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

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by bluehair

What would really be too bad would be the ire incurred by the umpire crew (from both teams) if my partner OOO'd a safe call on a two-handed tag like this. YMMV

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

By definition, a Tag only happens when the fielder tags the runner with his glove/mitt, and the ball is secure in that glove/mitt. Or it happens when the fielder tags the runner with the ball or bare hand, and the ball is secure in that bare hand.

What you call a "two-handed tag" is when the fielder tags the runner with his glove/mitt, and the ball is either secured in the glove/mitt or the bare hand inside the glove/mitt. By the definition of Tag, a tag with the glove/mitt while the ball is being held in the bare hand inside the glove/mitt would not meet the criterion of a legal tag. But since there is no way an umpire can actually see the disposition of the ball--Is it being held by the glove/mitt or by the hand?--during the moment of the tag, the fielder is given the benefit of the doubt.

What you feel is a two-handed tag is nothing more than touching a runner with an empty glove/mitt. No way that's a legal tag.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Manny A

No way that's a legal tag.

Go to the video tape that shows 3BX coverage!!!!!

I don't think it totally supports your findings.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Go to the video tape that shows 3BX coverage!!!!!

I don't think it totally supports your findings.

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.

[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.

[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.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bluehair

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.

What's that saying by Mark Twain? The one about being thought a fool, and opening one's mouth? Seems applicable here.