My First Ejection – Only Umpires Should Count

[Stan W.]

The two things said that can get me faster to an ejection is:

• Call it both ways
• Counting calls,,,,,,,eg: That's 2!

 

Both are calling you a cheater........I wont stand for that.

[Replacematt]

​Incorrect. Not concurrent with 2.00. There is not reason to lawyer-ball huge differences between establishing a catch and tag.

​Other than they are two separate, unrelated activities. And if you want to argue with Jim Evans, feel free.

[Replacematt]

The two things said that can get me faster to an ejection is:

• Call it both ways
• Counting calls,,,,,,,eg: That's 2!

 

Both are calling you a cheater........I wont stand for that.

​Both times someone's counted to two with me, they never got to three.

[DVA7130]

​Other than they are two separate, unrelated activities. And if you want to argue with Jim Evans, feel free.

​So, do you have anything different on the play? Do you or Jim Evans define a tag with the "he was showing the ball" or "it was in 'one continuous motion'" clause?

[Replacematt]

​So, do you have anything different on the play? Do you or Jim Evans define a tag with the "he was showing the ball" or "it was in 'one continuous motion'" clause?

​No, because he lost the ball on the tag. Here is what Jim says: "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."  Thus, voluntary release is not necessary.

[ricka56]

​No, because he lost the ball on the tag. Here is what Jim says: "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."  Thus, voluntary release is not necessary.

​Voluntary release may not be necessary, but its easier to sell the tag. Conversely, it is tough to sell a tag out when the ball is on the ground. If the ball came out because of the tag in any way...no out.

 

[lawump]

9.2 TAG

"Under Official baseball Rule 2.00- Tag, a tag is the action of a fielder in touching a base with his body while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove; or touching a runner with the ball, or with his hand or glove holding the ball, while holding the ball securely and firmly 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.

If the fielder has made a tag and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the tag, the tag shall be adjudged to have been made.  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."  2015 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual, pgs. 107-108 (emphasis added). 

I believe that the 2015 MLB umpire's manual matches the MiLB umpire's manual with respect to this definition.

The definition of a tag in Jim Evans' manual and the definition of a tag in the Jaksa/Roder manual (for years the two most influential non-binding secondary sources of rules interpretations) have been definitively replaced by this authoritative interpretation.  In my opinion, under this official interpretation, to be a valid tag the fielder must do something more than Jim Evans' manual requires (clearly under the MiLB manual the fielder has to show some degree of "final proof of possession" ),  but less than the Jaksa/Roder Manual (which required "voluntary release"). 

In my opinion, this binding MiLB interpretation does not require voluntary release, but does require the fielder "to hold the ball long enough" to show "complete control" and thus the status of the ball at the moment of the tag attempt (as Evans' suggest is the determining factor) is not correct either.   

 

[renegadewolf]

In m own experience, waiting for a coach to count to 3 is too long. Not too long ago I let a coach get to three before I stepped in (was working with a new umpire who had maybe 10 games experience in) and told him to knock it off.  Problem was is that by allowing his shenanigans not only did we as a team of umpires look weak and desperate, it gave other coaches the idea it was fine to rattle off to us.  It damn near led to the ejection of all 4 coaches on the bench (which would have ended the game.... but i digress) because they all now had the idea in their heads that they could be obnoxious (at least a couple times) before anything would be said to them.  What it chalked up to was poor game management by myself in the interests of seeing if my junior partner would do anything.  While nipping it in the bud earlier doesn't always have a happy ending for someone it leads to fewer problems for yourself and other umpires in the future.

As for working 8 years and never having an eject... good for you i suppose, though i am in the camp of I suspect an umpire in that situation has put up with some things that just shouldn't have been put up with.  Sometimes people do stupid stuff for no reason, had a kid i banged out on a strike 3, down the dick so to speak, and he decided to reach across the plate and draw a line in the dirt.... a kid who was rounding third who was caught by an excellent throw from the outfield  to the catcher doesn't even try to jump out of the way and runs into the catcher... both easy ejections one can't ignore or conversely, perhaps you should just buy yourself a lottery ticket to have worked that long and genuinely not run across anything hair brained the player or coach isn't automatically tossed....lol

64

[Replacematt]

I don't think that adds any requirement to the Evans interpretation, but it does set a guideline as to how to adjudge possession.

