Miami / St.Louis.....not a force at third

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I disagree with your tag-out/tag-out first option. We did have a tag-out at home. It was clearly signalled by the PU. F5 should have seen that, should have known that the force was off, and should have turned to tag R2. Why should he be given credit for an out at third when he had an unobstructed view of the PU's signal? It wasn't as if the PU came up late with the Out signal; he banged it as soon as he judged the tag was made.

Originally Posted by Altor

I guess I don't understand the reasoning of the statement in bold. F5 is looking at the plate and should see PU signal the out. R2 would probably not be looking at the plate once the "fair" signal is given. U3 signals him out, which he would see.

If U3 sees the out call, and doesn't signal "out on the 'force' " then F5 tags R2 and the result is two outs and R1 becomes R2. That's the result they went with (if not how they got there).

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If U3 sees the out call, and doesn't signal "out on the 'force' " then F5 tags R2 and the result is two outs and R1 becomes R2. That's the result they went with (if not how they got there).

I dunno, Bob. It certainly doesn't look to me on the replays that F5 (Friese) had a clue what U3 did. He never looked his way, nor did he ever set up for a tag play at third. He simply set up for the force out, neglecting the PU's out call.

Did anybody ever see a transcript of what Redmond argued? I thought it looked like he was going with a Fair/Foul discussion, and not the tag play at home. He must've missed the PU's out call as well.

[MD Longhorn]

IMHO, that's an ENORMOUS stretch. U3 is signalling out before the runner gets there. He would not have run through the bag so casually had he not been called out.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I'm not debating the actual play. I'm commenting on bluehair's assertion that a legal tag can happen when the bare hand holds the ball outside of the glove/mitt as the fielder touches the runner with the empty glove/mitt.

Or are you suggesting that this PU actually saw that, and still ruled the out? I seriously doubt it.

No, I am suggesting that the PU actually saw a tag (what type I have no idea) and signaled the out as a result of it. As was shown in the video.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

See post #29. One of those two things would (likely) have happened.

So your supporting the "abandonment" idea, by suggesting F5 made a tag, which is more in line with the "PLAY" in 7.08 a.2.

Isn't that a little like "if it don't fit , you have to aquit"

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by Manny A

First off, there is no such thing as a "two-handed tag" in any rule book that I know of.

You either lack imagination or have never seen F2 hold the ball in one hand put it with the mitt and tag a sliding runner. If you rule sticklers want to be consistent, be consistent. The rule says that the bare hand that holds the ball has to touch the runner or the glove/mitt that holds the ball has to touch the runner. Most will allow ball in barehand holding ball inside mitt (even though this is taking a small liberty with the rule because the mitt does not hold the ball). I would allow (a small bit more liberty...HTBT) with ball in barehand and trapping/holding ball most anywhere on the mitt...as what I see that happened in this play.

What I see at 1.01 of the video that I referenced is F2 grapping ball with barehand while mitt contacts BR. F2 then pushes ball holding hand onto the mitt that is touching BR for an instant (ball is never "inside" the mitt) before cocking his arm for the throw to 3B. If you don't think that's a tag, fine. But you're ruining an awesome baseball play with a safe (no tag) call.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by bluehair

If you rule sticklers want to be consistent, be consistent.

Where am I being inconsistent here? I don't understand this comment.

Originally Posted by bluehair

I would allow (a small bit more liberty...HTBT) with ball in barehand and trapping/holding ball most anywhere on the mitt...as what I see that happened in this play.

And I would say that you would be in the overwhelmingly vast minority.

Originally Posted by bluehair

What I see at 1.01 of the video that I referenced is F2 grapping ball with barehand while mitt contacts BR. F2 then pushes ball holding hand onto the mitt that is touching BR for an instant (ball is never "inside" the mitt) before cocking his arm for the throw to 3B. If you don't think that's a tag, fine.

It's not what I and I assume others here think. It's the rule. If what you see is true, then Molina tagged Turner with an empty mitt. And I would bet that if the PU actually saw that, he wouldn't have ruled Turner out.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Where am I being inconsistent here? I don't understand this comment.

