Tangel-Untangle with an extra dose of tangle

[Velho]

Interested in others' thoughts. I see this a tangle-untangle (and PU giving a safe "that's nothing" sign would be called for).

 

 

[Jimurray]

10 minutes ago, Velho said:

Interested in others' thoughts. I see this a tangle-untangle (and PU giving a safe "that's nothing" sign would be called for).

 

 

Yes, it's a 6.01(a)(10) Comment "Tangle Untangle". Warning, watch the video on this site. Do not go to Youtube and watch it there. You will start perusing the comments whether you intended or not. Off topic, a lot of catchers who start umpiring find it hard to break the right hand mask off habit. They do transfer it so no big deal.

[Velho]

20 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Yes, it's a 6.01(a)(10) Comment "Tangle Untangle"

Good call to include the cite:

Rule 6.01(a)(10) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. “Obstruction” by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such “right of way” is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. 

Further from the 2021 MiLB Umpire Manual:

6.12 BATTER-RUNNER AND CATCHER COLLIDE
Rule 6.01(a)(10] Comment
When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact while the catcher is attempting to field the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called.
This cannot be interpreted to mean, however, that flagrant contact by either party would not call for either an interference call or an obstruction call. Either one should be called only if the violation is flagrant in nature. A fielder has "right of way" to make a play, but an unavoidable collision cannot be construed as a violation on the part ot either the runner or the catcher.

[noumpere]

I think that was far enough outside the batters box to support an OBS call.

 

This, for example, is from JEA:

[Jimurray]

30 minutes ago, noumpere said:

I think that was far enough outside the batters box to support an OBS call.

 

This, for example, is from JEA:

The batter's box is not mentioned in the OBR rule.

[BigBlue4u]

I agree with the OBS call for the same reason cited earlier, too far up the baseline and not in the immediate vicinity of home plate.

[Jimurray]

24 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

I agree with the OBS call for the same reason cited earlier, too far up the baseline and not in the immediate vicinity of home plate.

Can you give us a cite for "immediate vicinity" and then a cite for its definition?

[BigBlue4u]

My cite for "immediate vicinity" would be a step and a reach.  That is the common guideline for determining obstruction or interference.

[Jimurray]

3 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

My cite for "immediate vicinity" would be a step and a reach.  That is the common guideline for determining obstruction or interference.

That's a common guideline for runners and fielders. We have a batter-runner, as OBR calls him, and a catcher, and there is nothing in their rule about the batter's box. You gave your definition but no cite. But "in the immediate vicinity" is a recall in my ancient brain. Where did you and I get that? Meantime I read the OBR rule and wonder if distance from the box matters. They did eliminate distance from the box for another rule in the near past.

[umpstu]

I have watched this numerous times and, to me, it looks like the kid trips over his own feet. That is the one thing I am gifted enough to be able to do. Or falling up the stairs.

[maven]

I think we're getting hung up on whether this is tangle/untangle in order to determine whether to absolve F2 of OBS. But tangle/untangle is moot.

But F2 is the protected fielder here and has the right of way. He's not hindered by the contact, so it's not INT. He's protected from OBS.

I like a no call here, and wish only that the umpire had signaled "safe" and verbalized "that's nothing!"

[maven]

16 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

My cite for "immediate vicinity" would be a step and a reach.  That is the common guideline for determining obstruction or interference.

"A step and reach" applies to retrieving a booted ball, and determines whether a fielder's protection is preserved.

F2 did not boot the ball, so his protection was intact on this play.

"Step and reach" has no application otherwise, and in particular not to tangle/untangle.

[Jimurray]

58 minutes ago, maven said:

I think we're getting hung up on whether this is tangle/untangle in order to determine whether to absolve F2 of OBS. But tangle/untangle is moot.

But F2 is the protected fielder here and has the right of way. He's not hindered by the contact, so it's not INT. He's protected from OBS.

I like a no call here, and wish only that the umpire had signaled "safe" and verbalized "that's nothing!"

