Runner pulls on catcher's glove during slide
 

Situation: R1 on 2B. Batter-runner hits a single to centerfield. R1 rounds 3B and comes home. The throw to F2 is in plenty of time. F2 establishes a legal position in possession of the ball in the baseline between HP and 3B, inside the RH batter's box. R1 slides to the foul side of the baseline, feet first. The tag is made on the torso, but as F2 raises the glove off of R1's body, R1's arms contact the glove. R1 pulls on the glove as her momentum carries her past F2, where she touches HP. The ball comes out. BR advances to 2B when she sees the dropped ball.

What's the correct call? Who, if anyone, is out? Does the ball remain live?

Ruleset: NCAA and/or ASA

Did the runner physically grab the glove and pull on it, or was it just part of the slide with the catchers glove getting tangled up in the runners arms and the ball coming out?

One of those times you must judge intent.

From what I saw, the runner held on to the glove and pulled it with her as she slid past.

Then that is an act of interference. Did the interference happen after she scored?

EDIT: Wait... I'm not sure I understand the timing of all of this. Was the tag applied before she scored, so she was out on the tag and then she interfered and caused the ball to come out and then she touched home?

This is the correct order of events as I saw it. This all happens in the half-second it takes to slide home. The pull on the glove was short, reminiscent of an infamous Alex Rodriguez play some years back.
EDIT to add: I really wish I had a video of the play to share, as just writing/talking about this play does not do justice to the speed of the game.

Looks like runner closest to home is out as well...

As described, sounds like could judge F2 had control of ball in glove and made a proper legal tag on R1s torso prior to R1 touching home. R1 out.

Now R1 continues sliding by and F2s glove comes off R1s torso and R1 grabs F2s glove briefly causing the ball to come out. Not going to negate the out if judged that F2 already had control when applying the tag. Next decision is did the action of retired R1 interfere with defense making another play? Only then can you get another out on this IMO.

Asa requires the fielder to demonstrate control of the ball throughout the tag. Simply having control when the tag is initially applied is not an out if the fielder does not keep control of the ball.

Now, if the runner intentionally grabbed the glove causing the ball to come out that is a different story.

When does "throughout the tag" end? If she had ball securely before and after taking the runner on the mid torso, then after the tag has come off the runners torso contact by the runner hand causes the ball to come out I still have a tag and an out. Maybe INT by retired runner if there was another play to be made which R1 took away.

But I agree if cannot determine that F2 controlled the ball throughout the tag and the action of F2 tugging at the glove is what caused control to be lossed then the tag is no good but the runner has interfered prior to scoring so dead ball she is out return other runners to last base reached time of interference.

The clarification does not define what through the tag is, but if the fielder still has the glove on the runner I would say they are still in the process of applying the tag. Until they pull the ball away demonstrating control of the ball, they have not completed the process of the tag.

R1 is out at this point. Any subsequent action is irrelevant to this player's status.

Based on the assumption there is a possible play since R2 is attempting to advance, INT on a retired player, runner closest to home is out

Citation please

July 2013 Plays and Clarifications.
PLAY: No outs, bases empty. B1 hits a ball to the LC field fence. In trying to stretch the play into a triple, B1 gets caught in a run down between second and third base. During the rundown F6 dives and tags B1 on the back. F6 falls to the ground and the ball pops out of F6’s glove. The umpire rules B1 out.

RULING: B1 is out since F6 had control of the ball and completed the tag before hitting the ground and losing possession of the ball. F6 is only required to have control of the ball through the tag process to have an out. Rule 1 Tag, Rule 8, Section 7B

2007 ASA case play 1-78

B1 hits a ground ball to F3 who gathers in the ball, runs over the the 1st baseline, tags B1 then juggles the ball and drops it.

Ruling, Because F3 did not securely hold the ball, B1 is safe.

Interference, the runner was already retired, so the interference by a retired runner rules would apply.

Not applicable, different play, scenario and rule

How is 8-8-g not applicable? The runner is not out when off a base and touched with a ball not securely held by the fielder.

And as for the clarification, the rule cite in it is the same for rule 1 tag, but the actual rule they cite is for the out call based on the ball coming out after falling to the ground.

I can see how that may be confusing. Define "tag process".

There is no "process", the "tag" is the touching of the runner or batter-runner with the ball while securely held in the hand or glove.

There is no requirement, by rule or definition to maintain subsequent control for any period of time once the tag is executed.

If the ball is lost at the time of the tag, obviously the ball was not securely held. If lost after the time of the tag, the runner or batter-runner is out.

