Did he double him up? Voluntary release?

[Fittske24]

The OP and the play at the plate are apples and oranges. The act of tagging the runner caused the ball to come loose in the play at the plate, so therefore he did not have control. In the OP, he had control through the tag of the base, the act of tagging did not cause the ball to come out, the separate act of fallen down, rolling and then getting up is how the ball was released. It looks like the getting up was what kicked the ball loose, that's an out. Now the transfer mechanic was wrong, that was probably a brain cramp.

The two plays are apples and oranges only in regards to their elements. However, by definition, they both represent TAG plays. One play tags a base, the other tags a runner. The most important requirement of a TAG be it base or runner is holding the ball securely and firmly in hand or glove when the tag occurs. I would say that in the OP or in the play at the plate video the ball was not secure because voluntary release was not demonstrated by either player.

[LMSANS]

 

The OP and the play at the plate are apples and oranges. The act of tagging the runner caused the ball to come loose in the play at the plate, so therefore he did not have control. In the OP, he had control through the tag of the base, the act of tagging did not cause the ball to come out, the separate act of fallen down, rolling and then getting up is how the ball was released. It looks like the getting up was what kicked the ball loose, that's an out. Now the transfer mechanic was wrong, that was probably a brain cramp.

The two plays are apples and oranges only in regards to their elements. However, by definition, they both represent TAG plays. One play tags a base, the other tags a runner. The most important requirement of a TAG be it base or runner is holding the ball securely and firmly in hand or glove when the tag occurs. I would say that in the OP or in the play at the plate video the ball was not secure because voluntary release was not demonstrated by either player.

 

Doesn't "immediately" come into play here?

[basejester]

No a CATCH is not always a batted ball. It is also the end result of a thrown or pitched ball not just batted. Yes a CATCH and TAG can be considered separate actions. However, In the case of the OP, the CATCH and TAG(of the base in an unmistakable appeal) happen almost at the same time. So the completed CATCH of the thrown ball is important to this particular play.

A fielder can only CATCH a ball in flight. If we have a one-hop throw to first base, it can't be a CATCH. But we don't care; whether or not the ball bounces has no bearing on the TAG of the base. So it's apparent that the definition of a CATCH has nothing to do with TAGS.

[JonnyCat]

Don't know if this helps clear thing up or not, but I did find some more information in the WUM definition of a catch, p9, 2012 edition.

 

Quote: " A TAG is the action of a fielder in touching a base with his body, glove, or ball, while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove, or touching a runner with the ball, or with the hand or glove holding the ball, while holding the ball securely 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 the ball. In each case, the fielder must show complete control of the ball during the touch of the runner or base, and the momentum of the tagging action must end." (empahsis theirs)

 

If this interp is used, did the fielder's momentum ot the tagging action stop?

 

Not sure I know the answer, but maybe this helps. That is, if we're still able to use the WUM now that TUS is the preferred school. LOL! 

[Fittske24]

A fielder can only CATCH a ball in flight. If we have a one-hop throw to first base, it can't be a CATCH. But we don't care; whether or not the ball bounces has no bearing on the TAG of the base. So it's apparent that the definition of a CATCH has nothing to do with TAGS.

True, a fielder can only CATCH a ball in flight. It is also true that if a ball in flight touches the ground before it is caught, it is NOT a CATCH. You are also correct that weather or not the ball bounces has no bearing on the TAG of a base. Now, would you agree that in order for the TAG to occur, the fielder must have secure possession of the ball in hand or mitt? If so, then in the OP, in order for the TAG to be completed, the fielder must have the ball securely in his glove. (appeal play) But how does this ball get in his glove? Was it batted? NO. Was it Pitched? NO. Was it thrown? Yes. Did it bounce? NO. So an element of this play includes a thrown ball IN FLIGHT that must be held with secure possession in his hand or glove before the TAG can be completed. So for THIS PLAY a completed CATCH is required in order to complete the TAG.

[basejester]

True, a fielder can only CATCH a ball in flight. It is also true that if a ball in flight touches the ground before it is caught, it is NOT a CATCH. You are also correct that weather or not the ball bounces has no bearing on the TAG of a base. Now, would you agree that in order for the TAG to occur, the fielder must have secure possession of the ball in hand or mitt?

Yes.

