Safe/Out??

[berns_97]

OK guys, here one for you. Happened yesterday. Catcher takes the throw and dives toward the plate. He gets the mitt on the ground and the runner slides into the mitt before hitting the plate. The catchers hand got hurt on the play and he immediately pulled his hand out of the mitt. After pulling his hand out of the mitt, the ball rolled out of the mitt and onto the ground. His other  hand was never a factor during or after the play. What's the call? Would you have anything different had the hall stayed in the mitt?

P.S. I ended up calling him out. help me out guys

[Replacematt]

If the act of the tag was completed before he removed his hand from the mitt, I have an out.

Depending on what happened, the act of him removing his hand may be the completion of the tag.

[JaxRolo]

I still have an out!

[grayhawk]

With the catcher intentionally removing his mitt, it sounds to me like the runner's slide into the mitt didn't knock the mitt off his hand or the ball out of the mitt and the continuing action of tag tag was completed.  He's out.

[Stk004]

This is very HTBT. The word that throws me off is "immediately." If the runner slid into the mitt and the glove immediately came off and the ball came out, I'd have a hard time calling him out. If the mitt stayed on after the tag, the catcher rolled away, then took his mitt off, it's probably an out. HTBT

[MadMax]

The qualifier we were given by the MLB Umpire Trainers-in-Attendance was "Voluntary Release". If a F7, in full gallop, snares a screamer down the 3BL, gets two feet down (for you Football referees), has it in his glove for a stride or two, but crashes into the sidewall, knocking the ball out... it is not a catch.

So here, going for the tag with the ball in the glove... If the slide of the Runner knocks the glove off, that's one thing (either nothing and Safe, or if it was intentional/malicious, judged accordingly); if the Fielder (Catcher, in this case) makes the tag and proceeds to shake his glove off, yelping from an injury, then that's a voluntary action and release (despite it being in reaction to the tag). That would be an out, and advice would be to the calling / nearest umpire to be clear and definite about that call.

[Jimurray]

5 minutes ago, MadMax said:

The qualifier we were given by the MLB Umpire Trainers-in-Attendance was "Voluntary Release". If a F7, in full gallop, snares a screamer down the 3BL, gets two feet down (for you Football referees), has it in his glove for a stride or two, but crashes into the sidewall, knocking the ball out... it is not a catch.

So here, going for the tag with the ball in the glove... If the slide of the Runner knocks the glove off, that's one thing (either nothing and Safe, or if it was intentional/malicious, judged accordingly); if the Fielder (Catcher, in this case) makes the tag and proceeds to shake his glove off, yelping from an injury, then that's a voluntary action and release (despite it being in reaction to the tag). That would be an out, and advice would be to the calling / nearest umpire to be clear and definite about that call.

Voluntary release is not a condition of a tag. Secure possession is. Did the umpire trainers add voluntary release to the tag criteria? 

[maven]

The criteria for TAG are different from those for CATCH.

[VolUmp]

7 hours ago, berns_97 said:

... he immediately pulled his hand out of the mitt. After pulling his hand out of the mitt, the ball rolled out of the mitt and onto the ground.

Sounds to me like you've established secure possession for the tag.  Call was correct.

[JaxRolo]

On 12/12/2016 at 6:20 PM, MadMax said:

The qualifier we were given by the MLB Umpire Trainers-in-Attendance was "Voluntary Release". If a F7, in full gallop, snares a screamer down the 3BL, gets two feet down (for you Football referees), has it in his glove for a stride or two, but crashes into the sidewall, knocking the ball out... it is not a catch.

So here, going for the tag with the ball in the glove... If the slide of the Runner knocks the glove off, that's one thing (either nothing and Safe, or if it was intentional/malicious, judged accordingly); if the Fielder (Catcher, in this case) makes the tag and proceeds to shake his glove off, yelping from an injury, then that's a voluntary action and release (despite it being in reaction to the tag). That would be an out, and advice would be to the calling / nearest umpire to be clear and definite about that call.

