Jump to content
  • 0
Guest Dan Duncan

togging base without ball

Question

Guest Dan Duncan

Baserunner on first. Ball hit up middle. Shortstop, falling down, bobbles ball. Grabs ball with one hand. Reaches over and touches base with empty glove before runner reaches base. Is baserunner out or safe>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Would he be out if the shortstop had touched with his foot? Same answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest Dan Duncan
This ruling from the UmpireBible below seems to contradict KyleHutson's view. Which one is correct? Could someone show me in the rules where KyleHutson's view is listed? I am unable to find it.
 
"With the ball held securely in hand or glove, the fielder can, in a force situation, touch (tag) a base with any portion of his body, including his gloved hand. foot, non-glove hand, and so forth.. ... It is not a legal tag if the ball is in the fielder's hand, and the tag is then made with an empty glove."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
45 minutes ago, Guest Dan Duncan said:
This ruling from the UmpireBible below seems to contradict KyleHutson's view. Which one is correct? Could someone show me in the rules where KyleHutson's view is listed? I am unable to find it.
 
"With the ball held securely in hand or glove, the fielder can, in a force situation, touch (tag) a base with any portion of his body, including his gloved hand. foot, non-glove hand, and so forth.. ... It is not a legal tag if the ball is in the fielder's hand, and the tag is then made with an empty glove."

You've deleted a crucial qualifier.

The situation you asked about originally is a force situation. The first sentence you quote from Jon Bible applies, and Kyle's answer is correct.

The last sentence you quote applies to non-force situations: here's the entire sentence. "In a non-force situation, the fielder must tag a runner with the ball held securely in the hand; or, he can tag the runner with the glove in which the ball is held securely. It is not a legal tag if the ball is in the fielder's hand, and the tag is then made with an empty glove."

The provision appears in the definitions section of all the rule books (every level), under TAG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest Dan Duncan

Okay,  I can see that there is almost universal agreement that a fielder, in a force situation, may touch the base with his "gloved hand." However, please note that I did not mix up two situations: a force situation and a non-force situation. I specifically quoted the UmpireBible on a force situation. Please look at the quote. The issue is the definition of a "gloved hand." I quoted the rule accurately. The issue is this: Is the glove part of the hand or does the hand itself need to touch the base to be a legal touch? Clearly, most seem to think that the glove in force situations is part of the hand, and therefore capable of a legal touch.  

It seems to me personally that the distinction of a force and non-force play with regard to the fielder's glove in relationship to the runner or a base is confusing at best. We are talking about the capacity of a live ball in a fielder's possession to make outs. In every force situation, the fielder is required to touch the base to make an out. Otherwise, he must touch the runner with the ball whether in the glove or not. The issue in a force situation is whether or not the glove is part of the fielder's clothing as a shoe (which typically touches the base) in part of his clothing. It seems to me that it is not. Does a fielder take off his shoes when he goes into the dugout in between innings? No. But he takes off his glove and puts it aside until he goes out again to be a defensive player. 

Non-force and force situations should be treated the same with regard to the fielder's glove. To be live, a glove needs to have a ball in it. The fielder's whole person becomes live if the fielder has possession of the ball, in a force situation, whether in his glove or his hand.  Otherwise, the glove is not part of the person without a ball in it. It's just a piece of leather dangling from the hand.

That's my two cents.

Dan Duncan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 minutes ago, Guest Dan Duncan said:

Okay,  I can see that there is almost universal agreement that a fielder, in a force situation, may touch the base with his "gloved hand." However, please note that I did not mix up two situations: a force situation and a non-force situation. I specifically quoted the UmpireBible on a force situation. Please look at the quote. The issue is the definition of a "gloved hand." I quoted the rule accurately. The issue is this: Is the glove part of the hand or does the hand itself need to touch the base to be a legal touch? Clearly, most seem to think that the glove in force situations is part of the hand, and therefore capable of a legal touch.  

It seems to me personally that the distinction of a force and non-force play with regard to the fielder's glove in relationship to the runner or a base is confusing at best. We are talking about the capacity of a live ball in a fielder's possession to make outs. In every force situation, the fielder is required to touch the base to make an out. Otherwise, he must touch the runner with the ball whether in the glove or not. The issue in a force situation is whether or not the glove is part of the fielder's clothing as a shoe (which typically touches the base) in part of his clothing. It seems to me that it is not. Does a fielder take off his shoes when he goes into the dugout in between innings? No. But he takes off his glove and puts it aside until he goes out again to be a defensive player. 

