Ball on the ground ALCS

[Guest Len]

I believe it was game #3 of the ALSC when Lindor or Kipnis got the force out at second when the ball was on the ground. The infielder did not pick the ball off of the ground to record the out. Unless the rule has been changed or all this time I have been wrong, but does the ball not have to be off the ground? Should this  have been considered a trap because he trapped the ball on the ground? 

I always thought the ball has to be off the ground.

 

[Rich Ives]

12 minutes ago, Guest Len said:

I believe it was game #3 of the ALSC when Lindor or Kipnis got the force out at second when the ball was on the ground. The infielder did not pick the ball off of the ground to record the out. Unless the rule has been changed or all this time I have been wrong, but does the ball not have to be off the ground? Should this  have been considered a trap because he trapped the ball on the ground? 

I always thought the ball has to be off the ground.

 

He had his hand firmly gripping the ball. He thus had control as he tagged the base.  Out.

The rule reads:  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;

As the conditions were met, it is a valid tag and an out.

 

[noumpere]

47 minutes ago, Guest Len said:

Unless the rule has been changed or all this time I have been wrong,

 

The rule hasn't changed. 

 

The ball can be touching the ground AND still in control of the fielder (on this type of play -- and based on the description -- I didn't see the play)

[stkjock]

dupe topics

 

 

[Guest CJK]

Rich is 100% right, of course.

I'll add this: because the fielder must demonstrate that the ball is being "securely held," I would generally need to see it lifted off the ground if it's being held in the glove only.  It's difficult to see that the ball is "securely held" in the glove if the glove is covering the ball.  However, I am quite capable of judging whether the ball is "securely held" in the bare hand, even if the ball is also resting on the ground.

[maven]

Your philosophy is not standard. In fact, there's a FED case play that says it's wrong (for FED, though all codes define tag substantially the same way).

The standard is not what you can see, but what happens when he picks up the glove. If the ball falls out, it was not securely held. Otherwise it was.

[dumbdumb]

3 hours ago, maven said:

Your philosophy is not standard. In fact, there's a FED case play that says it's wrong (for FED, though all codes define tag substantially the same way).

 

 

The standard is not what you can see, but what happens when he picks up the glove. If the ball falls out, it was not securely held. Otherwise it was.

Then what is the snow-coned fly ball at the shoe-tops when 1/2 the ball is caught in the glove while the snow-cone half of the ball showing is touching the grass at exactly the same time???

Just like this play at second with fingers enclosed around the ball for 3/4 of the ball with the bottom of the ball on the dirt.

So they are both outs unless the ball falls out of the hand???

Just asking.

[maven]

21 minutes ago, dumbdumb said:

Then what is the snow-coned fly ball at the shoe-tops when 1/2 the ball is caught in the glove while the snow-cone half of the ball showing is touching the grass at exactly the same time???

Just like this play at second with fingers enclosed around the ball for 3/4 of the ball with the bottom of the ball on the dirt.

So they are both outs unless the ball falls out of the hand???

Just asking.

There's a difference between catching a batted ball and gloving a thrown ball. We care whether one is "in flight."

[Guest CJK]

15 hours ago, maven said:

The standard is not what you can see, but what happens when he picks up the glove. If the ball falls out, it was not securely held. Otherwise it was.

maven, I have a great respect for your inputs here, so please don't view this as an argument or even a disagreement.  I'd genuinely like to understand this more clearly.

I'm specifically thinking about the situation where a fielder would cover the ball with the glove, the runner would pass the base, and then the fielder would pick up the glove.  Are you also looking for something else?  For example, do you need him to pick the glove straight up (no sweep or rotation or whatever)?  Do you need him to pick it up right away (rather than take a second or two, which might let him change his grip on the ball)?  Do you use some other cue to demonstrate that the ball was securely held at the right time?

[maven]

1 hour ago, Guest CJK said:

maven, I have a great respect for your inputs here, so please don't view this as an argument or even a disagreement.  I'd genuinely like to understand this more clearly.

I'm specifically thinking about the situation where a fielder would cover the ball with the glove, the runner would pass the base, and then the fielder would pick up the glove.  Are you also looking for something else?  For example, do you need him to pick the glove straight up (no sweep or rotation or whatever)?  Do you need him to pick it up right away (rather than take a second or two, which might let him change his grip on the ball)?  Do you use some other cue to demonstrate that the ball was securely held at the right time?

No worries! That doesn't sound like arguing!

We have to distinguish 2 issues: every call = RULE + JUDGMENT. The OP asked about whether the rule entails that a ball touching the ground is no tag, and the answer is no. We can answer that one decisively.

These followup questions pertain to judgment, not the rule. How do we judge a tag when the ball is touching the ground?

I'm looking for him to hold the ball securely with the glove. Merely "covering" it is not holding it, and if I judged that he was merely covering the ball I'd have no tag.

As I say, what happens next is often a good indicator of whether he was holding the ball securely. If he can come up with it, then he was (probably) holding it securely. If he can't, or if he has to move or adjust the glove to get hold of the ball, then not. I would not give fielders the benefit of the doubt, at least not when they put the ball on the ground.

These are indicators. If challenged, all we need to say to coach is, "In my judgment the fielder had/did not have secure possession of the ball." He can argue about the rule, but not the judgment. He can disagree with the judgment, which is fine: let him! Play ball!

[Guest CJK]

5 hours ago, maven said:

These are indicators. If challenged, all we need to say to coach is, "In my judgment the fielder had/did not have secure possession of the ball." He can argue about the rule, but not the judgment. He can disagree with the judgment, which is fine: let him! Play ball!

I may have stated it poorly, but I think I meant to say the same thing I think you're saying.  I should have said that I'd *prefer* to see the fielder pick the ball up with the glove almost immediately, and without a significant adjustment, but just to aid my judgment, not because I think it's part of the rule.  The standard is, of course, whether we judge the ball to be securely held.

I definitely agree that regardless of the cues we use for our judgment, there's only one vote that counts.

Thanks for your time and patience, and on behalf of so many of us who post little and lurk regularly, for you willingness to share your knowledge and experience.