Botched Squeeze, Tag @ 3rd

IRISHMAFIA

http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200810073600013

Any discussion?

MNBlue

I thought it was a good call when I saw it live.

Dakota

Good call. Ball in control on the tag, came out after the tag due to contact with the ground.

When I first saw the play, I thought he was tagged with an empty mitt...

IRISHMAFIA

Dakota wrote
Good call. Ball in control on the tag, came out after the tag due to contact with the ground.

When I first saw the play, I thought he was tagged with an empty mitt...

I happened to catch this play as I was walking out of the restaurant after spending a regular MNF evening with fellow umpires.

Two things were obvious:

Varitek demonstrated he was very conscious of maintaining possession of the ball by placing it in his glove prior to making the tag;

Some coaches are clueless.

NCASAUmp

One way for the ump to explain the call:

"When can the ball come out of the glove, coach?"

"After the tag is made."

"Thanks, coach. That's exactly what happened. Play ball."

IRISHMAFIA

NCASAUmp wrote
One way for the ump to explain the call:

"When can the ball come out of the glove, coach?"

"After the tag is made."

"Thanks, coach. That's exactly what happened. Play ball."

Now you are assuming the coach is going to know the correct answer:rolleyes:

NCASAUmp

IRISHMAFIA wrote
Now you are assuming the coach is going to know the correct answer:rolleyes:

Yeah, kinda dangerous of me. 😀

But you can (hopefully) get them to maybe kinda see some logic.

"The ball can't come out!"

"Then how does he throw the ball, coach?"

"Well, he must make a football move!"

"Wrong sport, coach. Keep going, you'll get there..."

"After the tag! After the tag! There, I said it!"

"Thanks, coach! Play ball!" 😉

Al

NCASAUmp wrote
One way for the ump to explain the call:

"When can the ball come out of the glove, coach?"

"After the tag is made."

"Thanks, coach. That's exactly what happened. Play ball."

-------------

Hey NCASAUmp,

In the play; after a controlled tag, the ball came out of his glove as a result of hitting the ground. If in this very play the ball had come out of the glove directly "after the tag", before being knocked loose by the ground, would we have a non-controlled tag and therefore a safe call? I think that is what the coach thought happened but he quickly stopped his argument after the umpire explained the tag was controlled and came out of his glove as a result of impact with the ground.

NCASAUmp

Al wrote
-------------

Hey NCASAUmp,

In the play; after a controlled tag, the ball came out of his glove as a result of hitting the ground. If in this very play the ball had come out of the glove directly "after the tag", before being knocked loose by the ground, would we have a non-controlled tag and therefore a safe call? I think that is what the coach thought happened but he quickly stopped his argument after the umpire explained the tag was controlled and came out of his glove as a result of impact with the ground.

I think we've hashed that sitch to death in another thread. 😉

Skahtboi

IRISHMAFIA wrote
http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200810073600013

Any discussion?

Apparently I am blocked from the video streams at work.

IRISHMAFIA

Skahtboi wrote
Apparently I am blocked from the video streams at work.

Don't trust you with the porn, huh? 😃😉

wadeintothem

Too quick on the timing = bad call with good excuse. He stands by his bad call, but he knows its a bad call.

There was no demonstration or indication of control at all IMO.

1/2 second of POSSIBLE control is not a demonstration of control by any stretch.

Bad call due to poor timing.

I doubt any of us make that call that quick.

But he's not dumb, so he knew not to compound it by changing it.

Clearly a bad call at full speed.

Admittedly not so horrible if the fall takes 3-4 seconds in slow mo.

IRISHMAFIA

wadeintothem wrote
Too quick on the timing = bad call with good excuse. He stands by his bad call, but he knows its a bad call.

There was no demonstration or indication of control at all IMO.

1/2 second of POSSIBLE control is not a demonstration of control by any stretch.

Bad call due to poor timing.

I doubt any of us make that call that quick.

But he's not dumb, so he knew not to compound it by changing it.

Clearly a bad call at full speed.

Admittedly not so horrible if the fall takes 3-4 seconds in slow mo.

The catcher made the tag. If there was no control of the ball, how is it the ball remained in the glove long after the tag was applied and then withdrawn from the runner?

wadeintothem

IRISHMAFIA wrote
The catcher made the tag. If there was no control of the ball, how is it the ball remained in the glove long after the tag was applied and then withdrawn from the runner?

Your definition of long is different than mine. Perhaps you were told lies that you believe. 😀

SethPDX

Wade, I can see where this could be viewed as a bad call, and I agree with you that the umpire's timing was quick on it. Really, I can see both sides of this.

