That is an out. This is what you described in an earlier post:

" it looked to me that F2 initially had an empty glove on B, but then his right hand (with the ball) pushed onto the glove while the glove was still contacting B.."

That is not a tag.

Why is that an out? The ball is in the rt hand, and the tag is made with the left/gloved hand. I can only assume that you consider the ball in both hands (even though it isn't) and eligible for a tag.

IMO, the ball in the right hand pressed/trapped on the outside of the glove (instead of the inside) is the same. Either by rule or by practicality.

Electricity!!!!!
 

The last time "electricity" counted was in baserunners or tag in my neighbors backyard about 39.years ago......:D:D:D:D

You keep changing your words. Here is your quote, which I agreed was a tag (out):

"So, F2 has ball in rt hand inside of glove then tags R with glove"

Of course that's a tag. Catchers do that all the time to prevent the ball from being knocked loose.


No it isn't. The difference is, the ball is not securely held in the hand or glove that is making the tag.

Catchers do use this technique, all the time. But they do not use the glove to hold the ball. They use their glove to cushion the impact of the tag. Very little of the ball (if any) is even touching leather (ball is not glove held). You seem to be hung up on the hand making contact with the runner must hold the ball by rule, yet you do not require it in this case. But you do require it in the other case even though in neither case is the ball held by the glove. Why? What is the difference? Seems arbitrary to me.

Any two handed tag is good enough for me.

BOTH the hand and the ball are in the mitt. That's a lot different than tagging the runner with an empty mitt with the ball in the other hand.

So you call safe, even though the glove was on the runner, the ball was in his barehand only touching the glove...you gonna sell that?

Coach: "might have there been at least one knuckle overlapping the glove that could have touched R ? ...really?...REALLY?...REALLY ?"

Good luck with that OOO call, bruda.

To quote Stiffler, "You're ****in' right, doggy." Runner's safe, all day, every day.

Let's assume U3 realizes that B1 is out and makes no call because F5 doesn't attempt to tag R2. It's apparent that R2, believing he was out on a force, would still have headed for his dugout. Thus, he's now out for abandonment.

Right result, wrong mechanics.

A good look at tag/no tag play at HP can be seen at 1:01 of this replay. If you're calling no tag on that, good luck.

There is another clip on MLB that provides a great angle (same link as the one in post #25 above)

Video | MLB.com Multimedia

Near the end (2:29 mark), it appears as though F2 uses his forearm to bump/nudge BR out of the space in order to execute a throw to third, but does NOT tag BR. PU does come out with a fair ball point, he then signals with a fist giving the world to impression an out call has been made, yet for some reason, AFTER that, BR jogs to first. Personally, I and every umpire I know has an accompanying verbal sound to go with every out call. The video leads me to believe there was no sound from PU, and the BR, came to the conclusion that he was not tagged. This out signal, was either not seen or ignored by U3 and U1.

It would be interesting if the crew or MLB gave an explanation of what was called. At least the NFL and now NCAA football have the crew chief explain what was called. This is one time I wish MLB had a similar mechanic.

After reviewing the video (which the umpires on the field do not have the benefit of), I can go along with a tag of the BR. It happened so fast that it truly can be sold, even without a scientific analysis's of what was in what or touching what or next to what. I can even understand U3 making the call at third.

HOWEVER, as a result of the BR being called out , as a crew it is their job to get together and correct the call at third and place the runners where they belong. As supported by the rules. Obviously, that didn't happen.

(As far as R2 being called out for abandonment, CCS shouldn't be allowed to publish any more articles for making things up)

I can't figure out if CCS created the abandonment justification or they reported MLB's CYA explanation.

Two options: Tag out, tag out (what would have happened had there been a tag at the plate and all knew it). Force out, out at first (what would have happened had there not been a tag and everyone knew it).

You can't "protect" R2 from the abandonment and not "protect" F5 from getting the tag out.

And, I agree that the mechanics could have been better.

I only glanced at the article, and I see some opinion but I don't see that they made anything up. To what are you referrring? (again, I'm not disputing it, just seeking clarification.)

This is what CCS wrote":

Rule 7.08(a)(2) puts a runner out if he leaves the base path, obviously abandoning his effort to touch the next base. PLAY. If a runner believes he is called out on a tag at first or third base and starts for the dugout, progressing a reasonable distance indicating by his actions that he is out, he shall be declared out for abandoning the bases

Ok, "making it up" was the wrong selection of words. But the "PLAY" is not applicable here. The runner left the bases because the umpire declared him out on a what U3 thought was a force out. The runner did not assume (believe) the call was something different than stated. However as stated, it was incorrect and therefore put the runner at risk.