The Official Forum
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   Botched Squeeze, Tag @ 3rd (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/49265-botched-squeeze-tag-3rd.html)

wadeintothem Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SethPDX (Post 541855)
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 Wed Oct 08, 2008 01:34am
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 Wed Oct 08, 2008 06:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by wadeintothem (Post 541886)
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 Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRW (Post 541896)

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 Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:34am
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?

Dakota Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:45am
If the foot hitting the mitt causes the ball to come loose, it wasn't held securely and firmly.

jmkupka Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:59am
Absolutely, but as opposed to being juggled/ rolling around in the glove, it was squeezed tightly at the moment of contact (just not tightly enough).

I guess I'm splitting hairs, but in the OP, would it still have been a good call if the ball came out before he hit the ground (as he flew through the air)? That is to say, the only other force that caused it to come out was the tag itself.

IRISHMAFIA Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmkupka (Post 541962)
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?
What Tom said.

Remember, I am discussing a certain play where a tag was executed by a fielder with possession of the ball. To demonstrate the possession, the fielder was capable of withdrawing the mitt/hand with the ball in it. At that point, the tag is complete. There is no rule in any book which has been cited in the thread that states the fielder must continue to maintain possession of the ball for any certain period of time.

Now, in the play cited at the top of the thread, if the catcher had slapped the runner with the mitt and the ball came out as a result of that action, the tag was not complete and the runner is not out because, like in the play to which Tom responded, the ball came loose because of the tag, not subsequent to it.

NCASAUmp Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 541964)
If the foot hitting the mitt causes the ball to come loose, it wasn't held securely and firmly.
I agree. Only exception in my opinion is if the runner deliberately and obviously kicks or hits the glove with the intent of knocking the ball loose (ie., what A-Rod did a few years ago). Then I'd have an out.

Dakota Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCASAUmp (Post 541971)
I agree. Only exception in my opinion is if the runner deliberately and obviously kicks or hits the glove with the intent of knocking the ball loose (ie., what A-Rod did a few years ago). Then I'd have an out.
But for a different reason - interference.

SRW Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 541956)
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.
Oh don't get me wrong... I think he got the call right. And please don't patronize me - you know as well as I do that there's no time frame.

There is absolutely a reason to keep your eyes on the rest of the play. Why do you think we're taught to not turn our head on a 3K sell out with runners on base?

All I'm saying here is that IMO, Wilke turned away from the play to make his call, and probably didn't see the ball come loose, for whatever reason - ground, bag, bobble, interference, whatever. Did him looking away affect the call? No.

NCASAUmp Wed Oct 08, 2008 01:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 541980)
But for a different reason - interference.
Bingo. ;)

SethPDX Wed Oct 08, 2008 03:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by wadeintothem (Post 541886)
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.
That's what I was thinking. If the catcher drops the ball on a play at the plate, baseball or softball, I'm probably going to have a safe call since in my judgment a nanosecond is not quite long enough to demonstrate control ;). I also think the call at 3B was correct since I thought the catcher held the ball long enough after the tag.

I'm also glad Tim Welke has gone a long way towards settling a long debate in both baseball and softball umpiring.

IRISHMAFIA Wed Oct 08, 2008 04:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRW (Post 541986)
All I'm saying here is that IMO, Wilke turned away from the play to make his call, and probably didn't see the ball come loose, for whatever reason - ground, bag, bobble, interference, whatever. Did him looking away affect the call? No.
I just watched the play three more times and I don't see the umpire turning away from the play. To me, it seemed he had everything in his visual range. Just because he doesn't stare directly at the ball for the duration doesn't mean was not aware of what was happening. He had the call all the way. He saw the tag (and obviously determined possession of the ball) and made the call. For that matter, when the ball comes out, he points to the base and repeats the call for the retired runner. This is exactly the same we all do (or should do) when a ball is dropped on the exchange when there is an attempted throw to complete a double play.

wadeintothem Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 541956)
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.
deal!

Quote:
MLB 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.
As you can see in the above rule that I was able to locate, the ball must be firmly and securely held. Dropping a ball can be evidence that the ball is not securely and firmly held.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:54pm.
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1