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?

[umpire_scott]

 

 

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).

 

 

@maven

 

1.  I don't think it matters whether it's is batted or thrown.  The ruling about voluntary release refers to a "ball in flight".  The OBR definition of a "ball in flight" includes batter, thrown or pitched.

[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.

 

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I know you say that Roder's opinion may be outdated, but what about noumpere's mention of the NCAA interp of the play? 

 

 

Let NCAA interpret it their way.  Not everyone interprets things identically.

[Rich Ives]

 

 

 

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).

 

 

@maven

 

1.  I don't think it matters whether it's is batted or thrown.  The ruling about voluntary release refers to a "ball in flight".  The OBR definition of a "ball in flight" includes batter, thrown or pitched.

 

 

NO!

 

Voluntary release refers to "catch"  -  not "ball in flight" and not "tag".

[maven]

A CATCH that can record an out all by itself independent of a tag (fielder catches a batted ball in flight) must exhibit voluntary release.

 

A "catch" that is part of a TAG need not. Pro schools at one time referred to this as "gloving" the ball, to avoid confusion with the concept of a CATCH.

[umpire_scott]

 

 

 

 

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).

 

 

@maven

 

1.  I don't think it matters whether it's is batted or thrown.  The ruling about voluntary release refers to a "ball in flight".  The OBR definition of a "ball in flight" includes batter, thrown or pitched.

 

 

NO!

 

Voluntary release refers to "catch"  -  not "ball in flight" and not "tag".

 

 

@Rich Ives

 

The OBR definition of "catch" has the words: "In establishing the validity of the catch the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to show he has complete control of the ball and that release of the ball is voluntary and intentional.

 

In addition nowhere in the definition of "catch" does it refer to batted ball.  It refers to "ball in flight".

 

In addition to this there is a definition of "ball in flight"  and it reads a batted, thrown or pitched ball that has not yet touched the ground or some object other than a fielder"

 

The OBR definitions do not support your premise.

[Replacematt]

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).

 

@maven

 

1.  I don't think it matters whether it's is batted or thrown.  The ruling about voluntary release refers to a "ball in flight".  The OBR definition of a "ball in flight" includes batter, thrown or pitched.

 

NO!

 

Voluntary release refers to "catch"  -  not "ball in flight" and not "tag".

 

@Rich Ives

 

The OBR definition of "catch" has the words: "In establishing the validity of the catch the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to show he has complete control of the ball and that release of the ball is voluntary and intentional.

 

In addition nowhere in the definition of "catch" does it refer to batted ball.  It refers to "ball in flight".

 

In addition to this there is a definition of "ball in flight"  and it reads a batted, thrown or pitched ball that has not yet touched the ground or some object other than a fielder"

 

The OBR definitions do not support your premise.

A tag is not a catch. The definition of catch is irrelevant.

[umpire_scott]

But you have to possess the ball with the catch in order to have the tag.  In the OP he already had possession so "catch" was not relevant.  But in my situation you have to have a catch in order to have a tag.

[maven]

But you have to possess the ball with the catch in order to have the tag.  In the OP he already had possession so "catch" was not relevant.  But in my situation you have to have a catch in order to have a tag.

 

No you don't have to catch it. You can pick it up, you can have someone roll it to you, or you can field it on one bounce.

 

That's the whole point: a tag requires secure possession + touching the base. We don't care how the fielder got the ball.

 

Compare PBUC 9.1 and 9.2, which addresses the difference between CATCH and TAG. All the plays under the former pertain to a batted ball.

[MPLSMatt]

I ask this in all seriousness:  In the 145 years of MLB, how has MLB not felt the need to clarify this rule one way or the other?  It seems to be a problem when you have 2 very strong authorities with opposed positions.   

[Sut'n Blue]

Hypothetical:

R2 is off on pitch. Batter hits line drive to F5 who dives for the ball. While F5 is still airborne he securely gloves ball and, still in the air, tags the passing R2. F5 then hits the ground hard and ball pops out when he hits the ground.

We've got R2 out on tag and batter safe as there was no catch (assuming no play at first). You-know-what storm on horizon but the calls are correct. A tag has its own definition that is different from, and does not require, a catch.