Can one hold a baseball in a glove without the baseball actually touching the glove?
How can one "securely and firmly" hold a ball in a glove if the ball does not touch the glove?

Originally Posted by Manny A

And I would say that you would be in the overwhelmingly vast minority.

I'll bet the vast majority that you claim to be a part of wouldn't have the balls to safe that tag on a real ballfield.

[D Ray]

Originally Posted by Altor

...F5 is looking at the plate and should see PU signal the out. R2 would probably not be looking at the plate once the "fair" signal is given. U3 signals him out, which he would see.

F5 was on the grass for the bunt. The ball was batted in front of the plate, so F5 began to retreat to 3rd. I grant, he likely saw the fair point by PU, but I am not sure it is a guarantee that F5 saw the out signal before he focused on the throw from F2.

It is possible that PU ruled interference by the RETIRED BR? This could explain why PU allowed the apparent force out at 3rd to stand, but if that is true, why was R1 allowed to stay at 2nd base?

Is it possible PU did not mean to signal out, or made the out signal, but said no tag? BR does go to 1st AFTER the out signal is given. If this is the case, then a “safe” signal would have cleared up the confusion we are wrestling with.

IMHO, the whole play is a mechanical mess. There are three out signals given, yet only two outs are on the board as a result. I have seen umpires huddle for less confusing plays, yet this crew did not come together. Perhaps because the crew chief was also PU? Somewhere either PU or U3 made a mistake. If I were U1 I would be baffled. PU signals out, the U3 signals out on a force mechanic… what’s a blue to do? Whatever was said to Redmond he seemed to accept it. “Mike, we looked like crap doing it, but your team has two outs and a runner on 2nd. Now let’s play ball”.

[voiceoflg]

Maybe this is a lack of understanding on my part, but if the ball is securely held by the right hand and pinned to the outside of the glove on the left hand and the runner is tagged by the glove instead of the ball, what reason would it not be an out as opposed to having the ball inside the glove and the runner is tagged with the glove instead of the ball? What is the core reason for the difference in the rule?

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The mechanics were poor, but the end result was correct, imo. ...

The One True Correct (tm) result is "Foul Ball".

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by D Ray

It is possible that PU ruled interference by the RETIRED BR? This could explain why PU allowed the apparent force out at 3rd to stand, but if that is true, why was R1 allowed to stay at 2nd base?

Is it possible PU did not mean to signal out, or made the out signal, but said no tag? BR does go to 1st AFTER the out signal is given. If this is the case, then a “safe” signal would have cleared up the confusion we are wrestling with.

If the PU even thought the word "interference" on this play, he should be sent back to the minors. The only other person that used that word was the announcer and we don't consider them people on this site. At least when it comes to Baseball. BI would have killed the play and runners would have to return to bases @TOP. NO it is NOT possible.

The bunt was fair (signaled), the BR was tagged out (signaled) and what truly is the explanation for what happened after that,.... We will never know.

[D Ray]

Originally Posted by jicecone

If the PU even thought the word "interference" on this play, he should be sent back to the minors. The only other person that used that word was the announcer and we don't consider them people on this site. At least when it comes to Baseball. BI would have killed the play and runners would have to return to bases @TOP. NO it is NOT possible.

The bunt was fair (signaled), the BR was tagged out (signaled) and what truly is the explanation for what happened after that,.... We will never know.

I agree both possibilities are a stretch, and I am disappointed that we will never get an explanation on this play. I also agree that announcers do not have authoritative insight into the game, but do not let the small number of posts to my credit fool you. I am searching for possible ideas to explain what the video shows.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by D Ray

I agree both possibilities are a stretch, and I am disappointed that we will never get an explanation on this play. I also agree that announcers do not have authoritative insight into the game, but do not let the small number of posts to my credit fool you. I am searching for possible ideas to explain what the video shows.

The video shows two things...

A blatant horrible error by the umpires.
A clueless coach arguing the wrong thing.

[D Ray]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The video shows two things...

A blatant horrible error by the umpires.
A clueless coach arguing the wrong thing.

I'll agree...

"Circle gets the square."