If so, then in the OP, in order for the TAG to be completed, the fielder must have the ball securely in his glove. (appeal play)

Yes.

But how does this ball get in his glove? Was it batted? NO. Was it Pitched? NO. Was it thrown? Yes. Did it bounce? NO. So an element of this play includes a thrown ball IN FLIGHT that must be held with secure possession in his hand or glove before the TAG can be completed. So for THIS PLAY a completed CATCH is required in order to complete the TAG.

It may be a CATCH, but it doesn't matter for the purpose of making this call. Therefore, voluntary release isn't the relevant standard.

If the throw bounces, are you going to require voluntary release or not? Why?

[Fittske24]

If the throw bounces, are you going to require voluntary release or not? Why?

In this case a CATCH is not required. However, for the TAG to be completed, the ball must be held securely in the hand or glove. To demonstrate secure possession the fielder has to have complete control of the ball. If the fielder drops the ball simultaneously or immediately following the TAG (involuntary release) it is not a TAG.

[IABlue]

The definition of a catch applies to both batted and thrown balls. This is simply designated in the definition of CATCH by “ball in flightâ€. In order for a CATCH to be completed, one must demonstrate voluntary release. In this play the 2nd basemen falls to the ground which causes the ball to come out of his glove. Per the definition of CATCH this is NOT voluntary release.

 

A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of

a ball in flight and firmly holding it; providing he does not use his cap, protector, pocket or

any other part of his uniform in getting possession. It is not a catch, however, if simultaneously

or immediately following his contact with the ball, he collides with a player, or with

a wall, or if he falls down, and as a result of such collision or falling, drops the ball.

 

 

Furthermore, there is no "time" component to a completed catch. It does not matter how long a player holds the ball. if he does not release the ball voluntarily, be it a batted ball or thrown ball, it is NOT a CATCH. 

 

I always love this type of reasoning.

 

So if a guy catches a can-of-corn pop up in deep centerfield for the final out of an inning, begins trotting towards the infield on his way to the dugout, nears the pitching mound where he's going to leave the ball, stumbles and falls and the ball comes out, this would NOT be a voluntary release and thus not the 3rd out of the inning, at least according to your argument.

[IABlue]

We need the "long enough" interpretation.  

 

I don't think it's long enough.  Consider the exact same play on a "ground out to first base" and F3 does what F4 does in the video clip. 

 

You can't possibly have an out there.  In my judgment

 

Again, why not?

 

He has possession of the ball when tagging the base.  Whatever would happen after that is completely irrelevant, in terms of a force play.

[mstaylor]

There are some interesting lines of reasoning but way too involved, The simple fact comes to did he have possession when he tagged the base, yes. Did any action involved with that play cause the ball to come loose, no. The ball came loose because he fell down and either hit his glove on the ground or the whipping action as he rolled over knocked the ball loose. After it is all said and done, he had the ball before,during, and just after. You can't equate it to football or even some other situations in baseball. 

[scrounge]

 

The definition of a catch applies to both batted and thrown balls. This is simply designated in the definition of CATCH by “ball in flightâ€. In order for a CATCH to be completed, one must demonstrate voluntary release. In this play the 2nd basemen falls to the ground which causes the ball to come out of his glove. Per the definition of CATCH this is NOT voluntary release.

 

A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of

a ball in flight and firmly holding it; providing he does not use his cap, protector, pocket or

any other part of his uniform in getting possession. It is not a catch, however, if simultaneously

or immediately following his contact with the ball, he collides with a player, or with

a wall, or if he falls down, and as a result of such collision or falling, drops the ball.

 

 

Furthermore, there is no "time" component to a completed catch. It does not matter how long a player holds the ball. if he does not release the ball voluntarily, be it a batted ball or thrown ball, it is NOT a CATCH. 

 

I always love this type of reasoning.

 

So if a guy catches a can-of-corn pop up in deep centerfield for the final out of an inning, begins trotting towards the infield on his way to the dugout, nears the pitching mound where he's going to leave the ball, stumbles and falls and the ball comes out, this would NOT be a voluntary release and thus not the 3rd out of the inning, at least according to your argument.

 

 

That's a ridiculous distortion of what Fittske is saying, IMO. Just look directly at what he quoted, secure possession and firm control. The time aspect he then mentions is about continuing action, with I thought was eminently clear from the context of the rest of the post and others.

