Here it is.
ASA 14U.
Bases loaded. Bunt to F5 throw to F2 who has foot on plate. F2 catches ball which beats R. R slides taking out F2. PU calls R out. As they both get up glove (ball still in it) are on ground. 3B Coach appeals, DROPPED BALL.
PU consults BU and changes call to SAFE. Def. Coach argues dropped ball after the out doesn't apply on a force and has to settle for a protest.
The PROTEST: After game PU and BU state neither saw the glove come off. Def. Coach again argues that PU obviously saw an out occure (ball caught catchers foot makes contact with plate before runner) so dropped ball doesn't apply on a force out so why the change in the call.
What did Def. Manager do wrong in making a case for this poor call.

I can only presume from your last comment that the protest was not overturned and that the safe call stood. From your discription I would <b><i>think</i></b> this would be an out since ball control on a force play does not have the same parameters as ball control on a tag play. But it is something that would definitely have to be seen to be ruled on.

I cannot see anyway that a protest committee would want to overrule this judgement call. If I would have been the defensive coach on the field I would have probably said:

I can only presume the ball player had control of the ball since you initially ruled it out. After the catcher fell to the ground, did you see at what point the ball fell out? Well it was obviously that it was after she had caught the ball, had control of it and touched the base, since you ruled it out.

But this is just debate skills.

Nothing, 'cause s/he shouldn't have had to make a case if the play happened as you stated. Unless the glove came off instantaneously with the catch, an out occurred. The ONLY thing the BU could add to this was that from his/her angle, s/he saw that the catcher never controlled the ball (which you did not include in your scenario, so I assume that is not the case).

Actually, the manager should have gotten the PU to admit that the catcher, at some point, had control of the ball which would lock in an "out" call.

I agree with MIke. The way it is presented, F2 made
the catch, got hit by the sliding R1 and then lost
glove/ball. Same as force at 1B, or any other base.
As soon as ball in glove [and it must have been since
it was still there on ground], out. Don't know what
BU could have seen, but judging by the after the fact
conversation, obviously, nothing.

BTW, Welcome to the board.

glen

I see I need to work on my debate skills.
Yes the BU had nothing to add, neither saw glove come off, but both saw it on groung after play.
You are correct, I should have
#1 gotten an acknowlegement from both PU and BU that from the initial call, throw beat runner.
#2 on force "with a caught ball" dropped ball afterwards is irrelevent
Thanks for your replys.

To clarify (I hope):
The catcher or other fielder needs control at the time of whatever causes the out. If it is a force, tag-up appeal, etc. and touching the base/plate causes the out, that is when control is needed. On a tag-the-runner play, control is required at the time of the tag and can not be lost as a result of the tag.
In the above case, does anyone think the runner interfered or crashed by "taking out F2"?

Depends on if the slide was legal. It is legal to make contact with a fielder in possession of the ball on a slide, but it is not legal to slide with the feet high or hooking the feet or whatever with intent to "take out" the fielder. I would assume from the coach's comments, that the take out was the result of a legal slide (but it is only an assumption).