Jump to content
VolUmp

Tag or no tag

Recommended Posts

OBR  Play at the Plate.

R3 slides into home legally.

F2 tags the runner and the ball pops up in the air.

F2 lunges for it, and catches it before it hits the ground.  Umpire rules “SAFE” and makes the “juggle” mechanic.

The explanation given the coach was, “The catcher didn’t maintain control of the ball during the tag.  It’s irrelevant whether the ball hit the ground.”

This made me re-read the definition of TAG from OBR, and I still don’t know if the call was right or wrong. 

TAG

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 (not including hanging laces alone), while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove. It is not a tag, however, if simultaneously or immediately following his touching a base or touching a runner, the fielder drops loses secure possession of the ball. In establishing the validity of the tag, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball. If the fielder has made a tag and drops loses secure possession of the ball while in the act of making a throw following the tag, the tag shall be adjudged to have been made.

Edited by VolUmp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register or Sign In to remove these ads

Drop = lose secure possession. Ground is irrelevant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FED definition is much clearer.

Drop can only mean “lose secure possession” if an approved interp manual states that.  (I presume that is the case.)  Otherwise, it would mean “fell to the ground” by common sense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, VolUmp said:

The FED definition is much clearer.

Drop can only mean “lose secure possession” if an approved interp manual states that.  Otherwise, it would mean “fell to the ground” by common sense.  I presume that is the case.

Forget the dropping. Did the fielder have secure possession when he made the tag? If the ball popped loose when he made the tag then it wasn't secure was it? Not secure = not a tag.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, VolUmp said:

The FED definition is much clearer.

Drop can only mean “lose secure possession” if an approved interp manual states that.  (I presume that is the case.)  Otherwise, it would mean “fell to the ground” by common sense.  

Common sense has nothing to do with it (and my common sense says that drop means to lose one's grip on).

It's a balk when F1 drops the ball while engaged, even if he catches it before it hits the ground.

And we don't need (nor does FED require) an interpretation of every word in the book.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, VolUmp said:

 

This made me re-read the definition of TAG from OBR, and I still don’t know if the call was right or wrong. 

 

1

This is going to sound a little snarky, and I don't mean it that way.  But, this is one example of a concept that the NFHS looks at in the rules making -- if you (and I don't really mean you specifically) can't get this right, then how can they expect umpires to get all the other stuff right unless it's "dumbed down."  See: dead ball balks, pitching restrictions, etc.  FED tries to remove as much judgment as they can from some of the rules.

 

And, yes, you are to be commended for seeking the right answer -- but the vast majority of umpires wouldn't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fed Rule 2-24-4:

A tag out is the put out of a runner, including the batter-runner, who is not in contact with his base when touched with a live ball, or with the glove or hand when the live ball is held securely therein by a fielder.  The ball is not considered as having been securely held if it is juggled or dropped after the touching, unless the runner deliberately knocks the ball from the hand of the fielder (8-4-2h2)

Someone (Maven, you come to mind with your rules mastery) can correct me if I'm wrong, but I equate the action of a tag with the action of a catch.  That is, a player has to demonstrate secure possession of the ball throughout the "continuing action" of the play as demonstrated by control of one's body and/or voluntary release of the baseball.  I distinctly remember a video clip from the CWS a couple years ago where F1 fielded a bouncer close to the first base line and dived to tag the batter-runner and lost control of the ball when he contacted the ground (well after the tag was made).  

The umpire was miked and you could hear him explain to the coach that the pitcher had to demonstrate "control of his body" throughout the play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, noumpere said:

This is going to sound a little snarky

Didn't sound snarky at all.  I just disagree.

And I shall confess, it was I ... the PU ... that made the call in the OP.  I suppose I called it on sheer instinct, because it didn't even occur to me that I may have blown the call until the coach calmly said, "He juggled it, yes, but it never hit the ground."  I confidently answered as I did in the OP ... and then had a brain freeze ... and decided to look it up before I left the parking lot.

Ironically, if I had looked in the FED book first, I never would have posted.  It reads clearly.  I don't buy that the OBR definition is as clear.  It can be interpreted multiple ways, and the word DROP is problematic.  Then, the examples used of the ball hitting the ground, further fuzzies the definition.

I agree wholeheartedly that it's consistent that if you have to securely possess the ball on a force out, the same goes for a tag out, but the fact that I questioned myself and then looked it up doesn't make me want to take the giant leap you're taking to equate this with the inherently unfair BALK rule.  I also re-read the OBR balk rules, and I don't see any vague wording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, refump10 said:

control of his body"

Ya had me then ya lost me ... control of his body?  Control of the ball.  Right call.  Strange explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, VolUmp said:

Didn't sound snarky at all.  I just disagree.