[lawump]

I don't think that adds any requirement to the Evans interpretation, but it does set a guideline as to how to adjudge possession.

​Matt, here is where I disagree:

When the tag attempt at the 2:12:30 mark of this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6HkCSbkxCU) occurred, most (if not all) of the Evans' manual supporters stated (on the various internet forums) that that was a correct call.  All of the J/R manual supporters posted that it was a blown call.  I personally posted that the call was correct if MLB adopted Evans' position, but wrong if they went with J/R.  I remember posting a long post (on some board) about how I had been saying for years that the two umpire schools (Brinkman and Evans) had taught the concept of "tag" differently (Brinkman's school used the J/R manual) and that MLB had failed to address the issue and that it was a controversy waiting to happen.

After this game, MLB said the call was correct.  Thus, we all thought that Evans' had won out.  (I personally felt Evans had won out not so much because MLB had deliberated on the relative merits of each manual's definition of a tag, but rather because they were forced to state it was correct in an attempt to avoid a major controversy as this was an extra-inning elimination playoff game.)

Then, some time later, the language I posted above was adopted.  This language is clearly different than the language in Evans' manual.  Furthermore, I personally have no doubt that under the current interpretation, the correct call in the play I linked to in this post would be "no tag".  In my opinion, there is no way under the current interpretation that Varitek "held the ball long enough" to prove "complete control".  Thus, I would say something has been added to the Evans' manual's definition.

Of course, if you believe that the correct call in the play I have linked to in this post would still be "out," even under this new interpretation...then we'll just have to agree to disagree.  Worse things have happened!

 

[Replacematt]

​Matt, here is where I disagree:

When the tag attempt at the 2:12:30 mark of this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6HkCSbkxCU) occurred, most (if not all) of the Evans' manual supporters stated (on the various internet forums) that that was a correct call.  All of the J/R manual supporters posted that it was a blown call.  I personally posted that the call was correct if MLB adopted Evans' position, but wrong if they went with J/R.  I remember posting a long post (on some board) about how I had been saying for years that the two umpire schools (Brinkman and Evans) had taught the concept of "tag" differently (Brinkman's school used the J/R manual) and that MLB had failed to address the issue and that it was a controversy waiting to happen.

After this game, MLB said the call was correct.  Thus, we all thought that Evans' had won out.  (I personally felt Evans had won out not so much because MLB had deliberated on the relative merits of each manual's definition of a tag, but rather because they were forced to state it was correct in an attempt to avoid a major controversy as this was an extra-inning elimination playoff game.)

Then, some time later, the language I posted above was adopted.  This language is clearly different than the language in Evans' manual.  Furthermore, I personally have no doubt that under the current interpretation, the correct call in the play I linked to in this post would be "no tag".  In my opinion, there is no way under the current interpretation that Varitek "held the ball long enough" to prove "complete control".  Thus, I would say something has been added to the Evans' manual's definition.

Of course, if you believe that the correct call in the play I have linked to in this post would still be "out," even under this new interpretation...then we'll just have to agree to disagree.  Worse things have happened!

 

​I don't think that the new wording implies final proof of possession; I think that it shows what the criteria are for possession during the act of the tag (which is where I agree that it does add an additional "requirement," if you will.) I don't think Evans ever meant to say that the moment of the tag was the only relevant time where the ball had to be in possession; I think that particular clause was written to contrast "tag" and "catch" and how subsequent action to the tag was not relevant to determining possession. I think if he were to go back 25 years now knowing what the ambiguity is and rewrite it to capture his intent, he would have used the term "tag attempt." After all, if the ball is lost during the attempt, there's no pragmatic way to say when during the action it occurred--before, at, or after the touch.

