Botched Squeeze, Tag @ 3rd
 

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

Any discussion?

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

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.

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:

Yeah, kinda dangerous of me. :D

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!" ;)

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

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. ;)

Apparently I am blocked from the video streams at work.

Don't trust you with the porn, huh? :D;)

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?

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

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.