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

[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 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.

If you get that technical about a tag at any level (and especially HS or above) you will rightly be considered an OOO. It's a tag. The alternative is to transfer the ball from the bare hand into the mitt (so by rule the mitt holds the ball), then re-transfer the ball back to the bare hand to initiate a throw. F2 using his mitt to protect from having the ball knocked out of his hand is just good baseball. Maybe not in the SB world.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bluehair

F2 using his mitt to protect from having the ball knocked out of his hand is just good baseball.

And not a tag. As mentioned before ... real players do not do this "good baseball" move because if they did IT WOULD NOT BE A TAG, and the runner they hit with their empty glove would be safe.

If this was "good baseball", we'd see it all the time.

[dash_riprock]

If you want to get really technical, try finding in the rules where you can tag a base with the ball (it's not in there).

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bluehair

If you get that technical about a tag at any level (and especially HS or above) you will rightly be considered an OOO.

That's funny, since that's all I do. If I called a ball outside of the mitt a tag, I'd be reamed.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by Matt

That's funny, since that's all I do. If I called a ball outside of the mitt a tag, I'd be reamed.

Do you really think so? Imagine a similar instance where the player has the ball in his bare hand and his bare-hand is up against the glove, say F4 as R1 approaches him on a ground ball. F4 reaches out with both hands his glove closed and the ball up against the glove and touches the runner without breaking the contact between the ball and the glove. Who here honestly thinks that a tag of this nature would bring down the house?

Further suppose instead of having the ball touching the glove, instead F4 has the ball touching the glove but the glove is not closed around the bare hand (so that if the bare hand was not in the glove the ball would fall out of the glove) who here would rule that R1 had not been tagged because the glove was not closed around the hand that was firmly and securely holding the ball? If yes in this scenario and no in the previous scenario, why?

I don't see how in each of these scenarios the spirit and intent of the rule has been violated.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Matt

That's funny, since that's all I do. If I called a ball outside of the mitt a tag, I'd be reamed.

Only by a young or inexperienced coach. Most coaches know that's an out, and expect to get the same call when their team is on defense.

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Sigh ...

Stand down, Don Quixote.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Sigh ...

Stand down, Don Quixote.

Sancho, remember your place.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by bluehair

If the defense tags R with an empty glove, umpire calling "no tag" is a heads-up call...

Glad you finally see the light.

[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.