One book of OBR interpretations (Jaksa/Roder) says the call is indeed wrong--the fielder must hold onto the ball until he has control of his body. Jim Evans in his manual and at his school says he only needs to control the ball at the time of the tag; anything that happens afterwards is irrelevant. Several posters on the baseball forum have pointed out that this is the way it is called at the pro level and if this is the case, the call was correct according to the accepted interpretation. Like I said, though, the timing could have been better.

I do, however, find it difficult to reconcile the Evans interpretation with the case of a catcher being run over and dropping the ball when he hits the ground. I don't have an out in that case and I doubt many other baseball umpires would.

wadeintothem

SethPDX wrote
Wade, I can see where this could be viewed as a bad call, and I agree with you that the umpire's timing was quick on it. Really, I can see both sides of this.

One book of OBR interpretations (Jaksa/Roder) says the call is indeed wrong--the fielder must hold onto the ball until he has control of his body. Jim Evans in his manual and at his school says he only needs to control the ball at the time of the tag; anything that happens afterwards is irrelevant. Several posters on the baseball forum have pointed out that this is the way it is called at the pro level and if this is the case, the call was correct according to the accepted interpretation. Like I said, though, the timing could have been better.

I do, however, find it difficult to reconcile the Evans interpretation with the case of a catcher being run over and dropping the ball when he hits the ground. I don't have an out in that case and I doubt many other baseball umpires would.

Many softball umpires (on this forum, I wont indict all of them) believe that a catcher dropping the ball on a play at home = out. They essentially advocate immediate nano second out, then all else is irrelevant. I have my doubts they call it that way on the field, but at a minimum that is the theory they press on this forum.

I would be more willing to accept that "out" is the good call in this case than I would the crash play at the plate. It does seem the catcher lost control due to impact with the ground.

With this play the catcher runs 70-80 feet with the ball, unlike the nano second play at the plate.

SRW

Anyone buy the loosely tied argument of "the ground can't cause a fumble?"

I got an out on this play, personally... but that's after watching the replays.

However, I think Wade has a point here. Watch where Wilke's looking when the ball pops out... not even watching the loose ball on the ground. Too quick of a call immediately after the tag, IMO.

BretMan

wadeintothem wrote
It does seem the catcher lost control due to impact with the ground.

Yep, he sure did!

He lost it AFTER making the tag with control of the ball, securely held in his mitt. And that is the standard for determining a valid tag.

From the point of the tag- and the umpire's signal of out- Varitek's momentum carried him an additional 8-10 feet before stumbling, hitting the ground and having the ball pop out. That he lost the ball at that point is moot- the tag had already been made and the runner was already out.

IRISHMAFIA

SRW wrote
However, I think Wade has a point here. Watch where Wilke's looking when the ball pops out... not even watching the loose ball on the ground. Too quick of a call immediately after the tag, IMO.

Why? Is there some secret rule that states a player must keep possession for a certain period of time after the tag is applied? Citations, please.

Who cares where the umpire was looking when the ball came out of the mitt? The umpire was in perfect position. Saw the tag by the catcher with possession of the ball and made the call. Any subsequent action is irrelevant to the tag and out call. As stated often in this discussion, do not confuse a "catch" with a "tag", it is not the same.

MLB Rule 2.00 Definitions:

A TAG is the action of a fielder in touching a base with his body while holding the
ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove; or touching a runner with the ball, or with his
hand or glove holding the ball, while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or
glove.

MLB Rule 7.08 Any Runner is Out When-

(c) He is tagged, when the ball is alive, while off his base. EXCEPTION: A batter-runner cannot be tagged out after overrunning or oversliding first base if he returns immediately to the base;
APPROVED RULING: (1) If the impact of a runner breaks a base loose from its position, no play can be made on that runner at that base if he had reached the base safely.
APPROVED RULING: (2) If a base is dislodged from its position during a play, any following runner on the same play shall be considered as touching or occupying the base if, in the umpire’s

As you can see, there is no requirement of time associated with the tag. ASA's rules are basically the same.

jmkupka

Mike, I appreciate the black-and-whiteness of your interpretation of the rule. It makes it so much easier to make this call.

Situation: F2 catches the incoming throw at the plate, the mitt is holding it securely as the runner slides into the mitt (6-8" up the line from the plate-whatever). The violent action of the foot hitting the mitt causes the ball to come out & roll away.
The instantaneous contact between foot and mitt is enough for the out?