out or safe

[Guest Ed]

A ball was hit on the ground to short who then dove and tagged a runner going to third. While hitting the ground the ball popped out. The umpire ruled it an out. Was he correct?

[noumpere]

Depends on which theory of a tag out the umpire believes.

 

I vote for no out.

 

(Some will say that the act of the tag was complete and it was a subsequent action that caused the ball to come out -- if the ball had come loose as a result of hitting the runner's leg, then all would have safe, I think.)

 

And, I get that this will be a frustrating answer for guests and coaches.

[Jocko]

Witthou seeing it, I would venture my call would be no out. Thinking of it like a catch/no catch on a fly ball. If he hits the wall or ground and loses it, no catch. However, I might, in the moment, rule completely differently on the field. Sitting here now, I have lots of time to think. On the fly, I make a call in an instant. I wouldn't disagree with anyone on this whatever their call.

[Replacematt]

And I would say there's not enough info to make the call.

 

I would have an out if I know he had secure possession through the act of the tag. I would not have an out if I didn't know. 

[Rich Ives]

I'm with Matt. The rule suggests that as long as you have the ball through the tag it's valid. My thought is that if the force of applying the tag causes the ball to come loose that means the fielder didn't have secure possession when applying the tag. Once control is established the tag is complete and valid.

 

From 2.00 TAG:  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.

 

Note the absence of any reference to voluntary release, hitting the ground, or other acts associated with "catch". Merely that control be demonstrated at the time of the tag.

[umpire_scott]

I would probably rule not out.  My reasoning is that the dive to complete the tag was part of the baseball play, so if landing caused the ball to pop out then I would rule that "immediately following his touching of the runner the fielder dropped the ball".  If he reached out and touched the runner then lost his balance afterwards or as a result of the tag, and then fell to the ground,  then I would probably rule out.

[Rich Ives]

I would probably rule not out.  My reasoning is that the dive to complete the tag was part of the baseball play, so if landing caused the ball to pop out then I would rule that "immediately following his touching of the runner the fielder dropped the ball".  If he reached out and touched the runner then lost his balance afterwards or as a result of the tag, and then fell to the ground,  then I would probably rule out.

 

Your definition of "immediately" differs from mine then.  You're still thinking in terms of the definition of "catch" and its followup exceptions. This isn't a catch. It's a tag.

[umpire_scott]

 

I would probably rule not out.  My reasoning is that the dive to complete the tag was part of the baseball play, so if landing caused the ball to pop out then I would rule that "immediately following his touching of the runner the fielder dropped the ball".  If he reached out and touched the runner then lost his balance afterwards or as a result of the tag, and then fell to the ground,  then I would probably rule out.

 

Your definition of "immediately" differs from mine then.  You're still thinking in terms of the definition of "catch" and its followup exceptions. This isn't a catch. It's a tag.

 

 

Rich - I'm confused on your stance.  In my post about F3 dropping the ball you initially seemed to agree with me that he should have been safe.  Then you posted verbiage regarding and tag and pointed out that there was no "voluntary release" verbiage included.  This would seem to indicate that maybe you thought in my play the out should have been called. 

[umpire_scott]

 

I would probably rule not out.  My reasoning is that the dive to complete the tag was part of the baseball play, so if landing caused the ball to pop out then I would rule that "immediately following his touching of the runner the fielder dropped the ball".  If he reached out and touched the runner then lost his balance afterwards or as a result of the tag, and then fell to the ground,  then I would probably rule out.

 

Your definition of "immediately" differs from mine then.  You're still thinking in terms of the definition of "catch" and its followup exceptions. This isn't a catch. It's a tag.

 

 

As described in the OP F6 "dove" to tag the runner, then the ball popped out when he hit the ground.  As I envision it, since he dove, the contact with the ground must have been pretty immediate.  It does not say that he only has to posses the ball during the act of the tag.  

 

So in your mind the only way to rule no tag is if the tag is what dislodged the ball from the runner?  

[Replacematt]

As described in the OP F6 "dove" to tag the runner, then the ball popped out when he hit the ground.  As I envision it, since he dove, the contact with the ground must have been pretty immediate.  It does not say that he only has to posses the ball during the act of the tag.

