Botched Squeeze, Tag @ 3rd

[Dakota]

I didn't see anything in the rule you cited about a certain period of time.

[Al]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I didn't see anything in the rule you cited about a certain period of time.

Hey tom,

Sec.33 in the USSSA rule book states...

"A tag out is the putting out of a runner who is not touching a base, by touching the runner with a live ball, or the glove or hand when the live ball is SECURELY HELD therein by a fielder. The ball is NOT considered as having been held securely if it is juggled or dropped AFTER the touching unless the runner deliberately knocks the ball from the hand of the fielder".

To me, speaking U-trip, the rule says to wait to see if the fielder met the requirement of the tag-out rule. The rule calls for a secure tag not just a tag. So if a ball comes out of a glove BEFORE it is shown to be held securely, by rule, we have a safe call.

[Dakota]

I agree with all of that, but still, the judgment is that the ball was securely held, not that it was held "long enough."

[Al]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I agree with all of that, but still, the judgment is that the ball was securely held, not that it was held "long enough."

Dakota,

I understand that, but the rule on tag-outs says the ball is NOT considered as having been HELD securely if juggled or dropped AFTER the TOUCHING ((unless the runner deliberately knocks the ball from the hand of the fielder)). So, really it has nothing to do with being held long enough but what happens after the touching. According to rule a ball that is bobbled after the touching is not a ball that is securely held. What does the wording of the USSSA rule tell us? It tells us that a controlled tag must include controll of the ball after the touching, and not just at the touching, unless the bobbling or dropping of a ball was a result of being intentionally knocked loose by a fielder.

Let's consider this play: An open field swipe tag is made to a runners chest and the runners arm unintentionally hits the glove as the fielder is pulling the glove away from the runner and the ball is dropped. Would the umpire just assume the tag was securely held, or would he/she say the tag was good and the girl is out? The fact that she dropped the ball shows she didn't have firm control of the ball so without an infraction by the runner she would not be called out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Al,

If you want to take the U-trip rule literally, there needs to be a time that is considered long enough since they specifically stated "after" the tag. Does that mean that if a player applies a tag for an out and turns and high-fives his fellow defender and the ball pops out, the tag is no good? If not, why not, it was "after" the tag.

[Al]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Al,

If you want to take the U-trip rule literally, there needs to be a time that is considered long enough since they specifically stated "after" the tag. Does that mean that if a player applies a tag for an out and turns and high-fives his fellow defender and the ball pops out, the tag is no good? If not, why not, it was "after" the tag.

Hey Mike,

When a fielder makes a tag the umpire waits to see if the fielder is bobbling the ball or drops the ball. Why would he do that if all is required is to touch a runner with the ball, whether he has proven control of it, or not? He waits to see if the fielder has control at the time of the touching. What constitutes a controlled tag is defined by the rule. A ball must not be bobbled or dropped after the touch. Common sense tells us this does not mean bobbled or dropped after control is clearly shown and the umpire makes the out call. After making a secure tag then dropping the ball while giving a high five would not constitute a non-controlled tag. Nor would a ball that was knocked loose by the ground after being held firmly after the touching. IMO, the rule tells us what constitutes a secure and controlled tag.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I didn't see anything in the rule you cited about a certain period of time.

I agree.. that I leave to judgment as to whether it is truly securely held.. or perhaps not so securely held..

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Al

Hey Mike,

When a fielder makes a tag the umpire waits to see if the fielder is bobbling the ball or drops the ball. Why would he do that if all is required is to touch a runner with the ball, whether he has proven control of it, or not? He waits to see if the fielder has control at the time of the touching. What constitutes a controlled tag is defined by the rule. A ball must not be bobbled or dropped after the touch. Common sense tells us this does not mean bobbled or dropped after control is clearly shown and the umpire makes the out call. After making a secure tag then dropping the ball while giving a high five would not constitute a non-controlled tag. Nor would a ball that was knocked loose by the ground after being held firmly after the touching. IMO, the rule tells us what constitutes a secure and controlled tag.

Which brings us right back to the ruling. The ball is under the control of the fielder. The tag is made. As long as the ball is not lost during the tag, the runner is out. Now, your rule has added wording which states that a ball juggled or dropped AFTER (your emphasis) the touching. U-trip has now prolonged the agony which prompted Tom and myself to ask how long after.