I agree. Good post. He took his hand out of the glove!

[Haid D' Salaami]

On 12/12/2016 at 5:28 PM, maven said:

The criteria for TAG are different from those for CATCH.

tell us the difference... for a catch we must have secure and firm Possession and voluntary release..

 

so what is it for a Tag? do we not need secure possession? 

[Jimurray]

45 minutes ago, Haid D' Salaami said:

tell us the difference... for a catch we must have secure and firm Possession and voluntary release..

 

so what is it for a Tag? do we not need secure possession? 

I, in trying to answer the difference between a catch an tag in OBR, would say that after a catch if the fielder hit a wall and lost possession it would not be a catch. But if a fielder tagged a runner and hit a wall and lost possession it would be a tag. 

Now tell us how NCAA wants it called per the 2017 book because I think they added voluntary release as evidence of secure possession for a tag. But is it required evidence?

[Richvee]

Was this call correct? If yes, it's a great example of the difference between a legal tag, and a catch.

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/67794254/v3600013/2008-alds-gm4-varitek-stymies-the-squeeze-in-9th/?query=Varitek

[Stk004]

37 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Was this call correct? If yes, it's a great example of the difference between a legal tag, and a catch.

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/67794254/v3600013/2008-alds-gm4-varitek-stymies-the-squeeze-in-9th/?query=Varitek

Quote

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 (not including hanging laces alone), 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.

I'd say that's a good tag. Good video, definitely illustrates not needing voluntary release. 

[noumpere]

8 hours ago, Richvee said:

Was this call correct? If yes, it's a great example of the difference between a legal tag, and a catch.

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/67794254/v3600013/2008-alds-gm4-varitek-stymies-the-squeeze-in-9th/?query=Varitek

NCAA wants that play called "safe."  I think so does FED.  I can't recall if OBR "changed" the ruling (or what should have been the ruling) after the play,

[maven]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

NCAA wants that play called "safe."  I think so does FED.  I can't recall if OBR "changed" the ruling (or what should have been the ruling) after the play,

I'm not so sure. NCAA has explicit language requiring fielders to "maintain or regain control of his body," and if he "drops the ball due to his lack of body control or control of the ball, it is not a tag." (NCAA 2-76)

In the video, the ball comes out, NOT due to the force of the tag, but when the fielder goes to the ground after the tag. The NCAA language about maintaining body control makes the ruling easy: no tag.

In OBR, we can rule that this satisfies the definition of a tag: the ball is securely held at the moment of the tag (doesn't come out because of the force of the tag). That's why U3 (Welke?) rules the runner out and sticks with it. When F2 goes to the ground after the tag, that's a second act, with no impact on the play (though the ball is live and other runners may advance).

Here's FED's definition of TAG (2-24-4):

"A tag out is the put out of a runner, including the batter-runner, who is not in contact with his base when touched with a live ball, or with the glove or hand when the live ball is held securely therein by a fielder. The ball is not ­considered as having been securely held if it is juggled or dropped after the touching, unless the runner deliberately knocks the ball from the hand of the ­fielder (8-4-2h2)."

This language is more akin to OBR's language than NCAA's: nothing about maintaining or regaining body control. Without further guidance, I'd rule as Welke did in the clip: tag, followed by a second act that caused the ball to pop out.

If another umpire ruled that the ball popping out was evidence that it was never securely held — no tag — that's a judgment call that's supportable. I wouldn't rule that way on the play in the video, but it's a judgment call that is supportable by rule.

The BRD has 3 pages of discussion of this issue, following §537 for those interested. It includes Wendelstedt stating that Welke got it wrong (not directly, but an identical case play — tag, fielder goes to ground with ball, ball pops out — ruled not a tag).

So the pendulum might be swinging toward ruling this "no tag" at all levels....

[jkumpire]

Back to the original play in question;

In both NCAA and Fed I still have an out.