[umpire_scott]

 

But you have to possess the ball with the catch in order to have the tag.  In the OP he already had possession so "catch" was not relevant.  But in my situation you have to have a catch in order to have a tag.

 

No you don't have to catch it. You can pick it up, you can have someone roll it to you, or you can field it on one bounce.

 

That's the whole point: a tag requires secure possession + touching the base. We don't care how the fielder got the ball.

 

Compare PBUC 9.1 and 9.2, which addresses the difference between CATCH and TAG. All the plays under the former pertain to a batted ball.

 

 

I said in my situation you have to have a catch I know that you don't have to have a catch in all tag situations.  The problem I have is why does OBR have a definition for catch and make no reference to a batted ball.  And why do they have a specific definition for "ball in flight", and then use that exact terminology in their definition of a catch?

[Rich Ives]

Give it up Scott.

[Rich Ives]

Hypothetical:

R2 is off on pitch. Batter hits line drive to F5 who dives for the ball. While F5 is still airborne he securely gloves ball and, still in the air, tags the passing R2. F5 then hits the ground hard and ball pops out when he hits the ground.

We've got R2 out on tag and batter safe as there was no catch (assuming no play at first). You-know-what storm on horizon but the calls are correct. A tag has its own definition that is different from, and does not require, a catch.

 

The intervening play (the tag) completes the catch.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Replacematt]

But you have to possess the ball with the catch in order to have the tag.  In the OP he already had possession so "catch" was not relevant.  But in my situation you have to have a catch in order to have a tag.

 

No you don't have to catch it. You can pick it up, you can have someone roll it to you, or you can field it on one bounce.

 

That's the whole point: a tag requires secure possession + touching the base. We don't care how the fielder got the ball.

 

Compare PBUC 9.1 and 9.2, which addresses the difference between CATCH and TAG. All the plays under the former pertain to a batted ball.

 

I said in my situation you have to have a catch I know that you don't have to have a catch in all tag situations.  The problem I have is why does OBR have a definition for catch and make no reference to a batted ball.  And why do they have a specific definition for "ball in flight", and then use that exact terminology in their definition of a catch?

Why do you keep insisting that a catch has anything to do with this?

[Replacematt]

Hypothetical:

R2 is off on pitch. Batter hits line drive to F5 who dives for the ball. While F5 is still airborne he securely gloves ball and, still in the air, tags the passing R2. F5 then hits the ground hard and ball pops out when he hits the ground.

We've got R2 out on tag and batter safe as there was no catch (assuming no play at first). You-know-what storm on horizon but the calls are correct. A tag has its own definition that is different from, and does not require, a catch.

 

The intervening play (the tag) completes the catch.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

And that would be consistent with MLB interpretation stating that voluntary actions while in possession complete a catch.

[umpire_scott]

 

 

 

But you have to possess the ball with the catch in order to have the tag.  In the OP he already had possession so "catch" was not relevant.  But in my situation you have to have a catch in order to have a tag.

 

No you don't have to catch it. You can pick it up, you can have someone roll it to you, or you can field it on one bounce.

 

That's the whole point: a tag requires secure possession + touching the base. We don't care how the fielder got the ball.

 

Compare PBUC 9.1 and 9.2, which addresses the difference between CATCH and TAG. All the plays under the former pertain to a batted ball.

 

 

I said in my situation you have to have a catch I know that you don't have to have a catch in all tag situations.  The problem I have is why does OBR have a definition for catch and make no reference to a batted ball.  And why do they have a specific definition for "ball in flight", and then use that exact terminology in their definition of a catch?

 

Why do you keep insisting that a catch has anything to do with this?

 

 

Because a throw was made to F3.  Therefore he has to catch the "ball in flight" and possess it in order to apply the tag to the base.  In the OP's play he already has possession of the ball.  No one it throwing it to him.

[umpire_scott]

Here is my thought process on this.  When the throw comes into F3 he has to catch the ball.  It was not on the ground it was thrown to him.  So he has to catch it.  All the definitions of "catch" and "ball in flight" would indicate that my F3 did not meet the requirements of a catch.  If he did not catch the ball then he did not possess it and thus would not be able to perform the "tag" if he never had legal possession of the ball.

