Crew Consult Leads to No-Tag Call

[CricketChapman]

 

 

The play is at 3:58.

That must be a delicious sandwich PU gets to eat.  When I saw it in a recap on SEC Network, they also showed the Miss. St. manager lighting up PU (I mean yelling at the top of his lungs) and staying in the game.

[woodiemiller]

 

 

The play is at 3:58.

That must be a delicious sandwich PU gets to eat.  When I saw it in a recap on SEC Network, they also showed the Miss. St. manager lighting up PU (I mean yelling at the top of his lungs) and staying in the game.

​He shouldve been ruled OUT for running more than 3 feet out of his base path when the defense makes an attempted tag on him?

Edited May 18, 2015 by woodiemiller

[blue23ll]

He wasn't out of the baseline when the tag was attempted, not even close. When he started going back to first no tag was being attempted so he could have run 10 feet out of the baseline and would have been okay. 

[johnnyg08]

He wasn't out of the baseline when the tag was attempted, not even close. When he started going back to first no tag was being attempted so he could have run 10 feet out of the baseline and would have been okay. 

​Agree.  He retreated basically straight back.  Certainly not > 3 feet.

[zm1283]

What did they end up doing on this play?

[johnnyg08]

What did they end up doing on this play?

​I'm going to see if I can find a clip.  

[UmpJeff]

He was not out of the baseline.  And, clearly, there was not a tag.  It appears they gave Simcox first base as a result of the play.  OP said that on SEC highlight reels, Miss St. HC was lighting up PU.  

[johnnyg08]

I hope he didn't call him out for retreating.

[johnnyg08]

I will grab the clip later tonight.  It's not working right now. 

[blue23ll]

I was watching this game live. They weren't sure what to do with the BR at first, they conversed and called him safe. Then the Miss State went off on the PU for a bit. They got the call right. 

[ricka56]

Q1. Who's tag/no-tag call is that ? PU or U1 ?

Q2. If PU called a tag/out, F3 heard the call, left BR to hold the other runners, how can you then reverse that call when F3 had time to make a play on BR if a no-tag call was made. Didn't PU put the defense at risk with an incorrect call ? He most likely would have thrown to F4 for the out if a timely no-tag was the call.

[Dbellyflop]

The chalk lines are 3 feet wide. the BR clearly goes from inside the foul line to way outside the runners lane to avoid the tag......

OUT.....

[blue23ll]

Not sure what you are seeing? I see the runner staying within the running lane while back peddling to avoid the tag. 

[BuckeyeMike]

The expected call here is an out, they should get the out.  Call it whatever you want, but he's out.

[Dbellyflop]

BR goes from foul line to at least the outside line of runners lane while F3 is pursuing him and ends up well onto the grass as F3 walks away. Maybe he goes 3 ft. To avoid the tag and then keeps going back at an angle. All I was saying is the runners lane is 3 feet wide and the BR crosses all of that and more. 

Also it really seems like someone on the field called BR out otherwise all F3 has to do is stand there and BR would be out. 

Edited May 19, 2015 by Dbellyflop

[johnnyg08]

I think F3 gave up once the BR retreated thinking that he was out on the retreat.

[maven]

Q1. Who's tag/no-tag call is that ? PU or U1 ?

Q2. If PU called a tag/out, F3 heard the call, left BR to hold the other runners, how can you then reverse that call when F3 had time to make a play on BR if a no-tag call was made. Didn't PU put the defense at risk with an incorrect call ? He most likely would have thrown to F4 for the out if a timely no-tag was the call.

1. ​PU is primary up to the 45 foot line, then U1 takes it from there. But both have coverage in case the other is straightlined. This was U1's call, as the tag attempt occurred beyond the 45 and in front of the BR. He needed to move to see the space between players once it was clear that F3 was not going to tag 1B.
2. It is highly unlikely that the defense gets 2 on this play, which was a sacrifice. Both runners had rounded their advance base before the tag attempt.

The expected call here is an out, they should get the out.  Call it whatever you want, but he's out.

​That's not how it works anymore. We want to get it right, and we don't make shït up to excuse mechanical breakdowns or to justify the "expected call." Especially not at that level, but I would want to get this right at any level: it's a heads-up play by the BR, and poor play by F3.

[noumpere]

Q1. Who's tag/no-tag call is that ? PU or U1 ?

 

​It's more than 1/2 way to first, so it's U1's call.

[johnnyg08]

What can we learn from this type of play?

 

[ricka56]

Q1.

Q2. If PU called a tag/out, F3 heard the call, left BR to hold the other runners, how can you then reverse that call when F3 had time to make a play on BR if a no-tag call was made. Didn't PU put the defense at risk with an incorrect call ? He most likely would have thrown to F4 for the out if a timely no-tag was the call.

1. ​
2. It is highly unlikely that the defense gets 2 on this play, which was a sacrifice. Both runners had rounded their advance base before the tag attempt.

​That's not how it works anymore. We want to get it right, and we don't make shït up to excuse mechanical breakdowns or to justify the "expected call." Especially not at that level, but I would want to get this right at any level: it's a heads-up play by the BR, and poor play by F3.

​I wasn't making $#!+ up...When umpires possible screw up a call, they should take into account their affect on the resulting play (some plays are not fixable). If PU or U1 correctly made a no tag call, F3 most likely lobs the ball to F4 covering 1B for the out. Their mistake caused F3 to abandon his pursuit of an out on BR. Since the most likely result (with the correct no-tag call)  would have an out, I wouldn't have reversed the call.

We do want to "get the call right", but some calls are not fixable. I think this mistake was unfixable.

[Forest Ump]

Alot of guys are not coming around and getting 90 degrees on bunts or anymore. I was at a clinic earlier this year where I heard someone mention that they aren't doing that mechanic. I disagree. Perhaps if U1 sets up at 90 degrees, he can see the non tag.

[johnnyg08]

Was this a 4 man game?  Or even 3 man, if the umpires are chest-to-ball somebody on the crew is going to see the no-tag...which is probably how they were able to fix this.

One thing that was never on the film that was available to us is whether or not PU verbalized or signaled "out" 

 

[blue23ll]

I question whether anyone signalled anything. I saw no out signal by the U1, he pointed at something. We couldn't see the PU in the shot. I think U3 had probably the best look at it, angle wise. Forest is correct, if U1 adjusted to avoid being straight lined, he might have seen no tag and been able to signal it. 

[maven]

​I wasn't making $#!+ up...When umpires possible screw up a call, they should take into account their affect on the resulting play (some plays are not fixable). If PU or U1 correctly made a no tag call, F3 most likely lobs the ball to F4 covering 1B for the out. Their mistake caused F3 to abandon his pursuit of an out on BR. Since the most likely result (with the correct no-tag call)  would have an out, I wouldn't have reversed the call.

We do want to "get the call right", but some calls are not fixable. I think this mistake was unfixable.

​Sorry, I misread what you wrote and thought you were talking about a play at another base.

[zoops]

I tried to adjust to see a tag on a play like as U1 during a game this spring by running towards the baseline between 1B and 2B and F4 ran into me as he tried to cover first.  Kind of felt good that he got the worst of the collision, but I felt kind of dumb even though it greatly improved my view of the tag.  What do you all do to get the angle?  

 

I also tend to agree that this play is "unfixable."

Edited May 19, 2015 by zoops