The question here for me is how to handle the runner that is active and advancing. I agree that the runner that was tagged is out. If the the other runner only attempted to advance after the ball was on the ground, do we really have interference? The way I am reading the scenario and visualizing the play, that it what I am seeing.

I think that I just kill the play and return the runner to the last base touched.

This is what we did. We ruled that the runner was guilty of INT, but was not yet a retired runner. She interfered during an active play on herself.

After the fact, I was not able to find a rule reference in the NCAA book that I liked for my own rule support. So I posted here. :D

Gotta ask. What is the premise allowing you to kill the ball? :)

Based on your previous posts, I'm having a hard time understanding how she had not been retired yet? From the description provided, I see a tag applied to the torso, then as the tag was being lifted off the torso, the arm grabs the glove and pulls the glove. The out was recorded as soon as she was tagged with the glove holding the ball.

I guess the bang-bang nature of the play can be used as a way to say she wasn't retired.

I think what is more important in that discussion is the nature of the actions by the batter-runner. Since it appears from your post she did not attempt to advance until the ball came loose as a result of the interference, there is no play to be made on he advancement, since the advancement didn't begin until the interference which kills the play.

Well....I'm not calling interference, since there was no play being interfered with. I'm also not letting the base runner advance due to the ball being on the ground because of the retired runners intentional action of pulling the glove off of the catcher.

I think I could invoke the "umpires may rule on anything not specifically covered in these rules" (15.2) clause here.....

This is a "big bucks" play.
Decide instantly if the tag was controlled and successful, before judging the INT possibility.
Obviously the runner caused hindrance to the catcher after that.
Then, if BR/R2 was not advancing or retreating; play on. If then, the catcher attempts a play on R2 that might succeed, rule INT and R2 is out.

The problem is if you are not ruling interference, you have to call the runner safe at home. The ball was not controlled in the tag because the glove was ripped off during the action of the tag.

In my opinion, kill the play, rule the runner out for interference. This also prevents the runner at first from advancing to second.

That is not what is in the OP
"The tag is made on the torso, but as F2 raises the glove off of R1's body",
That is an out no matter which way you want to spin it. Any subsequent rule application must apply to another runner.

Andy may have misquoted me. The glove wasn't pulled off, it was just pulled and the ball came out. If I see a runner pull a fielder's glove OFF, I think I have a much easier INT call and maybe an ejection.

What if the tag is made, but as F2 raises the glove, the ball squirts out on its own? That's not an out, and that's why we need timing and need to see the whole play. :) I can't know whether or not F2 was going to keep possession absent the INT. As I wrote before, I ruled that the contact with the glove after the initial tag was interference with the tag itself, and R1 was out. If I'm wrong, I am OK with that, and I'll work to do better on the "big bucks" aspect of the game next time.

I was looking at an old book.

The rule references (from the 2010 book) I can find on the situation is 8-6-18 and 8-6-10d

"After being declared out or after scoring, a runner intentionally interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. "

The problem with using this rule reference is that only half of it is correct, therefore the ruling is not correct for the circumstances. As others have said, there was no play being made on another runner, until the actions of the retired runner happened. This means tis really doesn't apply. I don't think you can allow a play to happen as a result of the actions of intentional interference by the offense.

The other rule reference is:

ART. 10 . . . The runner interferes: a. with a fielder attempting to make the initial play on a fair batted ball. b. with a fielder attempting to field a fly ball over foul territory. c. with a fielder attempting to throw the ball. d. intentionally with a fielder or thrown ball.

She clearly interfered with the fielder, but this reference is not valid either because she is not a runner at this point (if we rule F2 did not lose possession making the tag), she has become a retired runner.


I think this play has to be killed, and since I can't find a specific reference to the play in the book, I would use 10-3g (from 2010 book) to kill the play and issue the ruling. This specific instance is not covered in the book.

I also think, depending on how this occurred, you also have a possible unsportsmanlike conduct issue. Would this require an ejection? Most likely not, but a warning yes.

All in all I think this is a HTBT situation because only then can you really see and judge the intent of the player attempting to score, and that is what everything else is based on, her intent.

:D :D :D :D :D

My point and in closing, the play and most responses prove this is a HTBT play, way too many variables.

It is an out if IMJ the player had possession and securely held the ball at the time of the tag.

I know what the definition of a tag out is for NFHS, but IMO is too vague. According to the definition, F6 could tag out a runner at 2nd, and in an effort to leave the area trip/fall and lose control of the ball and that would negate the tag out.

If you can find a case play stating otherwise, I would love to know as I cannot find one