Definition of a tag

[spark2212]

Assuming you have the ball, how much of your arm can be used to apply a tag? Does the wrist count? The forearm? The elbow? All the way up to the shoulder?

 

I’m asking about the major-league level.  

 

For example, do both of these count? (Pretend they were different plays.)

[Rich Ives]

Look up "Tag". 

 

[spark2212]

13 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Look up "Tag". 

 

Didn’t help. I want to know if you can tag with your arm.

[The Man in Blue]

I know you asked about MLB ...

... but here is NFHS.  (Let the grumpy veterans start complaining ... now ...)

 

Rule 2 Playing Terms and Definition

SECTION 24 OUT: FORCE-OUT, PUTOUT, STRIKEOUT, TAG OUT, THROW-OUT

ART. 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).

So ... no part of the arm counts.  I actually had that a few weeks ago ... line drive down the third base line, F5 snags it and brings his arm (at about the elbow) down on R3’s head just before R3 gets back to the bag.  I signal safe and can see the coaches starting already.  HC asks for time and I call time and motion him out so I can explain what I saw.  I can completely understand how it looked like a tag from behind the play, but it wasn’t.

HC comes out and goes straight to the plate umpire as I am trying to beckon him to me.  Plate umpire goofs and says he didn’t see it (he later said, “I should have sent him to you before saying anything”).  HC goes back to the dugout.  Some people want an explanation, some people just want a call to favor them.

[maven]

1 hour ago, spark2212 said:

Didn’t help. I want to know if you can tag with your arm.

It would help, if you actually read the rule, which explains in explicit detail what parts of the body constitute a tag.

Here, I'll help: it's on page 154 of the 2019 MLB rule book.

[spark2212]

59 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I know you asked about MLB ...

... but here is NFHS.  (Let the grumpy veterans start complaining ... now ...)

 

Rule 2 Playing Terms and Definition

SECTION 24 OUT: FORCE-OUT, PUTOUT, STRIKEOUT, TAG OUT, THROW-OUT

ART. 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).

So ... no part of the arm counts.  I actually had that a few weeks ago ... line drive down the third base line, F5 snags it and brings his arm (at about the elbow) down on R3’s head just before R3 gets back to the bag.  I signal safe and can see the coaches starting already.  HC asks for time and I call time and motion him out so I can explain what I saw.  I can completely understand how it looked like a tag from behind the play, but it wasn’t.

HC comes out and goes straight to the plate umpire as I am trying to beckon him to me.  Plate umpire goofs and says he didn’t see it (he later said, “I should have sent him to you before saying anything”).  HC goes back to the dugout.  Some people want an explanation, some people just want a call to favor them.

Interesting. In the above play, the fielder clearly slaps Schwarber’s back with his arm, but I’m not sure he ever got him with the actual glove. Call on the field was out, the cubs challenged and it took New York about twenty seconds to uphold the call, if that. 

[The Man in Blue]

58 minutes ago, spark2212 said:

Interesting. In the above play, the fielder clearly slaps Schwarber’s back with his arm, but I’m not sure he ever got him with the actual glove. Call on the field was out, the cubs challenged and it took New York about twenty seconds to uphold the call, if that. 

I haven’t seen video of the whole play, just the still shot you posted which makes it very hard to tell much.  My best guess would be they felt the glove brushed the runner at some point OR ...

Don't forget the standard of proof lends itself to upholding a call versus overturning it.  Upholding it may not mean it was correct, it just means the evidence didn’t meet the standard to overturn.  Inconclusive = upheld.

[spark2212]

Just now, The Man in Blue said:

I haven’t seen video of the whole play, just the still shot you posted which makes it very hard to tell much.  My best guess would be they felt the glove brushed the runner at some point OR ...

Don't forget the standard of proof lends itself to upholding a call versus overturning it.  Upholding it may not mean it was correct, it just means the evidence didn’t meet the standard to overturn.  Inconclusive = upheld.

They upheld it so quickly though... so the forearm doesn’t count? Got it. 