 

Understand I'm not arguing that I'm right and the rest of you are wrong.  I'm just stating that there is rule book support to view it this way.  There is also umpire manual and NCAA interpretation support to rule it this way.  

 

I'm respecting your view and I understand the merits of it.  But I think that there are two schools of thought.  And I'm not convinced that one is right and one is wrong.  But I do think that more people are probably in the school that you guys are supporting.

[Magic]

Similar play today. I am on the dish. Runner coming home. Catcher gets the throw and dives to tag the runner I wait on the call, I have the tag being applied before the runner reaches home. And low and behold after the tag, the runner opens his glove to show me the ball and the ball rolls on to the ground. At that point this thread comes to mind as I say in a rather loud voice " He completed the tag. Out." Of course OHC comes down to question. The conversation was very short. And he went back to his position.

[Replacematt]

Here is my thought process on this.  When the throw comes into F3 he has to catch the ball.  It was not on the ground it was thrown to him.  So he has to catch it.  All the definitions of "catch" and "ball in flight" would indicate that my F3 did not meet the requirements of a catch.  If he did not catch the ball then he did not possess it and thus would not be able to perform the "tag" if he never had legal possession of the ball.

The problem is that using those definitions, as already mentioned, it's impossible to make a tag if the ball bounces to the fielder, or if the fielder picks up a ball, or any multitude of things that renders a ball no longer "in flight." In short, you most certainly can possess a ball that was not caught.

[umpire_scott]

 

Here is my thought process on this.  When the throw comes into F3 he has to catch the ball.  It was not on the ground it was thrown to him.  So he has to catch it.  All the definitions of "catch" and "ball in flight" would indicate that my F3 did not meet the requirements of a catch.  If he did not catch the ball then he did not possess it and thus would not be able to perform the "tag" if he never had legal possession of the ball.

The problem is that using those definitions, as already mentioned, it's impossible to make a tag if the ball bounces to the fielder, or if the fielder picks up a ball, or any multitude of things that renders a ball no longer "in flight." In short, you most certainly can possess a ball that was not caught.

 

 

I'm not following your thought process here.  A "catch" and a "tag" are two separate things.  If you already have possession of the ball then you can most certainly make a "tag" without having a "catch". But on a play when you are having a ball thrown to you and you are standing on the base, how can you say that you can "tag" the base without actually first "catching" the thrown ball?

[maven]

I'm not following your thought process here. A "catch" and a "tag" are two separate things. If you already have possession of the ball then you can most certainly make a "tag" without having a "catch". But on a play when you are having a ball thrown to you and you are standing on the base, how can you say that you can "tag" the base without actually first "catching" the thrown ball?

If it bounces first.

[Replacematt]

A "catch" and a "tag" are two separate things.

Exactly. So why are you trying to apply the definition of "catch" to what constitutes a tag?

[umpire_scott]

 

A "catch" and a "tag" are two separate things.

Exactly. So why are you trying to apply the definition of "catch" to what constitutes a tag?

 

 

Because the "catch" happens before the "tag" in my situation.  As least that's how I see it.  When I think of the definitions/rules associated with tagging a base I see it as a fielder, already in possession of the ball, going and tagging a base.  Not a fielder standing on the base waiting for a throw.  In the OBR "tag" definition it implies that possession has already been established when the "tag" is made.  

[Replacematt]

A "catch" and a "tag" are two separate things.

Exactly. So why are you trying to apply the definition of "catch" to what constitutes a tag?

 

Because the "catch" happens before the "tag" in my situation.  As least that's how I see it.  When I think of the definitions/rules associated with tagging a base I see it as a fielder, already in possession of the ball, going and tagging a base.  Not a fielder standing on the base waiting for a throw.  In the OBR "tag" definition it implies that possession has already been established when the "tag" is made.

It doesn't matter if a catch occurred or not. The fielder has possession of the ball on a tag, no matter if it's a person or a base. That's all that matters. OBR doesn't say that a catch establishes possession (in fact, it's the opposite,) so a catch is irrelevant.