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

[jicecone]

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)

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by jicecone

(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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jicecone

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.

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.

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

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.)

[jicecone]

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.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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 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.

[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.

[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?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by 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...

Because this is nothing more than a tag with an empty glove. What you're describing amounts to a phantom tag. There is no interpretation of the 2.00 Definition of TAG anywhere that says a tag with an empty glove is still a tag should the defensive player pin the ball to the outside of the glove.

Think about it: If it was a legal way to place a tag on a runner, wouldn't you expect catchers to do it all the time? After all, it provides an additional layer of protection, so to speak, for the catcher when he tags a runner who crashes into him. He also can control the ball better if he holds onto it with his bare hand outside the mitt instead of inside, where it could pop loose as he separates the two. If it was a legal method of tagging a runner, coaches would teach this as opposed to teaching catchers to hold the ball inside the mitt.

But you never see it done that way because it's not a legal tag of a runner.

[jicecone]

One thing for sure though, if your going to get that technical about a tag, you will never be in the position to have a video made of you umpiring at the MLB level.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Think about it: If it was a legal way to place a tag on a runner, wouldn't you expect catchers to do it all the time?

No, when a fast tag is needed (most times), swinging one arm is faster than swinging both.

Originally Posted by Manny A

After all, it provides an additional layer of protection, so to speak, for the catcher when he tags a runner who crashes into him. He also can control the ball better if he holds onto it with his bare hand outside the mitt instead of inside, where it could pop loose as he separates the two. If it was a legal method of tagging a runner, coaches would teach this as opposed to teaching catchers to hold the ball inside the mitt.

That makes no sense. Ball/bare hand inside of mitt is much more secure than ball/barehand outside of mitt.

Originally Posted by Manny A

If it was a legal method of tagging a runner, coaches would teach this as opposed to teaching catchers to hold the ball inside the mitt.

No, they wouldn't. That makes no sense.

If the defense tags R with an empty glove, umpire calling "no tag" is a heads-up call, but these two handed tags have to be given to the defense.

[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.