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, maven said:

It would help, if you actually read the rule, which explains in explicit detail what parts of the body constitute a tag.

Here, I'll help: it's on page 154 of the 2019 MLB rule book.

Appreciate the citation @maven.

I can’t imagine how the snark wasn’t helpful in answering @spark2212‘s question.  

 

From maven’s link to the MLB rulebook:

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 touch- ing 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. For purposes of this definition any jewelry being worn by a player (e.g., necklaces, bracelets, etc.) shall not constitute a part of the player’s body.

[JSam21]

On 9/21/2019 at 5:17 PM, spark2212 said:

Interesting. In the above play, the fielder clearly slaps Schwarber’s back with his arm, but I’m not sure he ever got him with the actual glove. Call on the field was out, the cubs challenged and it took New York about twenty seconds to uphold the call, if that. 

Are you saying that the call was upheld and not confirmed? If so where did you get that information? The MLB Replay account doesn’t have anything up on that play yet...

[spark2212]

3 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

Are you saying that the call was upheld and not confirmed? If so where did you get that information? The MLB Replay account doesn’t have anything up on that play yet...

I’m assuming it was confirmed because of how quick it was. There’s an MLB Replay account? Is it public?

[JSam21]

Just now, spark2212 said:

I’m assuming it was upheld because of how quick it was. There’s an MLB Replay account? Is it public?

@MLBReplays on Twitter. For a confirm or overturn they need to provide a freeze frame of the call to do that. So they may have been able to get it quickly on this call

[spark2212]

14 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

Are you saying that the call was upheld and not confirmed? If so where did you get that information? The MLB Replay account doesn’t have anything up on that play yet...

Here you go.

 

And I don’t see a tag with the glove. Just the arm.

[The Man in Blue]

The very first contact is between the “wrist strap” of the glove and the runner.  Then the runner slides “up” his arm and a second contact is made.  It’s cheesy and it’s fleeting, but you can see it in motion.  The still photo was late in the tag and shows the fielder’s arm on the runner, but you can see glove touch before that.

[spark2212]

4 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

The very first contact is between the “wrist strap” of the glove and the runner.  Then the runner slides “up” his arm and a second contact is made.  It’s cheesy and it’s fleeting, but you can see it in motion.  The still photo was late in the tag and shows the fielder’s arm on the runner, but you can see glove touch before that.

Oh I see it. But why doesn’t that fall under the same category as laces?

[JSam21]

10 minutes ago, spark2212 said:

Oh I see it. But why doesn’t that fall under the same category as laces?

Because the wrist strap can’t be elongated...

[Senor Azul]

I originally posted the following in June 2019—it’s a quote from the Jaksa/Roder manual (2017 edition, p. 29) with their definition of tag.

A tag occurs when the ball is live and a fielder has the ball in his hand or glove (or both) and…a runner is touched by any part of the glove/ball, hand/ball, or glove/hand/ball combination (excepting that if dangling laces alone touch the base or runner, it is not a tag).

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, JSam21 said:

Because the wrist strap can’t be elongated...

If it is a Velcro closure, it theoretically could.  Just leave it unstrapped and sticking out.  

 

As for why/why not ... the line has to be drawn somewhere.

[spark2212]

3 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

If it is a Velcro closure, it theoretically could.  Just leave it unstrapped and sticking out.  

 

As for why/why not ... the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Velcro... that’s what I was thinking. But I like your answer. 

[maven]

The laces can be extended arbitrarily without compromising the function of the glove. Allowing their touch to count as a tag confers an unfair advantage on the fielder.

The same cannot be said of the wrist closure, if any (my glove does not have Velcro™).

This difference provides a non-arbitrary basis for the ruling.

[Senor Azul]

The following text is from an analysis written by Close Call Sports titled Commentary Critique--Glove Laces Not Part of Tag and dated June 4, 2018—

…This phrase—"not including hanging laces alone"—was added to the Official Baseball Rules ahead of the 2016 season, as the Rules Committee was concerned with expanded replay and potential confusion of whether a hanging lace incidentally contacting a runner should be enough to oblige the Replay Official to overturn a safe call or confirm an out call.

