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

Saw the play on Baseball Tonight. The Marlin player bunted was called out and there was no force at third......anybody be willing to put the video up for all to see.....

Not sure how to embed MLB.com videos.

MIA@STL -- Turner bunts into double play

I'll give him it was a crazy play, didn't look like a fair ball to me, (went back and edited to say it did look fair on second look from where F2 was standing)
but if he called the batter out then why did he let them make the out call at 3rd? But, the runner ran past the bag and probably would have been tagged out - so crazy all around.

My question is what do you do as PU in this situation? You have the out on the BR, but what about the runner at 3rd?

Interesting

Thanks
David

Seemed like the only person who knew what was going on was the plate umpire. U3 incorrectly calls a guy out at 3rd base for a nonexistent force out and U1 calls batter/runner out again at 1st base. Odd play. As PU I don't know what else you can do from a mechanics standpoint.

Game Awareness
 

I'm going to be critical of the base umpires......are they aware of the PU called???

I'm not a fan of instant replay, but darn this is a situation where umpire communication ( or lack of it ) hurt the Marlins.... But I guess you can argue
Why didn't base runner going from 2nd to 3rd see situation and stay on third....

Hey what do I know, I'm working three 11u games today....:D:D:D:D

The announcers were right - the tag on the BR was made with an empty glove. Therefore the batter wasn't out at the plate. There may have been a verbal by U1 that overrode the out signal.

PU points fair ball (Correct) and then signals out on tag by catcher. (Well what he thought was a tag and what the stupid announcer thought was interference).

The base umpires reacted to instantaneous plays and should not be subjected to critical evaluations by a 11u umpire. Maybe next year when you do 12 yr olds.

Sooo, it should have ended up with runners at 2nd and 3rd and one out, but somehow the either the PU was able to convince the HC that the right call was made or the HC figured his team wasn't getting out of the basement anyway and figured he could get to the local pub earlier.

How about in 7 years when I get 18 yr old games ?????

All the 12u were taken otherwise I would have got them !!!!!:D:D:D:D

Deal!

U1 can verbally override PU/crew chief's out call during a live ball play? How do you figure?

B was out on the play at the plate (it looked to me that F2 initially had an empty glove on B, but then his right hand (with the ball) pushed onto the glove while the glove was still contacting B...but hard to tell).

CCS says that R2 was ruled out for abandonment...go figure.

Even if you saw it correctly the B/R would not be out.

F2 has ball in rt hand inside of glove and tags R = out.
F2 has ball in rt hand contacting outside of glove and tags R, I still have an out.

It looks like the ball is in the glove to me.

Video | MLB.com Multimedia

There is no "electricity" on the tag of a runner. The ball must be securely held by the hand or glove that tags the runner.

So, F2 has ball in rt hand inside of glove then tags R with glove is not out? Good luck with that....good luck with either no tag call.

That is an out. This is what you described in an earlier post:

" it looked to me that F2 initially had an empty glove on B, but then his right hand (with the ball) pushed onto the glove while the glove was still contacting B.."

That is not a tag.

Why is that an out? The ball is in the rt hand, and the tag is made with the left/gloved hand. I can only assume that you consider the ball in both hands (even though it isn't) and eligible for a tag.

IMO, the ball in the right hand pressed/trapped on the outside of the glove (instead of the inside) is the same. Either by rule or by practicality.

Electricity!!!!!
 

The last time "electricity" counted was in baserunners or tag in my neighbors backyard about 39.years ago......:D:D:D:D

You keep changing your words. Here is your quote, which I agreed was a tag (out):

"So, F2 has ball in rt hand inside of glove then tags R with glove"

Of course that's a tag. Catchers do that all the time to prevent the ball from being knocked loose.


No it isn't. The difference is, the ball is not securely held in the hand or glove that is making the tag.

Catchers do use this technique, all the time. But they do not use the glove to hold the ball. They use their glove to cushion the impact of the tag. Very little of the ball (if any) is even touching leather (ball is not glove held). You seem to be hung up on the hand making contact with the runner must hold the ball by rule, yet you do not require it in this case. But you do require it in the other case even though in neither case is the ball held by the glove. Why? What is the difference? Seems arbitrary to me.

Any two handed tag is good enough for me.

BOTH the hand and the ball are in the mitt. That's a lot different than tagging the runner with an empty mitt with the ball in the other hand.

So you call safe, even though the glove was on the runner, the ball was in his barehand only touching the glove...you gonna sell that?

Coach: "might have there been at least one knuckle overlapping the glove that could have touched R ? ...really?...REALLY?...REALLY ?"

Good luck with that OOO call, bruda.

To quote Stiffler, "You're ****in' right, doggy." Runner's safe, all day, every day.

Let's assume U3 realizes that B1 is out and makes no call because F5 doesn't attempt to tag R2. It's apparent that R2, believing he was out on a force, would still have headed for his dugout. Thus, he's now out for abandonment.

