline because his slide took him too far to the left of the bag for him to touch it, and an arm's length is usually considered the gauge for OOB calls.

Unlike Ichiro's play, where he was well to the right of the foul line as he headed for home, Blanco's baseline was on the line directly between second and first base (see 0:35 into the video). He then started his deviation from the line as he approached Craig, and went even further away from the line to avoid the tag. When he hit the dirt, his hand was another two feet or so away from the bag.

There is no tag attempt at 0:35. When the tag attempt does occur (a second or two later), the runner is headed directly to the base. Not even close to an out-of-the-baseline violation IMO.

[Tim C]

In my opinion Manny appears to always be on the "other side" of basic plays.

T

[RPatrino]

The runner establishes the baseline, and that little outward loop he made is what makes me believe that he was not OOB. As for the tag, we see it clearly on the replays, what was seen in real time on the field, who knows.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Interesting take. I thought he did leave his baseline because his slide took him too far to the left of the bag for him to touch it, and an arm's length is usually considered the gauge for OOB calls.

Not even close. You don't judge where his slide takes him. You judge him from the moment a tag attempt begins to when it ends (it ended, um ... when he tagged him, in this case! ).

Blanco's baseline was on the line directly between second and first base (see 0:35 into the video).

You are starting way too early.

As expected, the pundits are screaming for expanded IR for tag/no tag plays. I don't see how these plays can be covered with IR because of possible follow-on action that could take place. But with what happened here and in the Cano play the night before, it's tough to argue against it.

Frankly, this is exactly the type of play that IR could help with... simply because there was no follow-on action.

[rbmartin]

It was actually pretty smart base running because the runner veered left before F3 recieved the ball so as to establish his baseline as far away from F1 as possible. I showed this play to my 12 yr old this morning as an object lesson.

U1 did miss the play but sometimes the smarter a baserunner looks, the luckier he gets.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You are starting way too early.

Hmmm. In the discussion of the Ichiro play, you mentioned that the tag attempt starts when the catcher had the ball and started to make his turn. Here at 0:35, the first baseman has the ball and is starting to move towards the runner. What's the difference?

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Not even close. You don't judge where his slide takes him. You judge him from the moment a tag attempt begins to when it ends (it ended, um ... when he tagged him, in this case! ).

I understand that. But his momentum from when the tag was actually made (but judged as missed) and where he ended up was essentially a straight line. If he was that far from the bag on the slide, he was pretty much that far from the baseline he started from when the fielder initiated his tag attempt.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Frankly, this is exactly the type of play that IR could help with... simply because there was no follow-on action.

On this particular play, Yes. But the use of IR for a certain call should apply to all situations. You really shouldn't have a policy that says, "We will use IR for tag plays only if there is no follow-on action."

That's why MLB is reluctant to use IR on catch/no catch. It would be pretty straight forward to use IR if the catch/no catch situation came with no other base runners. But once you have multiple runners that either tagged up or didn't tag up, etc. etc., IR would cause problems.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Hmmm. In the discussion of the Ichiro play, you mentioned that the tag attempt starts when the catcher had the ball and started to make his turn. Here at 0:35, the first baseman has the ball and is starting to move towards the runner. What's the difference?

Freeze it at 0:35 (maybe someone more technologically advanced than I can post the freeze frame). The fielder is at least six feet from the runner when he starts to move toward him. That is not a tag attempt. The baseline has not been established this point.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Hmmm. In the discussion of the Ichiro play, you mentioned that the tag attempt starts when the catcher had the ball and started to make his turn. Here at 0:35, the first baseman has the ball and is starting to move towards the runner. What's the difference?

Proximity. Besides, you corrected me on the Ichiro one - that tag attempt probably started a quarter to half second later than I actually said.

I understand that. But his momentum from when the tag was actually made (but judged as missed) and where he ended up was essentially a straight line. If he was that far from the bag on the slide, he was pretty much that far from the baseline he started from when the fielder initiated his tag attempt.

When two lines are not parallel, the further you go along them away from their intersection, the further the distance between them. In this case, not 3 feet while the tag attempt was still going on. Perhaps 3 feet (if so, just barely) 2 steps and a dive later.

On this particular play, Yes. But the use of IR for a certain call should apply to all situations. You really shouldn't have a policy that says, "We will use IR for tag plays only if there is no follow-on action."

An odd statement. Why? I think that's EXACTLY what they need.

That's why MLB is reluctant to use IR on catch/no catch. It would be pretty straight forward to use IR if the catch/no catch situation came with no other base runners. But once you have multiple runners that either tagged up or didn't tag up, etc. etc., IR would cause problems.

Yes. Exactly. Which is why IR really only works for plays with no follow on action, or at least none that is directly or indirectly affected by the play in question.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Yes. Exactly. Which is why IR really only works for plays with no follow on action, or at least none that is directly or indirectly affected by the play in question.

Agree.

And that's my point. I could be wrong, but I think if MLB implemented it, they would want IR for all tag plays, not just those with no follow-on action.

[johnnyg08]

Doesn't he establish his new path prior to F3's tag attempt?