Botched Squeeze, Tag @ 3rd

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 If there was no control of the ball, how is it the ball remained in the glove long after the tag was applied and then withdrawn from the runner?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

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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 If there was no control of the ball, how is it the ball remained in the glove long after the tag was applied and then withdrawn from the runner?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

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SRW

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?

[SRW]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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!

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.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

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.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

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.

[topper]

I'm a couple days late watching the video. I've been busy trying to convince some people that what we do has some monetary value.

I don't work baseball, so don't know their rules/interps other than what I have read on here. If this happened in a game I am working, I would probably rule safe. I was taught when considering control in these tag situations that if the ball comes out during an act associated with the tag itself, it is not controlled. To me, since the catcher's dive to make the tag was the same dive that dislodged the ball, he is still in the act of tagging the runner. However, I'm always open to enlightenment.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by topper

I don't work baseball, so don't know their rules/interps other than what I have read on here. If this happened in a game I am working, I would probably rule safe. I was taught when considering control in these tag situations that if the ball comes out during an act associated with the tag itself, it is not controlled. To me, since the catcher's dive to make the tag was the same dive that dislodged the ball, he is still in the act of tagging the runner. However, I'm always open to enlightenment.

I briefly mentioned this in another post. For those who mistakenly () believe that the fielder must maintain control of the ball after the tag has been made and glove withdrawn, how do you compare that with losing control of a ball "on the transfer" after a force out at a base?

Is the logic not the same? Fielder touching base, catches the ball (out) and then drops it when trying to remove the ball to make a subsequent play.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

For those who mistakenly () believe that the fielder must maintain control of the ball after the tag has been made and glove withdrawn,

Hey now, did you sneak in a "and glove withdrawn" when no one was looking and now quantify your mistaken nanosecond tagout/lose ball = out belief?

[topper]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Is the logic not the same? Fielder touching base, catches the ball (out) and then drops it when trying to remove the ball to make a subsequent play.

I think the key words here are "subsequent play". I agree there is no length of time to establish control, but there are actions involved with the play itself and subsequent actions that are not. However long it takes the player to finish the former and move on to the latter is how long it takes to convinve me of control.