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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

If the foot hitting the mitt causes the ball to come loose, it wasn't held securely and firmly.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bingo. ;)

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.

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.

deal!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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...

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?

Fixed that for you. :)

"soccer is the sport of the future in America ... and always will be."
 

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

Yeah, part of that amount is due to ignorance. I love it when I as a parent, "why soccer" and they say, because they believe it is the safest summer sport.

I just laugh.

wow that is hopeful news.

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. :D

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 would love to see the site back and I really wish Rob the best. He seems like a great guy who wants to help all umpires, whatever level they work. Read this thread, though:
http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=49096
I wish Tim C. was 100% wrong just this once.

Thanks for the link!

Looks like sewing circle chatter to me.
hmm.. Lets pretend for a second tim is a high school baseball umpire.. oh that's right, he is. Tim knows exactly nothing of the content of Rob's MLB Umpire Evaluations. Give me a break.

What ever happens happens, and is WELL above Tim C's pay grade.

I also wish Rob Drake the best.

I briefly mentioned this in another post. For those who mistakenly (:D) 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.

That must be it! :rolleyes:

I did just view the video at home though, where I can watch all of the porn that I want to, and to me it seems to be a very simple call. The umpire got it correct and Soscia got it wrong.

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?:D

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.

Maybe that's the difference in our opinion. I don't look for the control, but lack of it. I'm not looking to be convinced of anything. If a scenario may require a player to "sell" something, then maybe I might need to be convinced s/he is correct, but not normally.

Whether you look for lack of control and see it or I look for control and don't see it, we come to the same conclusion - lack of control. You may have to explain the difference more thoroughly.

As far as being convinced, I probably should have said what I need to be convinced of is that any lack of control is due to actions involving a subsequent play. If not convinced, I would not have an out.