It doesn't say he has to beyond the tag, either. 

 

So in your mind the only way to rule no tag is if the tag is what dislodged the ball from the runner?

For me, pretty much.

[Richvee]

Can't find the video, but think back to the Varitek tag in the AL playoffs against Oakland. He was running the runner back to 3rd, dove, tagged him and dropped the ball when he hit the ground. Runner was ruled out. 

[Magic]

Here is my take on it. If I am going to rule the runner out, then I better know beyond a shadow of a doubt he held that ball all the way through the tag. If I have the slightest doubt that the ball was coming out before the tag was finished, then he is safe.

[Rich Ives]

Scott- you aren't grasping this. Once the tag is completed and the fielder had and still has control the tag is valid. If a subsequent force (like hitting the ground) causes the ball to come out - so what. The tag is complete. You need to get the "catch" criteria out of your head on this.

[maven]

Here is my take on it. If I am going to rule the runner out, then I better know beyond a shadow of a doubt he held that ball all the way through the tag. If I have the slightest doubt that the ball was coming out before the tag was finished, then he is safe.

Benefit of the doubt is going the wrong way.

[Magic]

Here is my take on it. If I am going to rule the runner out, then I better know beyond a shadow of a doubt he held that ball all the way through the tag. If I have the slightest doubt that the ball was coming out before the tag was finished, then he is safe.

Benefit of the doubt is going the wrong way.

Maven are you saying if the ball is on the ground, and you aren't 100% sure he had the ball through the tag, you are still getting an out? Because I think if the ball is on the ground everyone is going to think safe, including both coaches.

[maven]

Yeah, if I'm 99% I'm still getting an out.

[Rich Ives]

 

 

Here is my take on it. If I am going to rule the runner out, then I better know beyond a shadow of a doubt he held that ball all the way through the tag. If I have the slightest doubt that the ball was coming out before the tag was finished, then he is safe.

Benefit of the doubt is going the wrong way.

 

Maven are you saying if the ball is on the ground, and you aren't 100% sure he had the ball through the tag, you are still getting an out?

Because I think if the ball is on the ground everyone is going to think safe, including both coaches.

 

 

Anyone who saw the Varitek play would expect an out.

[noumpere]

Can't find the video, but think back to the Varitek tag in the AL playoffs against Oakland. He was running the runner back to 3rd, dove, tagged him and dropped the ball when he hit the ground. Runner was ruled out. 

NB that NCAA showed that video in the clinics the following spring and the correct ruling is "Safe" at that level.

[Senor Azul]

Perhaps it might be helpful to actually see the two opposing authoritative opinions (the theories mentioned in post number 2)? The first one is from Jim Evans and he defines "tag" this way:

 

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.

 

According to Carl Childress, this definition has been in the Jim Evans Annotated since its first compilation in 1991. Mr. Childress says he agrees with this definition along with Mike Fitzpatrick, and Cris Jones (of PBUC).

 

Opposing this view is Rick Roder's authoritative opinion:

 

To complete a tag successfully a fielder must have complete control of the ball during and after the touch of the base or runner. If the fielder bobbles or drops the ball during or after the touch of the base or runner, and the bobble or drop is due to his lack of control of himself or the ball, or due to contact with a runner, it is not a tag.

 

Once again, according to Mr. Childress, this has been the position of the Jaksa/Roder manual since 1991. The NCAA and Hunter Wendelstedt support this definition.

 

 

 

 

[Rich Ives]

Perhaps it might be helpful to actually see the two opposing authoritative opinions (the theories mentioned in post number 2)? The first one is from Jim Evans and he defines "tag" this way:

 

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.

 

According to Carl Childress, this definition has been in the Jim Evans Annotated since its first compilation in 1991. Mr. Childress says he agrees with this definition along with Mike Fitzpatrick, and Cris Jones (of PBUC).

 

Opposing this view is Rick Roder's authoritative opinion:

 

To complete a tag successfully a fielder must have complete control of the ball during and after the touch of the base or runner. If the fielder bobbles or drops the ball during or after the touch of the base or runner, and the bobble or drop is due to his lack of control of himself or the ball, or due to contact with a runner, it is not a tag.