If a ball is in the glove, it is securely held. Put a ball in a glove and hit a wall. If that ball does not pop out of the glove upon contact, that is securely held. Now, take a ball in your bare hand and tag the wall. The only way that ball is not securely held is if you intentionally release your grip or never had the ball to begin. That, I believe, is where this rule probably originated, not as a test of perserverance looking to negate a play resulting in an out.

[Al]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Which brings us right back to the ruling. The ball is under the control of the fielder. The tag is made. As long as the ball is not lost during the tag, the runner is out. Now, your rule has added wording which states that a ball juggled or dropped AFTER (your emphasis) the touching. U-trip has now prolonged the agony which prompted Tom and myself to ask how long after.

If a ball is in the glove, it is securely held. Put a ball in a glove and hit a wall. If that ball does not pop out of the glove upon contact, that is securely held. Now, take a ball in your bare hand and tag the wall. The only way that ball is not securely held is if you intentionally release your grip or never had the ball to begin. That, I believe, is where this rule probably originated, not as a test of perserverance looking to negate a play resulting in an out.

Mike,

I asked Rob Drake (Major League Baseball Umpire) what he would have called in the sit below that DaveASA/Fed posted a couple of years ago.

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

"Here is the play: R1 rounds 3rd heading home, F2 receives ball and tags R1 prior to reaching plate. BUT, as she is completing the tag on the up swing (swipe tag) the mitt hits the runners knee and the ball falls out as she is bringing the mitt up. To better describe the situation, F2 was pulled to behind LH batters box to get throw, she is coming up to make tag and swings from her R to L contacting R1's outstretched foot up her leg and then as she is coming up with it R1's other shin/knee contacts the mitt and the ball comes out.

So now the question: Do we have an out? How do you determine how long she has to have control of the ball before calling the out?

I see it as control has to be maintained until completion of the play. Meaning in this case until she brings the mitt up to complete the tag, and / or tries to make another move with it. A fellow blue thought the contact with the lead foot and leg gave her the out, and the following knee / shin contact that knocked the ball loose didn't matter. What say you all?

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

I don't recall the exact quote but Rob Drake basically said in every rule set he knows of this would be a safe call, because the catcher did not maintain control of the ball throughout the entire slide. He clearly did not show control or the ball would not have been knocked loose.

-------

I see what you and Tom are saying, but I don't see how it can possibly line up with: "The ball is NOT considered as having been held securely if it is juggled or dropped AFTER the touching unless the runner deliberately knocks the ball from the hand of the fielder". The rule could have said (upon, or during, the tag) instead of after the tag, if that's what they wanted to communicate. Fun at the ole' ball park... Al

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Al

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

I don't recall the exact quote but Rob Drake basically said in every rule set he knows of this would be a safe call, because the catcher did not maintain control of the ball throughout the entire slide. He clearly did not show control or the ball would not have been knocked loose.

Not that it is a surprise, but the MLB rule does not support Mr. Drake's interpretation. Now, they may very well have another interp, but MLB often includes permissible rulings where there may be a question in the rule book itself.

To me, this interp and U-trips wording is just a search for a gotcha on the defense, probably spurned on by player's belief.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Not that it is a surprise, but the MLB rule does not support Mr. Drake's interpretation. Now, they may very well have another interp, but MLB often includes permissible rulings where there may be a question in the rule book itself.

The problem with OBR is that there are ARs and comments from the long-dead MLB casebook in the copy of OBR you buy at the bookstore or download, but there are many more explanations and comments found only in the Jaksa/Roder guide and MiLB manual (both available for the public to purchase), or the manual Jim Evans gives you at his school and the MLB Umpire Manual (neither of which are available to the general umpiring public). To really understand OBR an umpire needs to obtain and study more than just the rulebook itself. I like the idea of one publication like ASA's rulebook that has all the ARs in it.

Like I said, now we know for sure what MLB's position is on this rule.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

To me, this interp and U-trips wording is just a search for a gotcha on the defense, probably spurned on by player's belief.

It looks like U-trip is alone in their version of this rule. Just something for umpires who work multiple rulesets to be aware of.

As for Mr. Drake, who ran an excellent site and seemed like a great guy, a well-respected poster on the baseball board suggested that soon, no MiLB or MLB exec will care that he has a website...

[Al]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Not that it is a surprise, but the MLB rule does not support Mr. Drake's interpretation. Now, they may very well have another interp, but MLB often includes permissible rulings where there may be a question in the rule book itself.