Non-force and force situations should be treated the same with regard to the fielder's glove. To be live, a glove needs to have a ball in it. The fielder's whole person becomes live if the fielder has possession of the ball, in a force situation, whether in his glove or his hand.  Otherwise, the glove is not part of the person without a ball in it. It's just a piece of leather dangling from the hand.

That's my two cents.

Dan Duncan

 You most certainly did mix up two situations with your quote.

I'm kinda curious why you're so adamant about arguing against something that is precisely defined in all sets of rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

A tag occurs when a fielder touches a base with any part of his body while holding the ball securely in his hand or glove. And the glove worn properly is considered part of the fielder’s body. Perhaps the high school rule book describes that concept best—

2018 NFHS Rule 2 SECTION 40 TOUCHING BALL, BASE OR RUNNER

Touching is contact with, and there is no distinction between the act of touching or by being touched. The term applies to contact with any part of the person or his clothing if the clothing is reasonably well fitted. This includes:

d. a player touching a base, or

And from the 2018 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual (section 10.9, p. 137): Regarding the definition of a touch, equipment intentionally placed somewhere by a player should be considered worn in its intended place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Matt said:

 

I'm kinda curious why you're so adamant about arguing against something that is precisely defined in all sets of rules. 

Maybe his kid was called out and he's pissed.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Guest Dan Duncan said:

Okay,  I can see that there is almost universal agreement that a fielder, in a force situation, may touch the base with his "gloved hand." However, please note that I did not mix up two situations: a force situation and a non-force situation. I specifically quoted the UmpireBible on a force situation. Please look at the quote. The issue is the definition of a "gloved hand." I quoted the rule accurately. The issue is this: Is the glove part of the hand or does the hand itself need to touch the base to be a legal touch? Clearly, most seem to think that the glove in force situations is part of the hand, and therefore capable of a legal touch.  

It seems to me personally that the distinction of a force and non-force play with regard to the fielder's glove in relationship to the runner or a base is confusing at best. We are talking about the capacity of a live ball in a fielder's possession to make outs. In every force situation, the fielder is required to touch the base to make an out. Otherwise, he must touch the runner with the ball whether in the glove or not. The issue in a force situation is whether or not the glove is part of the fielder's clothing as a shoe (which typically touches the base) in part of his clothing. It seems to me that it is not. Does a fielder take off his shoes when he goes into the dugout in between innings? No. But he takes off his glove and puts it aside until he goes out again to be a defensive player. 

Non-force and force situations should be treated the same with regard to the fielder's glove. To be live, a glove needs to have a ball in it. The fielder's whole person becomes live if the fielder has possession of the ball, in a force situation, whether in his glove or his hand.  Otherwise, the glove is not part of the person without a ball in it. It's just a piece of leather dangling from the hand.

That's my two cents.

Dan Duncan

Your two cents has been victimized by inflation.

Touching the base and touching the runner are different.   Period.   You can't tag a runner with your foot, or your tongue or your head to get an out.  You can do all of those with a base.

It doesn't matter if it's a force or not...the difference there is you can only tag the base in a force situation.  You can tag the runner in both...and the same rules for tagging a runner apply to both.

If a legal piece of equipment or clothing is worn properly, it becomes part of the person.   That includes fielding gloves, or those oven mitts that some base runners are now using.  The mitt is legal.  When it's worn properly, it's part of the person.  If the mitt touches the base the runner is safe.

It doesn't matter if you take it off between innings.  That has no bearing or relevance to the discussion.  Tagging the bill of a runner's helmet, or a pitch hitting the bill of a batter's helmet, still qualify as touching the player, because the properly worn helmet, which will be removed between innings, is part of the player.

 

If you're gonna quote UmpireBible, why are you ignoring the actual definition on the page you linked?

 

TAG is the action of a fielder in touching a base with the body while holding the ball securely and firmly in the hand or glove; or touching a runner with the ball or with the hand or glove holding the ball, while holding the ball securely and firmly in the hand or glove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Mr. Duncan, the concept of the glove being a part of the fielder’s body is actually found in the appendix (Definitions of Terms) to the Official Baseball Rules in the entry for the term person. And I apologize to you—I should have posted this earlier.

2019 OBR Definitions of Terms

The PERSON of a player or an umpire is any part of his body, his clothing or his equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest Dan Duncan

Thank you Senor Azul for your definition from OBR. That is all I ask, that the rules be quoted and understood correctly. Beyond that, I was suggesting a different way of thinking about the rule. A way that might, just might, make better sense and be more consistent. I realize, if put into effect, it would CHANGE the way the game is currently played. Many people do not like to see change in this sport they love. I get that. But to fault me for even suggesting a different way of thinking about the tag rule is unfair. 

