Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
scrounge

I don't get this interpretation

Recommended Posts

Now I'm not a FED basher, quite the contrary. I like FED and think they get slammed unnecessarily for many things. But....just saw this little nugget in the 2018 interpretations just released....I don't like it and don't really get it.

I get - and totally support - the idea of voluntary release and the football equivalent "process of the catch" concept. But why on earth are we seemingly applying that to an already possessed ball??? It doesn't seem like anything good can come of this if applied literally.

SITUATION 14: A runner is caught in a rundown between home and third base. The third baseman is chasing the runner back to third and has clear possession of the ball when he reaches out and tags the runner. After the tag, the fielder stumbles and within a few steps falls to the ground causing the ball to come out of the glove. RULING: The runner is safe. The fielder must maintain control of the ball from the tag through any subsequent activity. Falling down and dropping the ball results in a no tag on the runner. [2-24-4, 8-4-2h(2)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
14 minutes ago, scrounge said:

Now I'm not a FED basher, quite the contrary. I like FED and think they get slammed unnecessarily for many things. But....just saw this little nugget in the 2018 interpretations just released....I don't like it and don't really get it.

I get - and totally support - the idea of voluntary release and the football equivalent "process of the catch" concept. But why on earth are we seemingly applying that to an already possessed ball??? It doesn't seem like anything good can come of this if applied literally.

SITUATION 14: A runner is caught in a rundown between home and third base. The third baseman is chasing the runner back to third and has clear possession of the ball when he reaches out and tags the runner. After the tag, the fielder stumbles and within a few steps falls to the ground causing the ball to come out of the glove. RULING: The runner is safe. The fielder must maintain control of the ball from the tag through any subsequent activity. Falling down and dropping the ball results in a no tag on the runner. [2-24-4, 8-4-2h(2)]

I think NCAA had a play at 1B a while ago and the ruling was it was not a tag when the ball came out because of a fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now I'm not a FED basher, quite the contrary. I like FED and think they get slammed unnecessarily for many things. But....just saw this little nugget in the 2018 interpretations just released....I don't like it and don't really get it.

I get - and totally support - the idea of voluntary release and the football equivalent "process of the catch" concept. But why on earth are we seemingly applying that to an already possessed ball??? It doesn't seem like anything good can come of this if applied literally.
SITUATION 14: A runner is caught in a rundown between home and third base. The third baseman is chasing the runner back to third and has clear possession of the ball when he reaches out and tags the runner. After the tag, the fielder stumbles and within a few steps falls to the ground causing the ball to come out of the glove. RULING: The runner is safe. The fielder must maintain control of the ball from the tag through any subsequent activity. Falling down and dropping the ball results in a no tag on the runner. [2-24-4, 8-4-2h(2)]
This is a new one. They must have changed the interpretation this year. In the past t he fielder only needed to keep possession through the tag.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd add that if the juggle or drop was clearly as a result of the tag, then totally on board with safe - after all, that's definitional in the rule 2 definition of a tag. But the vagueness of the interp above and lack of clear linkage to the tag troubles me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like NCAA and, I think, just like OBR (should be).  You can't determine if the tag caused the ball to become loose, until the fielder makes another "baseball play" after the tag attempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So riddle this... makes the tag, shows you the glove, ball still in it, tries to pivot for a throw, trips and ball dislodges on the fall?

 

out or safe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, stkjock said:

So riddle this... makes the tag, shows you the glove, ball still in it, tries to pivot for a throw, trips and ball dislodges on the fall?

 

out or safe?

Out. The pivot to throw the ball is a separate act not related to the tag.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. scrounge, you must be a supporter of the Jim Evans definition of tag:

Authoritative Opinion: Evans:  “In establishing the validity of secure possession at the time of a tag, the umpire should determine that the player held the ball long enough and did not juggle the ball or momentarily lose possession before gaining full control and touching the runner. Unlike a catch, a legal tag is based on the status of the ball at the time the RUNNER OR BASE is touched and NOT ON THE FINAL PROOF OF POSSESSION.” (JEA/2:40)

The case play you cite from the 2018 interpretations illustrating the FED view of a tag is not a new interpretation. From the 2016 BRD (section 537, p. 347):

FED:  A tag out is a putout of a runner, not in contact with a base, when touched by a fielder with the ball or a glove holding the ball. It is not a tag if the fielder does not have secure possession of the ball:  For example, he drops or juggles it after the touch. (2-24-4)

Fed rule 2-24-4 (from the 2015 rule book):…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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, noumpere said:

Just like NCAA and, I think, just like OBR (should be).  You can't determine if the tag caused the ball to become loose, until the fielder makes another "baseball play" after the tag attempt.