And I do have an out on the Varitek play because I feel the tag attempt was completed when he lost possession and that possession was visible during it, showing complete control. Just my thoughts. So I guess the question then becomes whether the language was written to clarify why a play like the Varitek play was an out, or in response to it being called incorrectly, since, as we can see here, we can use the same language for both outcomes.

[lawump]

Under the current wording of the language in the manual, the correct ruling today on Varitek's tag attempt would be "no tag" in MiLB.  I know this because I just emailed my contact on the MiLB UD staff to get an interpretation as I am also having this discussion with others with regards to a play in Legion baseball.

Not trying to appear as if I am gloating...I just wanted to know if it had indeed changed from 2008's declaration that Welke's call was "correct" to something different today.

[DVA7130]

I certainly have no-tag on the posted video.

[Replacematt]

Under the current wording of the language in the manual, the correct ruling today on Varitek's tag attempt would be "no tag" in MiLB.  I know this because I just emailed my contact on the MiLB UD staff to get an interpretation as I am also having this discussion with others with regards to a play in Legion baseball.

Not trying to appear as if I am gloating...I just wanted to know if it had indeed changed from 2008's declaration that Welke's call was "correct" to something different today.

​Is the appropriate measure that the tag attempt is completed before the ball is lost? And if so, at what point is the attempt completed?

[MPLSMatt]

Unless there is an extremely clear distinction between the tag and 'showing the ball' this sounds like a hell of a hill to die on.   I'm thinking something like a guy makes a tag, turns to run off the field then shows you the ball and it pops out - OK, I've got a tag.   Otherwise, how do you know that the ball wasn't coming loose at the application of the tag and only formally dislodges during the 'showing' motion?  99% of the time, it's pretty tough to tell where the tag stops and the show begins - especially on swipe tags.  It seems like if you call a runner out and the ball pops out, you better be ready to do some tossing.  

I will say that if the coach knew enough to ask if it was "while he's showing the ball" and that that matters, he should know better than counting calls but maybe it's just a case of the broken clock being right twice per day.  

 

[MPLSMatt]

​Is the appropriate measure that the tag attempt is completed before the ball is lost? And if so, at what point is the attempt completed?

​ Exactly.  I'd have a real hard time saying "ok, tag's done - now he's just showing me the ball" in 99% of cases.  

[DVA7130]

You have convinced me to withdraw my statement about voluntary release, but I maintain that the interpretation should almost exactly mirror the standards for a catch except extreme instances as @‌MPLSMatt states.

[Replacematt]

​We now know officially that it is something more than what Varitek did.  However, the manual clearly doesn't use the words "voluntary release".  The language of the manual states it is, "when the fielder...hold(s) the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball."    This, of course, requires umpire judgment.  But, for me it comes one of two ways:  (1) He holds the ball in his glove after the tag attempt is complete to show complete control or (2) he quickly transfers (or attempts to transfer) the ball to his throwing hand (for instance to make a play on another runner).  [If the fielder drops it on the transfer, then obviously, we would have a tag since that is a "voluntary release" and we don't even need that for a tag attempt to be successful.]

At a minimum, for me, a fielder cannot hold the ball in his glove after a tag attempt to show me complete control until the fielder's motion of making the tag attempt [said "motion of making the tag attempt" includes him gaining control of his body after moving (running) toward the runner to make the tag attempt (like Varitek's play) and also includes the immediate "follow through" of his glove arm when the glove arm is still moving the seconds after it made contact with the runner] comes to an end. 

It is not "long enough" if he hasn't yet stopped his run or movement in the direction he was going toward when chasing the runner prior to the tag attempt or if his glove hasn't stopped its natural follow through after the glove was applied to the runner during the tag attempt.

 

​So, to paraphrase...long enough is when any motion ancillary to the tag itself has stopped or when a new motion for something else has been initiated?

