The Official Forum

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)

IRISHMAFIA Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:40am

Botched Squeeze, Tag @ 3rd
 
http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200810073600013

Any discussion?

MNBlue Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:47am

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

Dakota Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:47am

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...

IRISHMAFIA Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:56am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 541681)
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.

NCASAUmp Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:22pm

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."

IRISHMAFIA Tue Oct 07, 2008 01:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp (Post 541701)
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:

NCASAUmp Tue Oct 07, 2008 02:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 541741)
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!" ;)

Al Tue Oct 07, 2008 02:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp (Post 541701)
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."

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

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.

NCASAUmp Tue Oct 07, 2008 02:36pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al (Post 541758)
-------------

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. ;)

Skahtboi Tue Oct 07, 2008 02:50pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 541679)


Apparently I am blocked from the video streams at work.

IRISHMAFIA Tue Oct 07, 2008 04:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skahtboi (Post 541776)
Apparently I am blocked from the video streams at work.

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

wadeintothem Tue Oct 07, 2008 07:48pm

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.

IRISHMAFIA Tue Oct 07, 2008 09:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by wadeintothem (Post 541815)
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 Tue Oct 07, 2008 09:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 541836)
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

SethPDX Tue Oct 07, 2008 09:53pm

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 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.

Dakota Thu Oct 09, 2008 09:15am

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

Al Thu Oct 09, 2008 03:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 542160)
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 Thu Oct 09, 2008 03:35pm

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 Thu Oct 09, 2008 07:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 542287)
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 Thu Oct 09, 2008 07:19pm

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 Thu Oct 09, 2008 08:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 542342)
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 Fri Oct 10, 2008 01:10am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 542160)
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 Fri Oct 10, 2008 07:26am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al (Post 542349)
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 Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:24am

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 542398)
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 Fri Oct 10, 2008 03:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al (Post 542449)

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

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 Fri Oct 10, 2008 04:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 542491)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 542491)
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 Fri Oct 10, 2008 04:31pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 542491)
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 Fri Oct 10, 2008 04:47pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al (Post 542504)
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 Fri Oct 10, 2008 04:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp (Post 542508)
American Football?

Fixed that for you. :)

Dakota Fri Oct 10, 2008 05:27pm

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

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp (Post 542508)
Soccer?

Quote:

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)

IRISHMAFIA Fri Oct 10, 2008 07:05pm

Quote:

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.
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.

wadeintothem Fri Oct 10, 2008 07:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SethPDX (Post 542497)
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...

wow that is hopeful news.

topper Fri Oct 10, 2008 08:11pm

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.

SethPDX Fri Oct 10, 2008 09:53pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by wadeintothem (Post 542531)
wow that is hopeful news.

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.

wadeintothem Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:27pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SethPDX (Post 542539)
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.

IRISHMAFIA Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:47pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by topper (Post 542534)
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 (: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.

Skahtboi Sun Oct 12, 2008 03:34pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 541796)
Don't trust you with the porn, huh? :D;)

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.

wadeintothem Sun Oct 12, 2008 07:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 542544)
For those who mistakenly (:D) 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?:D

topper Mon Oct 13, 2008 07:06am

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 542544)
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.

IRISHMAFIA Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:04am

Quote:

Originally Posted by topper (Post 542771)
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.

topper Mon Oct 13, 2008 01:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 542811)
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:56am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1