Jump to content

Is Tangle Untangle applicable to shallow popup in HP cutout area?


udbrky
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 2632 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

Had this situation come close today in a fall Babe Ruth and I thought about the play later.

I had only ever envisioned T/U as F2 coming out to field a ground ball in the cutout area and BR and him bumping. But does it apply to a popup?

What about an IFF? I would assume we have IFF if fair, and if they bump and it goes foul, just foul ball, but if they bump and it is fair, batter out, no other penalties on a T/U or BR out for IFF and R2 out (being the closest runner to home)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is only an IFF if it is a routine catchable ball. A full swing pop-up (fair or pull foul) in the area of the plate/mound generally get some height to them, just because of the way it comes off the bat. If the ball is foul, then the batter is within his right to stay in the box. In a fair ball,the batter has the 'right' to leave his box and run directly to 1B, I think I would have to see it to call it, but I would say no to the pop-up, in general.

I don't really envision the tangle play on anything but a bunt, but as we all know anything can happen in this great game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was pretty easily catchable under normal effort. I mean it didn't get sky-high. Catcher and batter seemed to both react late. Batter moved out of lane just ahead of catcher coming through the lane and catching it.

 

It just sparked a "what if" scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, udbrky said:

It was pretty easily catchable under normal effort. I mean it didn't get sky-high. Catcher and batter seemed to both react late. Batter moved out of lane just ahead of catcher coming through the lane and catching it.

 

It just sparked a "what if" scenario.

I think it is a great  thought, but I don't remember ever seeing it in 35 years of umpiring, things just seem to work themselves out :) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, I hadn't either, and thought "huh, that could've been ugly" and the one coach asked me what would've happened if they collided and I explained protecting a fielder and compared it to other plays down the 1B line earlier, etc. Was a good discussion, and always fun to have a coach ask about things like that with the goal to learn in a genuine way.

 

So I looked in Wendelstedt and the OBR and didn't see anything specifying type of hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, udbrky said:

But does tangle/untangle apply to a popup?

Yes, any batted ball that might be fielded by F2.

1 hour ago, udbrky said:

What about an IFF?

If you're asking whether we can have tangle/untangle on an IFF, the answer is yes (see previous answer).

The rationale for tangle/untangle is that it would unduly burden either the BR or F2 to make one liable for contact as they are both "doing what they are supposed to do." That's a poor officiating mantra in general (too often used to justify an incorrect no-call), but it applies to tangle/untangle.

46 minutes ago, maineump said:

If the ball is foul, then the batter is within his right to stay in the box.

That's only half true. A batter who has the opportunity to vacate the space needed by the defense must do so. The box is not a safe haven in this case, though we do give the batter the benefit of the doubt: he's not required to disappear.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, udbrky said:

It was pretty easily catchable under normal effort. I mean it didn't get sky-high. Catcher and batter seemed to both react late. Batter moved out of lane just ahead of catcher coming through the lane and catching it.

 

It just sparked a "what if" scenario.

If the batter reacts late, he likely has given up his protection under this clause.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 10/15/2016 at 7:24 PM, noumpere said:

If the batter reacts late, he likely has given up his protection under this clause.

 

18 hours ago, udbrky said:

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/6479266/v31116737/1975-ws-gm3-fisk-gets-tangled-up-with-armbrister

 

That's the classic play I think we all look at for the grounder/bunt. 

So, since you two (NOUMPERE and udbrky) made very germane comments, do you think Armbrister "reacts late, and likely gave up his protection?"

41 years later and it's still split about 50-50.

I'll go ahead and state my opinion.  I think Armbrister "felt" Fisk from behind after he (Armbrister) started his reaction and actually mitigated a much worse collision.  I've seen the video 500 times and that's the body language I see.  I think the announcers were out of line.  Thought so when I was 11 years old and watching it live.

NO CALL = RIGHT CALL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
On 12/10/2016 at 0:49 PM, VolUmp said:

 

So, since you two (NOUMPERE and udbrky) made very germane comments, do you think Armbrister "reacts late, and likely gave up his protection?"

41 years later and it's still split about 50-50.

I'll go ahead and state my opinion.  I think Armbrister "felt" Fisk from behind after he (Armbrister) started his reaction and actually mitigated a much worse collision.  I've seen the video 500 times and that's the body language I see.  I think the announcers were out of line.  Thought so when I was 11 years old and watching it live.

NO CALL = RIGHT CALL.