Edited June 18, 2015 by Matt

[lawump]

​Is the appropriate measure that the tag attempt is completed before the ball is lost? And if so, at what point is the attempt completed?

​​We now know officially that it is something more than what Varitek did.  However, the manual clearly doesn't use the words "voluntary release".  The language of the manual states it is, "when the fielder...hold(s) the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball."    This, of course, requires umpire judgment.  But, for me it comes one of two ways:  (1) He holds the ball in his glove after the movement associated with the attempt is at an end or (2) he quickly transfers (or attempts to transfer) the ball to his throwing hand (for instance to make a play on another runner).  [If the fielder drops it on the transfer, then obviously, we would have a tag since that is a "voluntary release" and we don't even need that for a tag attempt to be successful.]

At a minimum, for me, a fielder cannot hold the ball in his glove after a tag attempt to show me complete control until the fielder's motion of making the tag attempt [said "motion of making the tag attempt" includes him gaining control of his body after moving (running) toward the runner to make the tag attempt (like Varitek's play) and also includes the immediate "follow through" of his glove arm when the glove arm is still moving the seconds after it made contact with the runner] comes to an end. 

It is not "long enough" if he hasn't yet stopped his run or movement in the direction he was going toward when chasing the runner prior to the tag attempt or if his glove hasn't stopped its natural follow through after the glove was applied to the runner during the tag attempt.

[lawump]

​So, to paraphrase...long enough is when any motion ancillary to the tag itself has stopped or when a new motion for something else has been initiated?

​First, your quote of me in your last post has been updated by me.  (I deleted the post you quoted a minute after posting it (as I accidentally posted it while I was still proof-reading it), but you were too quick to reply, LOL.  That will explain to future readers of this thread how your quote of my post comes before my post in the order on this thread.

Anyways, as for your reply, I tend to agree.  The only caveat I would add is that sometimes a fielder starts "a new motion for something else," with one part of his body before the motion for the prior act has ended with the other part of his body.

What I mean is:  let's say F2 fields a throw from an outfielder and makes a tag attempt against a runner trying to score.  He then tries to throw quickly to second base to try and retire the batter/runner who is attempting to advance to second base on the throw home.  At higher levels, a catcher could make the tag attempt and immediately begin to square his body toward second base while his glove hand is still following through after touching the runner and being brought upward to meet his throwing hand.  If the ball pops out while the glove is being brought up...I have "no tag" even though his legs and torso where moving for something else.  If it were his arms that were moving for something else, then, yes, I probably have a tag.

It is a tough call.

[Replacematt]

(I deleted the post you quoted a minute after posting it (as I accidentally posted it while I was still proof-reading it), but you were too quick to reply, LOL. 

​It's the paralegal in me. Convert what the lawyer says and get it in front of the client as fast as possible so that we can move to the next billable six minutes.

[clasonater]

I assume that all these comments were hollered across the field. I would have eliminated the "I" from I-A-W-E process and go straight to the death stare on the 1st occasion. I might even skip the "A" step as well. I don't put up with being hollered at from across the field. But definitely on the 2nd time hollering, I holler back, "don't be hollering at me across the field, if you have an issue, do it right, get TIME and come out here". I know that inviting an on-field "discussion" like this is risky, but I'd rather "get it on" now rather than later. Lets see how brave he talks face-to-face. In our discussion (if it hasn't lead to his EJ already), I'd tell him that if he counts aloud any higher, he'll be ejected.

​good ol' bait and switch.