 

In my judgment, a flailing defender who flips the ball after falling did not have secure and firm control. When did he lose it? Can I definitively say he had possession the micro-second after the tag but it started slipping out just after? Nope. To me, he's safe in this case.

[johnnyg08]

This is safe all day.

He was just too quick. Mistakes happened.

[mstaylor]

 

We need the "long enough" interpretation.  

 

I don't think it's long enough.  Consider the exact same play on a "ground out to first base" and F3 does what F4 does in the video clip. 

 

You can't possibly have an out there.  In my judgment

 

Again, why not?

 

He has possession of the ball when tagging the base.  Whatever would happen after that is completely irrelevant, in terms of a force play.

 

Let's look at the force play. A low throw to first, F3 scoops the ball and brings his glove to show possession. The upward motion is a continuous action of the scoop and in doing so flips the ball out of his glove, safe. Same play except pitcher is covering and F3 is flipping to him. The F1 has to break stride to hit first, has possession and then after the touch he is trying to gear down, crosses his feet up and falls. In the process he drops the ball, that's an out.  

[Fittske24]

There are some interesting lines of reasoning but way too involved, The simple fact comes to did he have possession when he tagged the base, yes. Did any action involved with that play cause the ball to come loose, no. The ball came loose because he fell down and either hit his glove on the ground or the whipping action as he rolled over knocked the ball loose. After it is all said and done, he had the ball before,during, and just after. You can't equate it to football or even some other situations in baseball.

Possession and secure possession are to different things.....So your telling me that this part of the definition of TAG does not apply to this play:

"It is not a tag, however, if simultaneously or immediately following his touching a base or touching a runner, the fielder drops 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."

So your argument is that the subsequent fall after the CATCH/TAG is irrelevant because the 2nd baseman demonstrated complete control of the ball?

Even if you disagree with the voluntary release concept, for the TAG to be completed the fielder has to have complete control.

[Fittske24]

Duplicate post

[mstaylor]

My point is simply did he maintain control through the tag, or three better question, did anything in the action of trading the base cause the ball to come loose. Yes he did and no it didn't. That is the difference between control and voluntary release on a catch and tagging a base. This is why you can't steal from another sport.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

[johnnyg08]

My point is simply did he maintain control through the tag, or three better question, did anything in the action of trading the base cause the ball to come loose. Yes he did and no it didn't. That is the difference between control and voluntary release on a catch and tagging a base. This is why you can't steal from another sport.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

Unless you can pick up the 7/10 split for the spare.        

[IABlue]

 

 

The definition of a catch applies to both batted and thrown balls. This is simply designated in the definition of CATCH by “ball in flightâ€. In order for a CATCH to be completed, one must demonstrate voluntary release. In this play the 2nd basemen falls to the ground which causes the ball to come out of his glove. Per the definition of CATCH this is NOT voluntary release.

 

A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of

a ball in flight and firmly holding it; providing he does not use his cap, protector, pocket or

any other part of his uniform in getting possession. It is not a catch, however, if simultaneously

or immediately following his contact with the ball, he collides with a player, or with

a wall, or if he falls down, and as a result of such collision or falling, drops the ball.

 

 

Furthermore, there is no "time" component to a completed catch. It does not matter how long a player holds the ball. if he does not release the ball voluntarily, be it a batted ball or thrown ball, it is NOT a CATCH. 

 

I always love this type of reasoning.

 

So if a guy catches a can-of-corn pop up in deep centerfield for the final out of an inning, begins trotting towards the infield on his way to the dugout, nears the pitching mound where he's going to leave the ball, stumbles and falls and the ball comes out, this would NOT be a voluntary release and thus not the 3rd out of the inning, at least according to your argument.

 

 

That's a ridiculous distortion of what Fittske is saying, IMO. Just look directly at what he quoted, secure possession and firm control. The time aspect he then mentions is about continuing action, with I thought was eminently clear from the context of the rest of the post and others.

 

In my judgment, a flailing defender who flips the ball after falling did not have secure and firm control. When did he lose it? Can I definitively say he had possession the micro-second after the tag but it started slipping out just after? Nope. To me, he's safe in this case.

 

No it most certainly is not a ridiculous distortion.

 

It is the logical extension of his argument, used to demonstrate the absurdity of said argument.

 

Go ahead and try to explain the difference, but you can't.