If the catcher was hindered by the contact would you call INT on the runner or apply 6.01(a)(10) Comment?

[Senor Azul]

How do we know that the catcher is the protected fielder? The pitcher was always closer to the ball, in fact he was bending over to pick the ball up when the catcher snatched the ball away from him.

We all know that only one fielder can be protected at a time and the protection can change during the play. If the umpire had given protection to the pitcher then the catcher would have been guilty of obstruction.

We discussed a similar play a while back and it was analyzed by Close Call Sports. They also produced a video titled Tangle/Untangle. If I can find it I will post a link.

[maven]

4 hours ago, Jimurray said:

If the catcher was hindered by the contact would you call INT on the runner or apply 6.01(a)(10) Comment?

That call would turn on tangle/untangle. The contact in the video is borderline for tangle/untangle: ruling T/U or ruling no T/U would both be supportable, IMO. 

As for determining the protected fielder: in general, I'm protecting a fielder who moves aggressively to field the ball and does in fact field it. F1 might initially have been protected due to proximity, but F2 should be protected through the contact, IMO. 

And I have no idea how Evans might justify calling OBS on F2 in the play, at least as I'm envisioning it.

[Senor Azul]

Here's what the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual  says about granting protection to a fielder...

"If, at any given time, two or more fielders are expecting to field a batted ball, the one who is in a better position to field it (usually the one nearer the ball) is given priority over the other fielders by the umpire. Only one fielder can have priority at a given time, but priority can be immediately taken from one fielder and given to another."

[ArchAngel72]

My take..  with pausing and rewinding and having several looks at the video.  Something the PU never had...

 

I have that's nothing on F2   at about, or around the 2 second mark BR and F2's feet get together as F2 crosses over, and behind BR.  At that point this happens. F2 to me has 1st Fielder position on the ball.  To me, he has a better look, and ability to field and proximity to the ball.

It's not until 2 to 3 seconds later when BR has bit the dust and the video opens up and the ball is further away from the plate ( IMHO) that F1 could be considered a better closer fielder.. however by then the tangle is well done and over with.

 

my 2 cents..

I was 1st leaning towards protecting the runner but slowing it down and looking at it over and over... that is what I see..

 

Again something that PU never ever had the luxury on. I say bravo to him for that quick reaction of no call. 

 

[The Man in Blue]

7 hours ago, maven said:

"A step and reach" applies to retrieving a booted ball, and determines whether a fielder's protection is preserved.

F2 did not boot the ball, so his protection was intact on this play.

"Step and reach" has no application otherwise, and in particular not to tangle/untangle.

 

While I agree with this detail, there is the danger when the book uses terms like "immediate vicinity" and "directly."  We have no common agreeance on what that means, so we look for other examples in the book that might fit this definition.

Personally, I agree this seems to far up the base line for "immediate vicinity" for a tangle/untangle.  

On first, real-time viewing, I think I would have called OBS.  I'm generally going to give the protection to the fielder coming at the ball and that the runner is running towards, not the fielder the ball and the runner are moving away from ... No, there is no citation I can offer on that.  Just my gut.  I'm not saying the fielder chasing it would never get protection, just that my initial "priority check list" is going to list the fielder that has everything coming towards them, not one who is running at it.  Hope that makes sense.

[Jimurray]

14 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

While I agree with this detail, there is the danger when the book uses terms like "immediate vicinity" and "directly."  We have no common agreeance on what that means, so we look for other examples in the book that might fit this definition.

Personally, I agree this seems to far up the base line for "immediate vicinity" for a tangle/untangle.  

On first, real-time viewing, I think I would have called OBS.  I'm generally going to give the protection to the fielder coming at the ball and that the runner is running towards, not the fielder the ball and the runner are moving away from ... No, there is no citation I can offer on that.  Just my gut.  I'm not saying the fielder chasing it would never get protection, just that my initial "priority check list" is going to list the fielder that has everything coming towards them, not one who is running at it.  Hope that makes sense.