And I shall confess, it was I ... the PU ... that made the call in the OP.  I suppose I called it on sheer instinct, because it didn't even occur to me that I may have blown the call until the coach calmly said, "He juggled it, yes, but it never hit the ground."  I confidently answered as I did in the OP ... and then had a brain freeze ... and decided to look it up before I left the parking lot.

Ironically, if I had looked in the FED book first, I never would have posted.  It reads clearly.  I don't buy that the OBR definition is as clear.  It can be interpreted multiple ways, and the word DROP is problematic.  Then, the examples used of the ball hitting the ground, further fuzzies the definition.

I agree wholeheartedly that it's consistent that if you have to securely possess the ball on a force out, the same goes for a tag out, but the fact that I questioned myself and then looked it up doesn't make me want to take the giant leap you're taking to equate this with the inherently unfair BALK rule.  I also re-read the OBR balk rules, and I don't see any vague wording.

STOP OVERTHINKING!   The requirement is "securely".  Not secure?  No tag. Ball popped out?  Not secure then was it. No tag.  Period.  End of story.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

STOP OVERTHINKING!   The requirement is "securely".  Not secure?  No tag. Ball popped out?  Not secure then was it. No tag.  Period.  End of story.

Continuing anger issues? Stop yelling ... I have my audio muted.  I don't hear it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies in advance to the forum for this personal observation.

Many of your posts follow an unproductive pattern.

  1. You raise a rule interpretation issue that isn't one.
  2. When told that there's no issue, you complain that the rule is vague.
  3. When told that it isn't vague, you complain that it's different from some other code, and therefore bad.
  4. When told that different codes have perfectly intelligible reasons for their differences, you announce that you just don't like it.

I suppose we land at de gustibus non est disputandum, but again, that seems an unproductive use of the forum.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, maven said:

de gustibus non est disputandum

is that like a Jack Daniels vs.Wild Turkey thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, maven said:

Apologies in advance to the forum for this personal observation.

Many of your posts follow an unproductive pattern.

  1. You raise a rule interpretation issue that isn't one.
  2. When told that there's no issue, you complain that the rule is vague.
  3. When told that it isn't vague, you complain that it's different from some other code, and therefore bad.
  4. When told that different codes have perfectly intelligible reasons for their differences, you announce that you just don't like it.

I suppose we land at de gustibus non est disputandum, but again, that seems an unproductive use of the forum.

No one has ever disagreed here that the Balk Rule in FED is unfair.

No one has ever stated that they "like" it.

Many have stated that they tolerate it because of fear of a bigger problem enforcing MLB's rule.

Don't generalize what I contribute to this forum with your hi-browed rhetoric ... if you asked 100 officials, I daresay the vast majority would concede that the word "drop" is a problem in the OBR book, and it absolutely lends itself to an interp.  One of the 250+.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maven said:

I suppose we land at de gustibus non est disputandum, but again, that seems an unproductive use of the forum.

3

Latin is useful if you want to be a doctor.  If you want to be a veterinarian, you should learn pig latin.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with the claim that the FED balk rule is unfair. Same rule for both teams. Also, the rules DEFINE fairness.

You can keep your made up statistics.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, VolUmp said:

if you asked 100 officials, I daresay the vast majority would concede that the word "drop" is a problem in the OBR book

If you are arguing with someone who is claiming to a literal interpretation, be literal.

dictionary.com definition of drop includes these:

47.
to let or cause to fall.
48.
to cause or allow to sink to a lower position.
 
Neither of which indicate any requirement to hit the ground, or any other object.  If I release (voluntarily or not) an object, I have dropped it...even if I immediately regain possession and control of said object.
 

And, in the context of a "catch", no harm no foul...a fielder may drop a batted ball and still end up with a catch so long as the ball remains in flight before securing possession in hand or glove....simply, at the time of the drop, it's not yet a catch...but because it's still in flight (it has hit no object other than a fielder) it can still become one.
 
Now if some of these people then want to start arguing about whether the ball went up or down I can find some other literal definition that feeds their needs...at some point you just have to choose to stop suffering fools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Now if some of these people then want to start arguing about whether the ball went up or down I can find some other literal definition that feeds their needs...at some point you just have to choose to stop suffering fools.

It that were to ever happen, you can argue that the dropped ball is in freefall even while it is moving upward; Free Fall -- the fall of a body such that the only force acting upon it is that of gravity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, VolUmp said:

.. if you asked 100 officials, I daresay the vast majority would concede that the word "drop" is a problem in the OBR book, and it absolutely lends itself to an interp.  

I posit that should one ask 100 officials, the vast majority would likely never admit to not reading the rules book, let alone raise a concern about the word drop.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2017 at 11:00 AM, VolUmp said:

Continuing anger issues? Stop yelling ... I have my audio muted.  I don't hear it.

Stop postulating nonsense and we'll all shut up.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×