[noumpere]

 

No it most certainly is not a ridiculous distortion.

 

 

It is the logical extension of his argument, used to demonstrate the absurdity of said argument.

 

Go ahead and try to explain the difference, but you can't.

 

Voluntary release can also mean "makes some other controlled movement with the ball not associated with the momentum of the catch / tag".  So in your ridiculous play once the fielder starts jogging under control to the mound any  release will meet the voluntary release portion of the catch.

 

Now some will argue that the same criteria applies to the tag of the base or the runner or both and so they would have safe in the OP.  Others will argue that it only applies to a catch of a batted ball.  Since no one here I don't think sits on the rules committee at MLB or College or HS all we can do is go back and forth back again.  Now if your in a rules position at your local rec league then go ahead and publish some interp for your league and use it there until and unless something else comes out.

 

And for the record I would have safe on the OP but I understand where the others are coming from.

[basejester]

Voluntary release can also mean "makes some other controlled movement with the ball not associated with the momentum of the catch / tag".  So in your ridiculous play once the fielder starts jogging under control to the mound any  release will meet the voluntary release portion of the catch.

The language in the definition of a catch sucks.  Nobody waits for a voluntary release before making an out call, if secure possession has been established and momentum dissipated, we call that a catch. 

 

Called strike three.  Catcher sticks it.  Umpires A) Waits for catcher to roll the ball back to the mound B) calls the batter out.

[IABlue]

 

Voluntary release can also mean "makes some other controlled movement with the ball not associated with the momentum of the catch / tag".  So in your ridiculous play once the fielder starts jogging under control to the mound any  release will meet the voluntary release portion of the catch.

The language in the definition of a catch sucks.  Nobody waits for a voluntary release before making an out call, if secure possession has been established and momentum dissipated, we call that a catch. 

 

Called strike three.  Catcher sticks it.  Umpires A) Waits for catcher to roll the ball back to the mound B) calls the batter out.

 

This is the correct answer, and shows the difference between who's really paying attention and knows what they're talking about and those that know the verbiage in the rules but don't understand how to apply it during an actual game.

[IABlue]

 

 

No it most certainly is not a ridiculous distortion.

 

 

It is the logical extension of his argument, used to demonstrate the absurdity of said argument.

 

Go ahead and try to explain the difference, but you can't.

 

Voluntary release can also mean "makes some other controlled movement with the ball not associated with the momentum of the catch / tag".  So in your ridiculous play once the fielder starts jogging under control to the mound any  release will meet the voluntary release portion of the catch.

 

 

Which is a complete contradiction from your earlier statements in this thread, as mstaylor has clearly pointed out that after tagging the bag, the guy then starts a new movement which causes him to lose control, yet you have somehow decided that this does not qualify as a voluntary release.

 

You should probably make up your mind which way you want to argue this point before you continue.  Don't worry, we'll all take a timeout and wait for you.

[scrounge]

 

 

 

No it most certainly is not a ridiculous distortion.

 

 

It is the logical extension of his argument, used to demonstrate the absurdity of said argument.

 

Go ahead and try to explain the difference, but you can't.

 

Voluntary release can also mean "makes some other controlled movement with the ball not associated with the momentum of the catch / tag".  So in your ridiculous play once the fielder starts jogging under control to the mound any  release will meet the voluntary release portion of the catch.

 

 

Which is a complete contradiction from your earlier statements in this thread, as mstaylor has clearly pointed out that after tagging the bag, the guy then starts a new movement which causes him to lose control, yet you have somehow decided that this does not qualify as a voluntary release.

 

You should probably make up your mind which way you want to argue this point before you continue.  Don't worry, we'll all take a timeout and wait for you.

 

 

Kinda snarky for 6 posts, huh? I think what some of us who are saying it's safe are arguing is that it's NOT a new movement, it's the process of the tag itself, and in many eyes - mine included - the fielder did not demonstrate sufficient control. Regardless of the voluntary release issue. It's perfectly fine if you disagree but, a small suggestion? Lose the attitude.

[johnnyg08]

There's not any new movement that I can remember.  It's been about a week since I watched the clip though.

[JHSump]

So, what's the consensus?  If there is any.

 

I see good comments from both sides.  I am tending to lean toward he's out, after reading all this thread.

 

Was anyone that started on either side convinced to change their opinion?