cleat stuck in glove, ball pops out

[Gfoley4]

[maven]

The fielder must have secure possession of the ball in hand or glove throughout the tag. That doesn't happen here: Culbreth initially rules that he had the ball securely "long enough," but NY said no.

Beware slo-mo: it makes the tag seem longer than it is. We could even develop a philosophy of the "process" of a tag, much like the process of a catch in football. In just the same way, the player must maintain possession throughout the process.

[Jimurray]

The fielder must have secure possession of the ball in hand or glove throughout the tag. That doesn't happen here: Culbreth initially rules that he had the ball securely "long enough," but NY said no.

Beware slo-mo: it makes the tag seem longer than it is. We could even develop a philosophy of the "process" of a tag, much like the process of a catch in football. In just the same way, the player must maintain possession throughout the process.

I don't see long enough in the rules. You say beware slomo but NY used it to decide on what? Curlbreth decided that there was secure possession of the ball when the tag was made. I'm confused. No pundits should add posts about my confusion. OK go ahead if they are funny.

[Rich Ives]

My take: If the force involved in making the tag causes the ball to come loose then it wasn't held securely.

[Lindsay]

Whether in 2.00 (2014 OBR) or Definition of Terms (2015), "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. 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. 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."

So that's where the phrase "long enough" comes from. Here we have a play where it appears F6 tags R2 then immediately following this touch, he drops the ball. Not a legal tag.

Then there's the confounding variable (not in this play, but in general) of doing something after the tag - making a throw is the popular transfer concept and that's been hashed out over the past year and a half with replay, the general principle being that the act of tagging has been completed and the ball came loose during a subsequent activity.

 

And then there's this Tim Welke play... http://m.mlb.com/video/v3600013/varitek-tags-out-willits-on-a-botched-suicide-squeeze... with Jim Evans' definition: "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." Rick Roder disagrees: "If the fielder bobbles or drops the ball during or after the touch...and the bobble or drop is due to his lack of control of himself or the ball, or due to contact with a runner, it is not a tag."

Umpire supervisor Cris Jones has gone on record as agreeing with Evans' interpretation: "Once F3 stepped on first the batter-runner is out, as long as F3 is not bobbling the ball as he steps on the bag."

[maven]

I don't see long enough in the rules. You say beware slomo but NY used it to decide on what? Curlbreth decided that there was secure possession of the ball when the tag was made.

You don't? See Gil's post of the definition of TAG.

We can understand the ruling in the OP because the ball came out not only "immediately" after the tag, but as a result of the tag (or, if you like, during the process of the tag).

That differentiates the play from the ruling in the Varitek play. Varitek tagged R3, then went to the ground, and the ball popped out as a result of his landing. In other words, the ball was dislodged by an independent act.

Roder would have overturned the Varitek play since the fielder lost possession of the ball because of "lack of control of himself" (that is, he fell). Evans would likely support Welke's out call.

The inconsistency here cries out for a new philosophy/interpretation. Football went through similar issues with their definition of a CATCH, especially near the goal line. Then NFL and NCAA developed their philosophy of the process of a catch that made the determination relatively easy and consistent (sorry Cowboys and Dez Bryant fans). Were baseball to adopt a similar approach, these plays, and the sense of "immediately after" in the definition of TAG, would be clearer.

[TheRockawayKid]

My interpretation, for what it's worth, is that the ball didn't come out as a result of the tag, but came out as a result of the shake. Consider it a reverse situation of the Ron Gant play in the 1991 World Series... 

[ricka56]

It was bad luck on the fielder's part (but on him) that R's foot went right inside his glove, opening up the glove and loosing control of the tag...good over-turn.

[DVA7130]

How the ever loving F is this even reviewable. This isn't if he was tagged. This is rule interp and judgment.

F instant replay. F it every day forever.

[Replacematt]

How the ever loving F is this even reviewable. This isn't if he was tagged. This is rule interp and judgment.

F instant replay. F it every day forever.

All calls are interpretation and judgement. 

[basejester]

I think the point is that some calls are subjective, like obstruction or this one.