 

Once again, according to Mr. Childress, this has been the position of the Jaksa/Roder manual since 1991. The NCAA and Hunter Wendelstedt support this definition.

 

The recently updated definition of tag (which I posted in post 5) only requires control of the ball. J/R in all likelihood was written before the rule update.

[goody14]

 

 

 

Here is my take on it. If I am going to rule the runner out, then I better know beyond a shadow of a doubt he held that ball all the way through the tag. If I have the slightest doubt that the ball was coming out before the tag was finished, then he is safe.

Benefit of the doubt is going the wrong way.

 

Maven are you saying if the ball is on the ground, and you aren't 100% sure he had the ball through the tag, you are still getting an out?

Because I think if the ball is on the ground everyone is going to think safe, including both coaches.

 

 

Anyone who saw the Varitek play would expect an out.

 

Anyone who sees a bat left in the strike zone on a bunt expects a strike...but that does not make it so.

 

If a guy does not have control of his body (stumbling, diving, chopping his steps, etc), I am making him show control of the ball once he has regained control of his body.  If he loses it in the dive, I have no out.  That's the way I read the rule.

[Replacematt]

Anyone who sees a bat left in the strike zone on a bunt expects a strike...but that does not make it so.

 

If a guy does not have control of his body (stumbling, diving, chopping his steps, etc), I am making him show control of the ball once he has regained control of his body.  If he loses it in the dive, I have no out.  That's the way I read the rule.

So if a middle infielder stumbles over the bag on a DP and loses the ball due to a fall three or four steps later, you have R1 safe?

[goody14]

 

A good and fair question.

 

In your situation here, I have an out.  I could make an argument he had control of his body at the time of the tag (of the base) and the base itself caused the loss of control.

 

If he were stumbling before touching the base and lost the base.  I have a safe.  I cannot be sure he had control of the ball.

 

In the OP, the tag was preceded by a dive, so I am looking for control through the play.

 

Willing to move off this if powers that be come out with an authoritative opinion.  From what I have seen, there are two camps to this one.  I am in the control camp. 

[umpire_scott]

Scott- you aren't grasping this. Once the tag is completed and the fielder had and still has control the tag is valid. If a subsequent force (like hitting the ground) causes the ball to come out - so what. The tag is complete. You need to get the "catch" criteria out of your head on this.

 

Rich - I am "grasping" this.  As I said if he stumbled after completing the tag then I have an out.  I distinguish, as does Roder, between the act associated with the tag causing the loss of control of the ball and simply losing control on your own after the tag.

 

I know you say that Roder's opinion may be outdated, but what about noumpere's mention of the NCAA interp of the play? 

[umpire_scott]

I find this topic intriguing because it has made me also think of the play I had regarding the "tag" of the base.  

 

In my situation the attempt was made by F4 to double up R1 after catching a line drive from the BR.  F3 stretched out to receive the throw down the 1BL.  He caught the ball and had secure control with his foot on the bag.  But in the process of stretching he lost his balance and fell to the ground.  While falling the ball came out of his mitt and he caught it before it hit the ground with his bare hand (not that it make a difference in this case).  By the time he "regained control" his foot was off the bag and R1 was back.

 

Questions:

 

1.  In my situation do "catch" rules apply and supersede "tag" rules?

 

2.  Would it matter if he held possession until he actually hit the ground and then lost possession of the ball? 

[maven]

 

Questions:

 

1.  In my situation do "catch" rules apply and supersede "tag" rules?

 

2.  Would it matter if he held possession until he actually hit the ground and then lost possession of the ball? 

 

1. Well, is it a batted ball or a thrown ball?

 

2. As this thread amply testifies, it depends whom you ask. I would say that the pendulum is about 70%+ the way toward "that's a tag! He's out!"

 

For me, on a force play (or retouch appeal) secure possession + touching the base = TAG, and the duration of the secure possession or the touch is immaterial (though it must obviously be long enough to judge that it was possession and that it was secure).