And, no, I was not the player who was tagged out in the tag situation that caused me to question its legitimacy. This is not personal. I am a player who just wants to understand the game and play it properly. 

Again, just for clarity, my suggestion is this: tag plays be treated the same, whether in force or non-force situations, with regard to the fielder, his glove and the ball. If a runner is in between bases, the fielder must touch the player with his glove with the ball in it, force or non-force situation. In a force play, if a fielder has possession of the ball and touches the base with any part of his body, the runner is out. According to the current rule, he may touch the base with his empty glove, as that is considered part of his body. My suggestion is this:  since we regard the glove to be "live" only when in possession of the ball in tags in between bases, that we extend the same logic to the force situation at a base, and require the ball to be in the glove when tagging the base with the glove. I understand this is NOT the way it is currently played. It would be a CHANGE. 

Just something to think about. I appreciate all the comments I have received here that have helped me understand the rules as they are currently established and played. It's sometimes hard to get clarification on the field because, as everybody who plays this game knows, different people have different takes. 

Dan Duncan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
14 minutes ago, Guest Dan Duncan said:

Thank you Senor Azul for your definition from OBR. That is all I ask, that the rules be quoted and understood correctly. Beyond that, I was suggesting a different way of thinking about the rule. A way that might, just might, make better sense and be more consistent. I realize, if put into effect, it would CHANGE the way the game is currently played. Many people do not like to see change in this sport they love. I get that. But to fault me for even suggesting a different way of thinking about the tag rule is unfair. 

And, no, I was not the player who was tagged out in the tag situation that caused me to question its legitimacy. This is not personal. I am a player who just wants to understand the game and play it properly. 

Again, just for clarity, my suggestion is this: tag plays be treated the same, whether in force or non-force situations, with regard to the fielder, his glove and the ball. If a runner is in between bases, the fielder must touch the player with his glove with the ball in it, force or non-force situation. In a force play, if a fielder has possession of the ball and touches the base with any part of his body, the runner is out. According to the current rule, he may touch the base with his empty glove, as that is considered part of his body. My suggestion is this:  since we regard the glove to be "live" only when in possession of the ball in tags in between bases, that we extend the same logic to the force situation at a base, and require the ball to be in the glove when tagging the base with the glove. I understand this is NOT the way it is currently played. It would be a CHANGE. 

Just something to think about. I appreciate all the comments I have received here that have helped me understand the rules as they are currently established and played. It's sometimes hard to get clarification on the field because, as everybody who plays this game knows, different people have different takes. 

Dan Duncan

You still don't get it.  If a tag of a base with a shoe is OK then a tag of a base with a glove is OK. 

If a pitch hits your shirt but doesn't actually contact your body it's still a HBP.

What you are wearing is part of you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
39 minutes ago, Guest Dan Duncan said:

Again, just for clarity, my suggestion is this: tag plays be treated the same, whether in force or non-force situations, with regard to the fielder, his glove and the ball. If a runner is in between bases, the fielder must touch the player with his glove with the ball in it, force or non-force situation.

That is the rule.

As for your other change (on tagging the base) -- my view is that if we allow the shoe to count, then we need to allow all (normally worn) equipment to count, for simplicity.

If you want to propose a change, write the OBR rules committee.  No one here has the power to make any such changes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Tagging a player and tagging a base are different, that's the real issue here. It's not really about a forced runner or a not forced runner.

I think OP believes that it would be an out to tag a forced runner with an empty glove. This is not the case at all. If tagging a runner the tag must be with the ball or the hand holding the ball (this includes the glove holding the ball). When tagging a base the fielder can touch the base with anything (i.e. foot) as long as they are holding the ball.

Tagging a base doesn't just happen on force plays, it also happens on appeals and at first on ground balls. These are times the rules say tagging the base before the runner reaches that base results in an out.  You could tag the base in almost any situation, it just wouldn't be an out if the rules don't say it is in that situation.

If the OP had his way then there would need to be some special wording allowing a player to tag a base with their foot but not their hand, unless he wants fielder's to always have to reach down and tag the base with the glove holding the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 hours ago, Guest Dan Duncan said:

Again, just for clarity, my suggestion is this: tag plays be treated the same, whether in force or non-force situations, with regard to the fielder, his glove and the ball. If a runner is in between bases, the fielder must touch the player with his glove with the ball in it, force or non-force situation

That is the rule...why are you confused by this, or why do you think it's different between force and non-force?  It's not.   The only part you're missing is the fielder may touch the runner with either hand/glove, as long as the ball is in that hand/glove.  (or tagged with the ball itself while held by a hand) That is the rule.  There is nothing to change here.   