In Fed, 8-4-2-h-2 says: "(Runner is out if he) is touched by a live ball securely held by a fielder or is touched by a fielder's glove or hand with the live ball held therein, while the runner is not ­touching his base.... 2. The ball is not securely held if it is dropped or juggled after the runner is touched.

Neither criteria applies in this situation. Ball was not dropped by F2, ball was not juggled by F2. He took his hand out of the glove due to injury and the ball fell out of the glove after the act. You have an out.

In NCAA, the definition of tag in 2-76 says... "the fielder shall maintain or regain control of his body and if he drops the ball due to his lack of body control or control of the ball, it is not a tag. A voluntary and and intentional release is substantive proof of complete control."

I may be OOO'ing the definition here, but 'substantive proof' does not preclude other proofs of control. I have a very hard time saying that F2 lost control of the ball after getting spiked by the runner. He lost control of the ball after the tag and act of being spiked. He had clear control of the ball until he was spiked, I got an out.

and while I admit this situation might not be analogous, what about the play Rick Ankile made what three or four seasons ago when he caught a ball, hit the wall or the ground with his head, and obviously concussed lifted up his glove and the ball fell out. I was sitting in Chicago when the NCAA leadership showed the clip and the ball falling out of his glove as he lifted his hand/glove to show he had the ball and saying that it was a catch even though the ball rolled out of his glove.   

Comments? .

 

 

 

 

[noumpere]

7 hours ago, jkumpire said:

and while I admit this situation might not be analogous, what about the play Rick Ankile made what three or four seasons ago when he caught a ball, hit the wall or the ground with his head, and obviously concussed lifted up his glove and the ball fell out. I was sitting in Chicago when the NCAA leadership showed the clip and the ball falling out of his glove as he lifted his hand/glove to show he had the ball and saying that it was a catch even though the ball rolled out of his glove.   

Comments? .

 

 

 

 

That was a separate move after the catch -- voluntary release -- not evident in the run-down tag at third play presented here.

 

The "separate move" is something I look for in making the determination.

[maven]

15 minutes ago, noumpere said:

That was a separate move after the catch -- voluntary release -- not evident in the run-down tag at third play presented here.

What's weird about the NCAA rule is that voluntary release is presented as sufficient evidence of a tag, not necessary. So if we have a voluntary release after a tag, that's good enough: runner out. But the rule does not state or entail that without voluntary release we never have a tag.

Maybe they meant to make voluntary release a necessary component of a tag, and maybe that's how they interpret it; but the rule doesn't say that.

[beerguy55]

On 1/3/2017 at 4:57 AM, maven said:

What's weird about the NCAA rule is that voluntary release is presented as sufficient evidence of a tag, not necessary. So if we have a voluntary release after a tag, that's good enough: runner out. But the rule does not state or entail that without voluntary release we never have a tag.

Maybe they meant to make voluntary release a necessary component of a tag, and maybe that's how they interpret it; but the rule doesn't say that.

This starts to sounds like the NFL "football move" element of a catch, and wondering how Dez Bryant diving for the end zone is not a football move.  The more these writers, across all sports, try to clarify the elements of a catch (or tag), the more doors they seem to open.

 

FWIW, I agree with your interpretation....voluntary release is like dessert, nice but not necessary.

[Stk004]

2 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

This starts to sounds like the NFL "football move" element of a catch, and wondering how Dez Bryant diving for the end zone is not a football move.  The more these writers, across all sports, try to clarify the elements of a catch (or tag), the more doors they seem to open.

 

FWIW, I agree with your interpretation....voluntary release is like dessert, nice but not necessary.

Dez dropped it 

[BT_Blue]

19 hours ago, Stk004 said:

Dez dropped it 

Said like a true 12.

[Haid D' Salaami]

8 hours ago, BT_Blue said:

Said like a true 12.

Go Hawks!!!  Beat the Lions... I've already bought tickets for the game in Atlanta