Where do you find "immediate vicinity" in the rule? Or elsewhere? 

[Velho]

Interesting path this has taken.

 

fwiw, "vicinity" appears in OBR 3 times:

 

 

-----------------

--------------------

[Senor Azul]

Mr. noumpere, here's someone else who agrees with you and Jim Evans. In the Close Call Sports analysis of the high school playoff game--the similar tangle/untangle play I mentioned earlier--the following text was written about how to decide between obstruction and interference...

"The rule of thumb here is the closer to home plate the entanglement, the greater the chance that nothing should be called. The farther away from home plate the entanglement occurs, however, the greater chance that someone has committed a violation."

[The Man in Blue]

51 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Where do you find "immediate vicinity" in the rule? Or elsewhere? 

 

I was speaking in general terms, so thank you @Velho.  There is a laundry list of these vague terms that abound.  Commonly, I think they are well-intended, but then you get people who want to argue that "directly" is anything less than a 45-degree angle (no, no it is not) or that "close enough to make a play" should be defined as 20-feet (no, no it shouldn't) or that a feint can be actually doing the action (no, no it can't).

That said, I don't know that I want specific measurements and requirements on some things, because it does begin to handcuff us in a game where something "new" still happens every day, even as we close in on 200 years of playing.  However, common sense (which isn't so common) needs to be re-embraced.  

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

Personally, I agree this seems to far up the base line for "immediate vicinity" for a tangle/untangle.  

 

 

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

I was speaking in general terms, so thank you @Velho. 

 

 

You seem to be specific about it applying to tangle/untangle. The comment to the rule says: "When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact while the catcher is attempting to field the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called."

We have a batter-runner going to 1B and a catcher attempting to field the ball while going to 1B although I think the catcher going to 1B was not part of what they intended. Literally he doesn't even have to be the fielder whom you would protect.

Still I do have the phrase "immediate vicinity" associated with "tangle/untangle lurking in my mind from somewhere. But if I applied that I still would have them in the vicinity.

Edited August 1, 2023 by Jimurray

[beerguy55]

On 7/31/2023 at 9:03 AM, Senor Azul said:

How do we know that the catcher is the protected fielder? The pitcher was always closer to the ball, in fact he was bending over to pick the ball up when the catcher snatched the ball away from him.

 

We know the catcher is protected because the ump didn't call OBS on him.

The catcher was always in the better position to field the ball (and always in the better position for the entirety of the play - that is, not only to field the ball, but to make the throw to first base), was always the one closer to the ball - even as it rolled away from him -  and case in point, got to the ball before the pitcher did.

[BigBlue4u]

On 7/30/2023 at 6:18 PM, Jimurray said:

that's a common guideline for runners and fielders. We have a batter-runner, as OBR calls him, and a catcher, and there is nothing in their rule about the batter's box. You gave your definition but no cite. But "in the immediate vicinity" is a recall in my ancient brain. Where did you and I get that? Meantime I read the OBR rule and wonder if distance from the box matters. They did eliminate distance from the box for another rule in the near past.

From the MLBUM: With the bases loaded, batter hits a sharp ground ball that deflects off the shortstop and starts to roll away from him.  As the shortstop starts to go after the ball, the runner from second collides with the shortstop. RULING: After the ball deflects off the shortstop, if the ball is within the fielder's immediate reach, the runner must avoid the fielder, and if contact occurs under those circumstances, interference shall be called and the runner declared out.

[Jimurray]

49 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

From the MLBUM: With the bases loaded, batter hits a sharp ground ball that deflects off the shortstop and starts to roll away from him.  As the shortstop starts to go after the ball, the runner from second collides with the shortstop. RULING: After the ball deflects off the shortstop, if the ball is within the fielder's immediate reach, the runner must avoid the fielder, and if contact occurs under those circumstances, interference shall be called and the runner declared out.

Not relevant to my question.