[Matthew Turner]

I had a counting coach today in a HS Frosh game. This thread immediately came to mind. I had plate. The counting was really directed at my partner who probably shouldn't be umpiring much more than coach pitch or machine pitch. He wasn't bad today but looks lost when the game gets fast. The first play that I believe the coach was referring to was a bobble/transfer by F6 that went against his team (called by my partner). The second was on a weakly hit ground ball that F2 fielded and threw to 1B for the out. After the play transpired, the coach said, "It hit him. It hit him." He asked for time (I capitulated) and politely asked if the ball hit the batter while in the box. I told him it did not. He asked if I could check with my partner. I obliged. My partner said he did see anything of the sort so the play stood as called. As I'm putting on my mask and walking back to the plate, coach says, "that's two now, blue." I took off my mask, took two or three steps directly toward the coach, made eye contact, gave the universal stop sign and said with some degree of the booming-inner-city-school-teacher-voice I have, "We're not gonna do this counting thing. We're not gonna do this today" (or something to that effect). The field became dead silent (which I wasn't expecting but reminded me of my classroom when students have pushed a bit over the line and are "redirected"). Coach put his head down, obviously embarrassed, and walked to the back of the coach's box. Play resumed without incident.

Just because the coach got to number 2 doesn't mean he had to be tossed, IMO. This was the first time he was out of line. To eject at that point would have been, IMO still, OOO. OTOH, to simply ignore, would be too passive. As I've learned, EJs are you had to be there situations but I believe I handled this pretty well. I'm new to umpiring but not new to baseball or managing people. A lot of what I've learned reading all these stories has helped me have a plan when I encounter the same BS.

[JaxRolo]

No disrespect intended @MadMax but  I see baiting a coach in the OP. I think you let this go to long which may explain why you have no ejections.

[constable]

At the time of this writing, I'm halfway through my 8th year of umpiring. Until tonight, I had called several hundred games, and not once Ejected a coach or player.

Until tonight.

14U Elite ball game held at a 6-field complex used by the home team (which has over two dozen sibling teams across a variety of age groups and skill levels). This complex frequently hosts tournaments, and I'm well known to work these tournaments. Tonight's game was a Youth League game, with a Silver (home) team and a Red (visitor) team. Silver's HC is the dad of their F3, and I have seen him around the complex facility on more than one occasion. My PU partner is a younger college-age guy who I've worked many many times with before.

Bottom of the first, 2 outs and with R2 and R3, there is a dribbler to F5. He guns it across the diamond to F3. A banger. I call BR "OUT!"... After the "Ooooooooos" that a play like that brings, I hear "I know that's your first call, but come on!", coming from the HC (in the vicinity of dugout; on this team, the 2 AC's are the 2 BC's).

Top of the second, 2 outs, nobody on, and an infield nubber induces a wide throw (from either F5 or F6, I can't remember which), which causes Silver's F3 to stretch to make the catch. I see the foot off the bag, BR arrives, and I rule the BR "Safe!"... the F3 made a heckuva catch, just off the bag. HC is boring holes right through me, and fires off "Really??!! That's two! Two!" I gave him "The @Jocko" (ask Jocko about it, it's a stare), but ignored it further. Between innings, this HC approaches my PU, who only confirms what I saw – that F3's foot was off the bag. According to my PU (after the game), HC was incredulous.

Top of the fifth, 2 outs, and Red is in a rally. They get bases loaded, but are a bit cavalier in their attention, and Silver's F2 guns a pickoff towards 3B on a retreating R3. F5 catches the throw and lays down the tag like he was scooping a fish out of a river. By all means, he's got R3 dead to rights, but in that sweeping tag, the ball comes shooting out of his glove. I point at it and say, "Ball is on the ground, he's Safe!" I now hear sputtering over my shoulder and turn to peer towards the 1BS dugout where the sputtering is coming from. The HC has stepped to the chalk line, and demonstrates with his hands, "He wasn't showing you the ball?" "Nope, I saw it as one continuous motion and the ball came out." "Come on! That's three!"
I took a breath, waited a second, then asked, "Are you really keeping count?"
"Yup! That's three!", Silver HC declared, showing me three fingers.
So, I took one finger and pointed it towards the door in the fence, "Then you're done, coach. Leave." He looked at me, stunned, and left the field.

Next half inning, Silver's 1BC / AC asked, "Do you have a history with our coach?" "Nope, not at all. Why's that?" "Because that's the fastest I've seen anyone get run."

The games you are referencing- did they actually have players and coaches? Seems like a high number never having to dump some one.