Right result, wrong mechanics.

A good look at tag/no tag play at HP can be seen at 1:01 of this replay. If you're calling no tag on that, good luck.

There is another clip on MLB that provides a great angle (same link as the one in post #25 above)

Video | MLB.com Multimedia

Near the end (2:29 mark), it appears as though F2 uses his forearm to bump/nudge BR out of the space in order to execute a throw to third, but does NOT tag BR. PU does come out with a fair ball point, he then signals with a fist giving the world to impression an out call has been made, yet for some reason, AFTER that, BR jogs to first. Personally, I and every umpire I know has an accompanying verbal sound to go with every out call. The video leads me to believe there was no sound from PU, and the BR, came to the conclusion that he was not tagged. This out signal, was either not seen or ignored by U3 and U1.

It would be interesting if the crew or MLB gave an explanation of what was called. At least the NFL and now NCAA football have the crew chief explain what was called. This is one time I wish MLB had a similar mechanic.

After reviewing the video (which the umpires on the field do not have the benefit of), I can go along with a tag of the BR. It happened so fast that it truly can be sold, even without a scientific analysis's of what was in what or touching what or next to what. I can even understand U3 making the call at third.

HOWEVER, as a result of the BR being called out , as a crew it is their job to get together and correct the call at third and place the runners where they belong. As supported by the rules. Obviously, that didn't happen.

(As far as R2 being called out for abandonment, CCS shouldn't be allowed to publish any more articles for making things up)

I can't figure out if CCS created the abandonment justification or they reported MLB's CYA explanation.

Two options: Tag out, tag out (what would have happened had there been a tag at the plate and all knew it). Force out, out at first (what would have happened had there not been a tag and everyone knew it).

You can't "protect" R2 from the abandonment and not "protect" F5 from getting the tag out.

And, I agree that the mechanics could have been better.

I only glanced at the article, and I see some opinion but I don't see that they made anything up. To what are you referrring? (again, I'm not disputing it, just seeking clarification.)

This is what CCS wrote":

Rule 7.08(a)(2) puts a runner out if he leaves the base path, obviously abandoning his effort to touch the next base. PLAY. If a runner believes he is called out on a tag at first or third base and starts for the dugout, progressing a reasonable distance indicating by his actions that he is out, he shall be declared out for abandoning the bases

Ok, "making it up" was the wrong selection of words. But the "PLAY" is not applicable here. The runner left the bases because the umpire declared him out on a what U3 thought was a force out. The runner did not assume (believe) the call was something different than stated. However as stated, it was incorrect and therefore put the runner at risk.

Wow... I sure hope not.

When I'm taking a rules test or playing rules gotcha with internet umpires, no.
When I'm talking practicality and I see a two-handed tag like in this play, you betcha.

That's really too bad. Making an incorrect call on purpose solely because no one else would notice doesn't make it any less incorrect. If it's wrong on a rules test, it's wrong on the field.

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

It sure looked like a tag in real life to me the first time I saw the video and from the PU's perspective it would be even more difficult to tell. Having watched the replay just this morning, from the one view that's about 3BX it looks like a tag.

I would give the benefit of the doubt to the defense here and rule tag.

I agree and the only person besides the PU, closer to that tag, was Molina. His call was immediate and sellable. Having 1000 monitors, with instant replay is nice but, not one of those monitors or couch umpires have to make the instaneous decision like the PU.

I don't think anyone really has issue with the safe or out call, whether right or wrong on replay ... it's the calling of the out and also the allowing of the out at third that is really the issue.

The mechanics were poor, but the end result was correct, imo.

And, yes, I've used that explanation before to coaches. ;/

What is your justification for the out at third, Bob?

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.

See post #29. One of those two things would (likely) have happened.

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

I don't think it totally supports your findings.

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.

Your second option of force-out/force-out might be viable if a legal tag never happened on the BR at home and one of the umpires could confidently state that during an umpire discussion. But there was nobody on that field that could have seen that as it played out and convince the PU that that happened.

Sure, it should have been an easy DP. But the way it played out, I think the correct result should have been BR out on the tag, and runner at third safe since the force was removed. No way R2 should be called out for abandonment for reacting to U3's erroneous call.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

Where am I being inconsistent here? I don't understand this comment.

And I would say that you would be in the overwhelmingly vast minority.

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.

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?
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.

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”.

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?

The One True Correct (tm) result is "Foul Ball".

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7403/9...8cdb7821_z.jpg

:)

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.

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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

No, when a fast tag is needed (most times), swinging one arm is faster than swinging both.
That makes no sense. Ball/bare hand inside of mitt is much more secure than ball/barehand outside of 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.

Sigh ...

Stand down, Don Quixote.

Glad you finally see the light. :D

Sancho, remember your place. http://hstrial-ccbua1.homestead.com/...and_sancho.bmp