4 hours ago, Guest Dan Duncan said:

In a force play, if a fielder has possession of the ball and touches the base with any part of his body, the runner is out. According to the current rule, he may touch the base with his empty glove, as that is considered part of his body.

And?   He is wearing the glove.  The glove, when worn properly, is part of his body.  If he touches the base with the bill of his hat that ALSO counts, because he is wearing the hat.  Any piece of clothing/equipment that is worn properly is part of the person.

 

4 hours ago, Guest Dan Duncan said:

My suggestion is this:  since we regard the glove to be "live" only when in possession of the ball in tags in between bases, that we extend the same logic to the force situation at a base, and require the ball to be in the glove when tagging the base with the glove. I understand this is NOT the way it is currently played. It would be a CHANGE. 

My question is why change this particular rule?  What problem are you trying to solve?   What element of the game are you trying to improve?  Change for the sake of change is pointless.   I could think outside the box for literally every rule in the MLB rule book - it doesn't mean it would achieve anything meaningful.  And if we're going to change or reinterpret rules there are probably 30 or 40 I would revisit before even thinking about yours.

We regard the glove to be an extension of the hand.  When tagging the runner he must be tagged with the "hand" that holds the ball. You may not tag the runner with your foot, elbow, head, knee, or shoulder.  Even with the ball in the glove.  You may not tag the runner with your empty hand.  Only the hand that holds the ball, or the ball itself.

And,  when applicable (first base, force, appeal) the base may be tagged with any part of the body (including any piece of equipment/clothing properly worn on that body) if the ball is held in either "hand".   That includes the elbow, head, knee, shoulder, tongue, nose, ass, ear, plus the shoe, or the glove, or the bill of your cap, or a catcher's mask if he were to put his face on the base, or a catcher's shin pad if he were to kneel on the base.  The base may also be tagged by just the ball, provided it is held by a hand. (provided the hand is attached to a body)

Why would you propose to treat a worn glove differently than a shoe, a cap, a helmet, a mask, a jersey?

The glove isn't "live" because there's a ball in it...it's "live" because it is being worn.

There is one standard for tagging a runner.

There is one standard for tagging a base.

The glove isn't the problem.  There is no problem. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The problem, Dan, is the ellipsis in your quote of the Rules. There is an important context in the rule that you replaced with the ellipse: "In a non-force situation." The first half of your quote correctly identifies "in a force situations" but then you go on and omit from the second half of your quote the very important qualifying phrase "in a non-force situation."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 6/12/2019 at 2:54 PM, roothog66 said:

The problem, Dan, is the ellipsis in your quote of the Rules. There is an important context in the rule that you replaced with the ellipse: "In a non-force situation." The first half of your quote correctly identifies "in a force situations" but then you go on and omit from the second half of your quote the very important qualifying phrase "in a non-force situation."

The problem is UmpireBible isn't a Bible for anything, and is poorly written in the explanations in this particular section.

If one were to take it literally it implies that you can't tag a runner in a force situation, only the bag, or that the rules for tagging a runner are somehow different in a force situation...and, though trying to simplify for laymen, ignores appeals and the fact that first base isn't a force - and, unintentionally perpetuates the misunderstanding that plays at first and appeals are force plays. 

The fact is, the explanation in "non-force situations" for tagging a runner also applies to "force" situations.

What it really should say is "tagging a runner requires..." and in a force/appeal situation "you may also...." - as written, it's junk unless you know what the author means to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0



This ruling from the UmpireBible below seems to contradict KyleHutson's view. Which one is correct? Could someone show me in the rules where KyleHutson's view is listed? I am unable to find it.   "With the ball held securely in hand or glove, the fielder can, in a force situation, touch (tag) a base with any portion of his body, including his gloved hand. foot, non-glove hand, and so forth.. ... It is not a legal tag if the ball is in the fielder's hand, and the tag is then made with an empty glove."

The Tag - UmpireBible

  https://www.umpirebible.com/index.php/rules-fielding/the-tag

Come on dude. You omitted the part in bold that makes it perfectly clear - here's the direct quote:
2. With the ball held securely in hand or glove, the fielder can, in a force situation, touch (tag) a base with any portion of his body, including his gloved hand. foot, non-glove hand, and so forth..
3. In a non-force situation, the fielder must tag a runner with the ball held securely in the hand; or, he can tag the runner with the glove in which the ball is held securely. It is not a legal tag if the ball is in the fielder's hand, and the tag is then made with an empty glove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...