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

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The video shows two things...

A blatant horrible error by the umpires.
A clueless coach arguing the wrong thing.

Was this the crew that was previously reprimanded for something this year?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Was this the crew that was previously reprimanded for something this year?

I believe this was the crew that allowed a relief pitcher to be removed for another without facing a batter.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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.