Interesting - The first thing I see on this is it looks, to me, like his right foot is fully out of the box when he bunts the ball, making everything else moot; looking at 2:34 and knowing there is six inches between the box and the plate.   Never seeing this video before I had the batter out at contact, but what do I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting - The first thing I see on this is it looks, to me, like his right foot is fully out of the box when he bunts the ball, making everything else moot; looking at 2:34 and knowing there is six inches between the box and the plate.   Never seeing this video before I had the batter out at contact, but what do I know.

You mean to tell me his entire foot is in the channel behind the plate?

Didn't realize you had the 360degree panorama view we all missed.

Neither camera angle is nowhere near good enough to make that sort of statement.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ALStripes17 said:

You mean to tell me his entire foot is in the channel behind the plate?

Didn't realize you had the 360degree panorama view we all missed.

Neither camera angle is nowhere near good enough to make that sort of statement.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

My first thought, in real time, was the foot looked like it was outside the box.  And my first view of the second camera angle gave me no reason to change my first thought...in fact I'd say the second camera angle is more damning than the first.   Isn't it awful when someone makes a judgment call you don't agree with, something that seems so obvious to you but they somehow see something differently than you do, even when they're making the most of the information they have at the time?

Having said that, neither camera angle shows anything conclusively enough to overturn any call any umpire ever made on the field.  I wouldn't argue with any ump that made either call on the foot being in or out of the box....I think it's that close.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

 I wouldn't argue with any ump that made either call on the foot being in or out of the box...

Good, because no umpire — especially in 2-umpire mechanics — who's doing his job is going to see 99.5% of these infractions. The other 0.5% call themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, maven said:

Good, because no umpire — especially in 2-umpire mechanics — who's doing his job is going to see 99.5% of these infractions. The other 0.5% call themselves.

In my admittedly limited view of an umpire`s capabilities and jobs, I have always believed that the call of a foot in/out of the box, or hitting a foul ball off the toe (without having shoe polish), or whether or not the batted ball bounced up and hit the batter in the box, out of the box, or at all, are possibly the hardest calls a PU will ever have to make - and good luck to his partner 100 feet away having any better insight.   I'd say in my experience those are the calls umps get wrong more than any other, and to me it's expected.  (but still get it right more than we think)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

In my admittedly limited view of an umpire`s capabilities and jobs, I have always believed that the call of a foot in/out of the box, or hitting a foul ball off the toe (without having shoe polish), or whether or not the batted ball bounced up and hit the batter in the box, out of the box, or at all, are possibly the hardest calls a PU will ever have to make - and good luck to his partner 100 feet away having any better insight.   I'd say in my experience those are the calls umps get wrong more than any other, and to me it's expected.  (but still get it right more than we think)

The main priority is always the ball. As PU your main priority is balls and strikes, which means tracking the pitch. If you're doing this properly the chance of you seeing a foot out of the box is extremely minimal. Plus, when a batted ball bounces back up near the batter, it's entirely possible that the catcher and/or batter screen out the umpire. The umpire might have no look at all at the call that seems "obvious" to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

In my admittedly limited view of an umpire`s capabilities and jobs, I have always believed that the call of a foot in/out of the box, or hitting a foul ball off the toe (without having shoe polish),

I've always thought that this play should just be "play on" -- the ball becomes fair or foul depending on where it next goes / is touched (just like any other batted ball).

 

It's hard to see, even the pros get it wrong a lot, and if the batter doesn't like it, s/he should hit the ball somewhere else next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, jms1425 said:

Came upon this - nice comparison between the Armbrister play and another more recent example.

https://betterrulebook.wordpress.com/2015/06/29/tangleuntangle/

Who are the Angles (besides a tribe that invaded the British Isles after the Romans left)?

What I don't like about that blog post is hanging the ruling (correct no call in the 1975 WS play, and tangle/untangle generally) on the idea that "they're both doing what they're supposed to do." That's wrong and bad umpiring.

First, it's wrong because that's not the reason the play was correctly ruled: it was correctly ruled because of the tangle/no tangle exception to (old) 7.09(j). The Iassogna play was ruled correctly because he judged that the time frame for the exception expired while the BR was watching the ball come down, and that left the BR liable for INT. The blog poster's principle plays no role in these calls or in our assessment of them after the fact.

Second, it's bad umpiring because it encourages umpires to be lazy and take shortcuts. Some think, "oh, I don't need to know the rule book, I just need some general principles, like 'they're doing what they're supposed to do', so I guess I got nothin."

Example: A runner who is running collides with a fielder who is fielding a baseball. They're both doing what they're supposed to do, so we got nothing, right? Wrong: that's always something, depending on whether it's a batted ball or a thrown ball.

Lazy thinking leads to lazy umpiring. Now how do I get down off this high horse?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...