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

[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).

[DG]

From what I saw in video, it is a tag, batter out.

To suggest that PU could see the tag differently is speculation.

Force at 3b is a mystery call.

[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.