Out at 2nd ...force ... Possession?

[Thunderheads]

Discuss .........

Also, listen to the broadcasters talk about MLB managers un-happy with the amount of "inconclusive" videos ....

[UmpJeff]

That's what Ausmus was commenting on the other day.  Too many "inconclusive" returns.  

[maven]

I'm not sure what factors replay may consider. This play is incredibly tight in several dimensions (mentioned in the thread title, nice job Jeff!).

For me, if I see a fielder pinning the ball against his body with the heel of his glove or mitt, that is NOT secure possession of the ball in hand or glove, and does not constitute a tag (of the base, in this instance).

[Thunderheads]

I'm not sure what factors replay may consider. This play is incredibly tight in several dimensions (mentioned in the thread title, nice job Jeff!).

For me, if I see a fielder pinning the ball against his body with the heel of his glove or mitt, that is NOT secure possession of the ball in hand or glove, and does not constitute a tag (of the base, in this instance).

​thanks maven .......

this is why I posted this! thanks .........

[ElkOil]

This would conclusively be an out in FED, yes?  Would the FED note on the definition of a catch apply here?:

A fielder may have the ball in his grasp even though it is touching the ground while in his glove.

[maven]

This would conclusively be an out in FED, yes?  Would the FED note on the definition of a catch apply here?:

A fielder may have the ball in his grasp even though it is touching the ground while in his glove.

​From the angle of the replay, I'd say no. The provision you're quoting applies to situations where a fielder is holding the ball securely in the glove (think something like a sno-cone), and the ball happens to be touching the ground. The guidance provided here is that the ball touching the ground does not disqualify an otherwise good tag.

To me, from what we can see, this does not look like an otherwise good tag, because the ball is pinned between the heel of the glove and the fielder's leg. The covering umpire might have had a different look at how the fielder possessed the ball.

[noumpere]

I think there's some specific case play in FED where the ball is trapped in the crook of F3's elbow -- no catch (so no tag of the base).  Or maybe I'm just remembering something that isn't there, like that time I ... well, never mind.

 

Same rule in this play -- the ball has to be in the glove or hand.

[maven]

I think there's some specific case play in FED where the ball is trapped in the crook of F3's elbow -- no catch (so no tag of the base).  Or maybe I'm just remembering something that isn't there, like that time I ... well, never mind.

 

Same rule in this play -- the ball has to be in the glove or hand.

​FED 2.9.1B

[DVA7130]

Caught in the elbow is different than pinned with the glove. I have an out on that principle. I can't really tell what happened in the video though.

[Replacematt]

Caught in the elbow is different than pinned with the glove. I have an out on that principle. I can't really tell what happened in the video though.

​No, it's not. By definition, a tag can only occur with the ball securely in a hand or glove.

[DVA7130]

​No, it's not. By definition, a tag can only occur with the ball securely in a hand or glove.

​In my judgment I interpret glove pinned against the body as in the glove.

[Replacematt]

​In my judgment I interpret glove pinned against the body as in the glove.

​You can't "by judgment" "interpret" something.

[DVA7130]

Sorry mate, it's what I got.

​You can't "by judgment" "interpret" something.

​

[noumpere]

​In my judgment I interpret glove pinned against the body as in the glove.

​even if you use the phrase "in my judgment" you would lose a protest based on this.

[DVA7130]

... It was a half joke. But no, I think New York and a crew of much better umpires than us disagrees with you there.

[grayhawk]

... It was a half joke. But no, I think New York and a crew of much better umpires than us disagrees with you there.

​They don't agree or disagree.  They looked at the video and couldn't find enough evidence to either confirm or overturn the call.  Nothing more and nothing less.

[johnnyg08]

​You can't "by judgment" "interpret" something.

​Agree w/ this.