Tangle / Untangle

[johnnyg08]

 

[Jimurray]

 

​I'm guessing but PU ruled out on the tag but U2 thought it was INT and made no call. PU never called time but the point may have confused U2 so U2 may have assumed INT. Luckily ball did not go into outfield where furthor confusion might have ensued. I think they got it right. No INT and safe at 2B. When this happens to me I'm going with "Out" and out signal and "that's nothing" with safe signal. Not.

[umpstu]

Excellent calls

[JaxRolo]

​I'm guessing but PU ruled out on the tag but U2 thought it was INT and made no call. PU never called time but the point may have confused U2 so U2 may have assumed INT. Luckily ball did not go into outfield where furthor confusion might have ensued. I think they got it right. No INT and safe at 2B. When this happens to me I'm going with "Out" and out signal and "that's nothing" with safe signal. Not.

I think calling out and then safe would lead to confusion.

call the out then sorted out.

BU should have made a call.

[Thunderheads]

So ...... PU called BR out on the tag, and keeps the runner at 2nd .......thus, no INT?

[JaxRolo]

So ...... PU called BR out on the tag, and keeps the runner at 2nd .......thus, no INT?

Yep

[noumpere]

Yep

​Seems right to me.  There is generally neither INT nor OBS when the batter and catcher collide in the vicinity of home plate and each has moved "normally" toward first (BR) or to get the ball (F2)

[UmpJeff]

So ...... PU called BR out on the tag, and keeps the runner at 2nd .......thus, no INT?

​Correct.

[Mudder]

What confuses me about these tangle/untangle plays like this, is specifically how big of an area do you allow for "the vicinity of home plate".?

I don't know, I would never be able to sell "thats nothing" on this play in some of the the lower levels I do, would probably just go with out on BR for INT, return R1, nobody would complain.

[Jimurray]

​I'm guessing but PU ruled out on the tag but U2 thought it was INT and made no call. PU never called time but the point may have confused U2 so U2 may have assumed INT. Luckily ball did not go into outfield where furthor confusion might have ensued. I think they got it right. No INT and safe at 2B. When this happens to me I'm going with "Out" and out signal and "that's nothing" with safe signal. Not.

​Upon further review I think U2 was not confused. He had to turn with the throw and did not know what the PU had ruled. He then made no call and told the runner to "stay there". A mechanic also used on check swing ball 4/strike 3 which has been discussed before. 

[maven]

I agree with the consensus: a good call (out on the tag) and a good no-call (no INT) by the PU.

It looked as if F2 had secure possession of the ball in his glove when he tagged the BR. Out.

Tangle/untangle is a concept on batted balls near home plate: provided that the BR is doing nothing but running to 1B and F2 is doing nothing but fielding a batted ball, brief contact is no infraction either way: not OBS on F2, nor INT by the BR.

That said, there's a wrinkle on this play that nobody has mentioned: some of the contact occurs after the BR is out. Tangle/untangle excuses the BR, not a retired runner. The bar for INT is rather lower for a retired runner.

Still, I agree with the ruling: the contact occurred before the out, and continued only a fraction of a second longer. Had the contact started after the runner was put out, then we might have wanted a call.

Mechanics: the problem with making 2 calls at the same time is that it would be nice to signal them both. But, as others have pointed out, that might make things worse here: a safe sign (no INT) and an out (on the tag) would be rather confusing.

If it had been INT, then we don't care about the out: kill it, send R1 back, and sell the INT all over the park. If there had been OBS, then call that and sell it.

As it was, I'd recommend merely signaling, not selling, the out, and giving no signal for the no-call. U2 needs to know whether (a) the ball is live and (b) whether the play at 2B is a force play or a tag play. Sort everything else out after.

Since that's exactly how the crew handled it, I can't see any way to improve on their mechanics for this challenging play.

[maven]

What confuses me about these tangle/untangle plays like this, is specifically how big of an area do you allow for "the vicinity of home plate".?

​I use an area of 26.9 square feet.

Just kidding. It's judgment, of course, but the purpose of the rule is to permit both players to start moving into the same area at the same time and not call it any kind of infraction. If the contact is up the line, it's something, not nothing. Use the purpose of the rule to inform your judgment.

I've had both INT and OBS on (different) tangle/untangle plays, where one player thought that he was entitled to grab or shove the other in order to move him out of the way. That's always fun to explain...

[dookiexman]

I agree with the consensus: a good call (out on the tag) and a good no-call (no INT) by the PU.

It looked as if F2 had secure possession of the ball in his glove when he tagged the BR. Out.

I would disagree with the F2 having secure possession of the ball in his glove when he tagged the BR.

The ball was in F2's hand and the glove tagged the BR. He never tagged the BR with the ball or with the ball in the glove. PU couldn't have seen this from his angle​ (easier to see from the 1st base camera angle).

[NorthTexasUmp]

I would disagree with the F2 having secure possession of the ball in his glove when he tagged the BR.

The ball was in F2's hand and the glove tagged the BR. He never tagged the BR with the ball or with the ball in the glove. PU couldn't have seen this from his angle​ (easier to see from the 1st base camera angle).

​Looked to me that F2 tagged him with the baseball on the hip. Look at about the 1:53 mark.

[indianaumpire15]

I agree with the consensus: a good call (out on the tag) and a good no-call (no INT) by the PU.

It looked as if F2 had secure possession of the ball in his glove when he tagged the BR. Out.

Tangle/untangle is a concept on batted balls near home plate: provided that the BR is doing nothing but running to 1B and F2 is doing nothing but fielding a batted ball, brief contact is no infraction either way: not OBS on F2, nor INT by the BR.

That said, there's a wrinkle on this play that nobody has mentioned: some of the contact occurs after the BR is out. Tangle/untangle excuses the BR, not a retired runner. The bar for INT is rather lower for a retired runner.

Still, I agree with the ruling: the contact occurred before the out, and continued only a fraction of a second longer. Had the contact started after the runner was put out, then we might have wanted a call.

Mechanics: the problem with making 2 calls at the same time is that it would be nice to signal them both. But, as others have pointed out, that might make things worse here: a safe sign (no INT) and an out (on the tag) would be rather confusing.

If it had been INT, then we don't care about the out: kill it, send R1 back, and sell the INT all over the park. If there had been OBS, then call that and sell it.

As it was, I'd recommend merely signaling, not selling, the out, and giving no signal for the no-call. U2 needs to know whether (a) the ball is live and (b) whether the play at 2B is a force play or a tag play. Sort everything else out after.

Since that's exactly how the crew handled it, I can't see any way to improve on their mechanics for this challenging play.

@maven

Could we point to tag and signal out saying "out" and then immediately say "that's nothing" or "play on" to maintain the live action?  Mechanics wise this would make sense, no?

Edited June 25, 2015 by indianaumpire15

[johnnyg08]

Upgraded for quality

 

[JaxRolo]

@maven

Could we point to tag and signal out saying "out" and then immediately say "that's nothing" or "play on" to maintain the live action?  Mechanics wise this would make sense, no?

This what I said earlier.

[indianaumpire15]

This what I said earlier.

Ok sorry must have missed it. Thanks.

[JaxRolo]

No biggie. Just messing with you. It's a good point. I wouldn't signal safe right after an out call. Confusing