If you're watching the glove/ball through the tag, I feel like it is very distinguishable. Just think catch/no catch in football, you have to stick with the play and make a judgement call. NFHS tries to take out all judgement rules wise. Hence, minimum 1 base on OBS.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, maven said:

Out. The pivot to throw the ball is a separate act not related to the tag.

thanks Maven, however, my question as envisioned, which I guess I didn't phrase that well, was "tries to pivot" so you actually don't get a pivot, his plant foot twists and boom on his face....     however I realize it's a judgement call and would have to be seen as it happens

Share this post


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

thanks Maven, however, my question as envisioned, which I guess I didn't phrase that well, was "tries to pivot" so you actually don't get a pivot, his plant foot twists and boom on his face....     however I realize it's a judgement call and would have to bee seen as it happens

It's judgment, and so it's hard to describe a play that makes it clear.  But, if it's a separate move (that is, the fielder *has shown* you the ball and is not just lifting the glove *to show* you the ball, and is trying to pivot) then get the out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, maven said:

Out. The pivot to throw the ball is a separate act not related to the tag.

How is this applied relative to the OP when the interp specifies "the fielder must maintain control of the ball from the tag through any subsequent activity"? Wouldn't we consider separate acts subsequent activity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, ElkOil said:

How is this applied relative to the OP when the interp specifies "the fielder must maintain control of the ball from the tag through any subsequent activity"? Wouldn't we consider separate acts subsequent activity?

They don't mean till the end of time. Otherwise, you could never again have "on the transfer," and get an out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, maven said:

They don't mean till the end of time. Otherwise, you could never again have "on the transfer," and get an out.

No, not till the END of time, but until SOME time. The language in the interp is explicit and excludes a transfer. To be clear, I agree with you, but in looking at how the interp is written, it's contrary to what you're saying. It's also like the example in the FED rules book about a fielder catching a fly ball, then running into a fence and dropping it.

Share this post


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

No, not till the END of time, but until SOME time. The language in the interp is explicit and excludes a transfer. To be clear, I agree with you, but in looking at how the interp is written, it's contrary to what you're saying. It's also like the example in the FED rules book about a fielder catching a fly ball, then running into a fence and dropping it.

I guess I don't know what interpretation you have in mind. SITUATION 14, quoted above and the case under discussion, does not explicitly exclude a transfer or indeed mention one.

In that situation, the fielder makes a tag, stumbles as continuing action of the tag, falls, and loses control of the ball (very much like the Varitek play). The ruling applies the explicit provision of the rule that states that loss of control in continuing action is evidence that the ball was not securely held during the tag.

That's the criterion for determining safe or out: secure possession of the ball in hand or glove. Dropping the ball in continuing action is sufficient to judge lack of control.

When we judge that the ball comes out in a separate act, it is no evidence about the secure possession during the tag. Therefore, the out will stand. This is a judgment call (not subject to protest).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ElkOil said:

No, not till the END of time, but until SOME time.

Not until some TIME, but until some ACTION -- the start of a new "baseball play", or complete "body control".  Where one stops and the other starts is up to the judgment of the individual umpire.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2018 at 5:27 PM, Richvee said:

So I always think back to this play. it sounds to me like FED and NCAA want a safe call here. What about OBR? has the rule been changed since this play? 

 

https://www.mlb.com/video/varitek-stymies-the-squeeze/c-3600013?tid=67794254

 

Correct, Rich ... at least, I see it that way as well.  FED and NCAA want a safe call on the Varitek play.  Someone correct us if we're wrong

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


×