To me, this interp and U-trips wording is just a search for a gotcha on the defense, probably spurned on by player's belief.

Mike,

This is a great site because of you and others, who are willing to take the time to share their extensive and comprehensive knowledge of the best game on earth! Thanks. ...Al

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Al

Mike,

This is a great site because of you and others, who are willing to take the time to share their extensive and comprehensive knowledge of the best game on earth! Thanks. ...Al

Soccer?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

American Football?

Fixed that for you.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Soccer?

England invented soccer. France organized it. Brazil perfected it. And America ... ignores it.

Esquire columnist Chuck Klosterman, who once worked for the Akron Beacon Journal, has spent much of his life railing against soccer, a.k.a. the "sport of the future" in America.

He once wrote, "People continue to tell me that soccer will soon become part of the fabric of this country and that soccer will eventually be as popular as football, basketball, karate, pinball, smoking, glue sniffing, menstruation, animal cruelty, photocopying and everything else that fuels the eroticized, hyperkinetic zeitgeist of Americana."

After the U.S. team finished eighth in the 2002 World Cup, team forward Clint Mathis said, "If we can turn one more person who wasn't a soccer fan into a soccer fan, we've accomplished something."

"Apparently," Klosterman writes, "that's all that matters to these idiots. They won't be satisfied until we're all systematically brainwashed into thinking soccer is cool and that placing eighth (and losing to Poland!) is somehow noble."

He later writes that he'd be willing to die a painful public death, assuming his execution destroys the game of soccer "or, at the very least, convinces people to shut up about it."

Soccer is, of course, the No. 1 youth participation sport in the country — about four million kids under 18 play in youth leagues and millions more play on their own — but Klosterman argues those numbers are misleading.

"The truth is that most children don't love soccer," he writes. "They simply hate the alternatives more."

Simply put, he says, it's hard to be humiliated in soccer. (Unless you're a goalie.) You can't drop a fly ball, you can't airball a free throw and you can't get annihilated by that kid in your fourth grade class with a mustache.

"A normal 11-year-old can play an entire season without placing toe to sphere and nobody would even notice, assuming he or she does a proper job of running about and avoiding major collisions," Klosterman writes. "It's the only sport where you can't [screw] up."

It's also one of the few sports in America that kids play but don't watch. In 1994, soccer finished 67th — after tractor-pulling — in a pre-World Cup poll asking Americans to rank their favorite spectator sport. Those numbers are undoubtedly higher now — "Much more popular than freeze tag," could be the official motto of Major League Soccer — but for whatever reason, it just hasn't caught on as a spectator sport.

MLS has done better than any other American soccer league — attendance at games hovers between 10,000 and 30,000 a game, depending on where it's played — although half of the players on D.C. United (the model franchise in MLS) will make less than $36,500, which is less than Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez will make per at-bat this year.

The Women's United Soccer Association was created after America's thrilling victory in the Women's World Cup in 1998 — I've actually asked Brandi Chastain about her infamous sports bra, which was pretty cool — but, like most pro soccer leagues in America, it folded.

Sports Illustrated writer Frank Deford — another soccer critic — lumps soccer in with sports such as swimming or jogging. It's something people do, not something people watch.

"But soccer leagues always seem to burst forth, to tease us into thinking that this time America will succumb to the same boring, scoreless game that the rest of the world has always settled for," he once wrote. "Then even the soccer players go back to watching the NFL."

(Or, to use the oft-quoted phrase, "soccer is the sport of the future in America ... and always will be.")

For most of my life, the popularity of soccer seemed like a myth, like the Greek gods, George Washington and the cherry tree or Michael Bolton's record sales.

Hearing that soccer was the world's most popular sport was sort of like hearing that broccoli was the world's most popular food. You want to ask, "Have you tried pizza?"

Still, a few more Americans will undoubtedly become soccer fans this month. A few more will rail against it. And in the end, when NFL training camps open in July, everyone will go back to watching football. (The American kind.)

Until then, I hope the soccer-haters can leave the soccer-lovers alone, the soccer-lovers will quit trying to push their sport on the soccer-haters and that, in the end, the entire world will unite in the one sports activity we can all get behind:

Hating NASCAR.

--Joe Scalzo, a sportswriter for The Vindicator. (slightly edited)