The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 08, 2013, 02:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Altor View Post
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).
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 08, 2013, 02:42pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 08, 2013, 02:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
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.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 08, 2013, 03:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 08, 2013, 03:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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"
Reply With Quote
  #51 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 08, 2013, 06:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North, TX
Posts: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
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.

Last edited by bluehair; Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 07:22pm.
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 09, 2013, 07:15am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluehair View Post
If you rule sticklers want to be consistent, be consistent.
Where am I being inconsistent here? I don't understand this comment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluehair View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluehair View Post
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.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 09, 2013, 07:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North, TX
Posts: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
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.

Last edited by bluehair; Tue Jul 09, 2013 at 07:45am.
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 09, 2013, 10:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Urbana, IL
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Altor View Post
...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”.
Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 09, 2013, 11:26am
Broadcaster
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: LaGrange, Ga.
Posts: 364
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?
Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 09, 2013, 12:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
The mechanics were poor, but the end result was correct, imo. ...
The One True Correct (tm) result is "Foul Ball".




Last edited by Crabby_Bob; Tue Jul 09, 2013 at 12:46pm. Reason: trying to get the image to appear in the post
Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 09, 2013, 12:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by D Ray View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #58 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 09, 2013, 01:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Urbana, IL
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by jicecone View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #59 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 09, 2013, 01:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by D Ray View Post
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.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #60 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 09, 2013, 01:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Urbana, IL
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
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."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
St Louis University Radio kwv001 Basketball 9 Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:41pm
UNM @ St. Louis Tio Basketball 4 Wed Jan 02, 2013 05:10pm
Help: St. Louis, MO Area Officials Remington Basketball 8 Tue May 10, 2011 10:58am
Red St. Louis, 1945-2011 bainsey Basketball 1 Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:28am
st louis issue fonzzy07 Hockey 9 Mon Jan 23, 2006 01:05am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:13am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1