Detached equipment

[Gfoley4]

https://mediadownloads.mlb.com/mlbam/mp4/2018/05/02/1996729983/1525228651745/asset_2500K.mp4

[johnpatrick]

Wow, I've never seen it.

[ElkOil]

45 minutes ago, johnpatrick said:

Wow, I've never seen it.

 

[noumpere]

This is from many years ago.  iirc (and I might just be making this up), there was another instance shortly before this where it wasn't called and the offense argued, or it got some press after the game, etc. -- so the umpires were on edge about this type of play for a while.

[Sut'n Blue]

506 (b)(3)(E)

Each runner, without liability to be put out, may advance one base when:

A fielder deliberately touches a pitched ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play, and the award is made from the position of the runner at the time the ball was touched. 

In both videos the plate ump calls time. Should they have?

 

 

[noumpere]

 

34 minutes ago, Sut'n Blue said:

506 (b)(3)(E)

Each runner, without liability to be put out, may advance one base when:

A fielder deliberately touches a pitched ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play, and the award is made from the position of the runner at the time the ball was touched. 

In both videos the plate ump calls time. Should they have?

Play was sufficiently relaxed in both (I didn't realize that there were two videos until this -- I thought someone just embedded the link from the OP) that time could be called to make the awards.

[pnewton]

Boston Globe website today has an entry on this, writer Alex Speier (a pretty good one) gives a clear explanation and even corrected the commentators that referred to this as a balk. Just nice to see someone caring about getting it right. Vazquez admitted after the game he had never heard of this rule, seems crazy to me.

Video looks like plate umpire was a bit too excited to call this and called time, I believe this is one of those things you point at and see what happens. What should the verbal call be? It isn't interference or obstruction as defined.

[noumpere]

3 hours ago, pnewton said:

Video looks like plate umpire was a bit too excited to call this and called time, I believe this is one of those things you point at and see what happens. What should the verbal call be? It isn't interference or obstruction as defined.

Well, when it's INT we declare, "That's INT."

When it's OBS, we declare, "That's OBS."

So, when it's detached equipment, ... 

 

And, if a runner had been advancing, then, yes, wait to see what happens.  If not, go ahead and call time.

 

[zoops]

Is this really a 2 base award in FED?  

c. two bases if a fair batted or thrown ball becomes dead because of bouncing over or passing through a fence, or lodges in a defensive player's or umpire's equipment or uniform; or if a live thrown ball:

1. including a pitch, is touched by an illegal glove or mitt, or by detached player equipment which is thrown, tossed, kicked or held by a fielder; or

[maven]

13 minutes ago, zoops said:

Is this really a 2 base award in FED?  

Yes.

[zoops]

1 hour ago, maven said:

Yes.

Gross.

[noumpere]

5 minutes ago, zoops said:

Gross.

That would be 144 bases. 

 

By rule, it was a two-base award in OBR -- only by reading some of the interp manuals (and these weren't as readily available as they are now) would an umpire know to award only one base.

[MadMax]

5 hours ago, pnewton said:

Vazquez admitted after the game he had never heard of this rule, seems crazy to me.

Did you see the spooked look on Vazquez's face, though? He knows he did it, he just likely didn't realize that there is/was a rule against it!

It's a shame... he's using a Force3 Defender. Right mask, wrong way to use it. 

[johnnyg08]

 

[BT_Blue]

20 hours ago, MadMax said:

It's a shame... he's using a Force3 Defender. Right mask, wrong way to use it. 

Lol... i did the exact same thing! 

[NorthTexasUmp]

23 hours ago, zoops said:

Is this really a 2 base award in FED?  

I actually had that this year. Ball 4 bounced, catcher blocked, ball went up in the air, catcher took mask off (yes, hockey style mask), ball bounced (on turf), catcher caught ball inside helmet. We awarded batter 2B. No arguments. Just a state of disbelief and bewilderment. 

[zoops]

Let's say the catcher flings his mask off as most do and it contacts the ball, slowing it down or landing on top of the ball?  Still give the award?

[maven]

45 minutes ago, zoops said:

Let's say the catcher flings his mask off as most do and it contacts the ball, slowing it down or landing on top of the ball?  Still give the award?

A good umpire has already answered this question above.

 

[Haid D' Salaami]

On 5/3/2018 at 1:55 PM, NorthTexasUmp said:

I actually had that this year. Ball 4 bounced, catcher blocked, ball went up in the air, catcher took mask off (yes, hockey style mask), ball bounced (on turf), catcher caught ball inside helmet. We awarded batter 2B. No arguments. Just a state of disbelief and bewilderment. 

I actually do not think that was the right ruling. I is a 1 base award from the base at time of pitch.. even though it was ball 4.. he still shouldn't have gotten 2nd.. that is like a pitched ball going in the dugout on ball 4.. still gets 1 base.