It went on to say that laces are not part of a glove—“This is also supported by OBR Diagram 4, in Appendix 4, which pictures a regulation glove featuring many items of interest, none of which happen to be hanging laces.”

[HokieUmp]

"Grumpy Old Man"-take coming....

THIS thread alone is why I can't stand replay, even in this version.  I would prefer it be limited to fair/foul at the poles, and for maybe "HR or not?" situations where stadiums have a nook/cranny deal. 

Put it this way:  when I woke up this morning and decided to catch up at U-E today, I didn't think I'd read about a dozen posts on the esoterics of gloves and laces and "was that guy tagged" - when it's one of those "I know it when I see it" plays - and yet here we are.

[spark2212]

51 minutes ago, HokieUmp said:

"Grumpy Old Man"-take coming....

THIS thread alone is why I can't stand replay, even in this version.  I would prefer it be limited to fair/foul at the poles, and for maybe "HR or not?" situations where stadiums have a nook/cranny deal. 

Put it this way:  when I woke up this morning and decided to catch up at U-E today, I didn't think I'd read about a dozen posts on the esoterics of gloves and laces and "was that guy tagged" - when it's one of those "I know it when I see it" plays - and yet here we are.

Replays are important for the integrity of the game. In fact, I feel like the list of reviewable calls should be expanded to include things like fair/foul on the infield when the original call is fair (seems easy enough to place the runners), whether or not a batted ball hit the batter in or out of the batter’s box, whether the batter was out of the box, and other calls that would be relatively easy to review but which often get overlooked.

For that matter I also think that the infield fly rule should be revised so that if the ball lands and all runners advance safely, the call gets waved off.

[ArchAngel72]

On 9/21/2019 at 5:38 PM, maven said:

It would help, if you actually read the rule, which explains in explicit detail what parts of the body constitute a tag.

Here, I'll help: it's on page 154 of the 2019 MLB rule book.

Interesting they note that Jewelry worn by the player would not count if it were tagged. I assume they mean a dangling necklace.  Would they consider it a tag to hit someones long wavy hair.  LOL

 

[Rich Ives]

10 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

Interesting they note that Jewelry worn by the player would not count if it were tagged. I assume they mean a dangling necklace.  Would they consider it a tag to hit someones long wavy hair.  LOL

 

Hair is part of the body. Jewelry isn't.  Help?   

 

[HokieUmp]

42 minutes ago, spark2212 said:

Replays are important for the integrity of the game. In fact, I feel like the list of reviewable calls should be expanded to include things like fair/foul on the infield when the original call is fair (seems easy enough to place the runners), whether or not a batted ball hit the batter in or out of the batter’s box, whether the batter was out of the box, and other calls that would be relatively easy to review but which often get overlooked.

For that matter I also think that the infield fly rule should be revised so that if the ball lands and all runners advance safely, the call gets waved off.

I actually had to get up and walk away from my computer, after I saw this.  (To be fair, I also had to use the restroom, but still.)  It's like you went into a lab to create The Perfect Post that would make me head right into "Yelling At Clouds" mode.

I realize the professional game has bags of money to burn, but in what way would this help the game as played?  Fair/foul has eyes on it, the rule is straight-forward;  for batter being hit in/out of the box, or hitting WHILE in/out of the box, there are already interpretations and guides for that.  Don't get me wrong - my entire working career has been in IT, so it's not like I ride to games on my penny farthing and whatnot.  But FAR too often, people want to throw solutions at stuff, without first coming to grips with the rhetorical question "What problem does this solution solve?  DOES it solve anything?"  To me, it's not clear the game suffers enough to add more scenarios.

If people think the game is too damn long now, wait until we expand the reviewable stuff AND let Joe Madden be one of the managers in a game.  (I feel like Joe is either subversive enough, or a jackass enough, to push the limits of all this.)

I'm watching college and pro football turn every play into the possibility of going to the booth.  Is the game better?  I'd say no.

...... and get off my lawn, with your hair and your clothes!