johnnyg08 Posted May 3 Report Share Posted May 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayhawk Posted May 3 Report Share Posted May 3 This was posted in Ask the Umpire as well. CCS came out with a post on it, and Lindsey said it's an 801(c) situation, but I would contend that it is covered, as least loosely, but the definition of Touch: TOUCH. To touch a player or umpire is to touch any part of his body, or any uniform or equipment worn by him (but not any jewelry (e.g., necklaces, bracelets, etc.) worn by a player). (Touch) Comment: Equipment shall be considered worn by a player or umpire if it is in contact with its intended place on his person. So if the helmet is not in contact with its intended place (his head) on his person, then is HE touching the bag? This is not like a fielder touching a bag with his glove while the ball is in his other hand. In that case, the glove is in contact with its intended place (his hand) on his person. Seems to me that he should've been called out. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tborze Posted May 3 Report Share Posted May 3 Would anyone have an out here on the slide in FED? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maven Posted May 3 Report Share Posted May 3 44 minutes ago, Tborze said: Would anyone have an out here on the slide in FED? Nothing illegal about the slide, but I agree with grayhawk and would rule the runner out for being tagged while not in contact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tborze Posted May 3 Report Share Posted May 3 Agreed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMax Posted May 6 Report Share Posted May 6 On 5/3/2024 at 12:05 AM, grayhawk said: Seems to me that he should've been called out. I’ve seen tags touching the sliding “oven” mitt while it was jammed in the back pocket (so… obviously “worn” not in intended location), and they went as valid tags for Outs juuuuussst fiiiiiine. I’m really hopeful that MLB didn’t just open ol’ Pandie’s Box 🗃️ by allowing this stupid human trick to stand. It’s bad (for amateur baseball) enough that Bryce Harper would eschew his helmet as he rounded 1B, and in short order, every HS kid was doing the same thing. Now we’re going to have HS kids not only letting the lid go, but actively taking it off to use as a point of contact to the base! The play went to review. I think MLBU dropped the ball on this one, and interpreted it as, “Well, there’s nothing in the Rules that says he can’t use/do that explicitly. Maybe implicitly, but not explicitly.” In the words of TheFatElectrician… “It’s not a war crime the first time.” … Quack Bang, Out. 🦆 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biscuit Posted May 6 Report Share Posted May 6 8 minutes ago, MadMax said: I’ve seen tags touching the sliding “oven” mitt while it was jammed in the back pocket (so… obviously “worn” not in intended location), and they went as valid tags for Outs juuuuussst fiiiiiine. I’m really hopeful that MLB didn’t just open ol’ Pandie’s Box 🗃️ by allowing this stupid human trick to stand. It’s bad (for amateur baseball) enough that Bryce Harper would eschew his helmet as he rounded 1B, and in short order, every HS kid was doing the same thing. Now we’re going to have HS kids not only letting the lid go, but actively taking it off to use as a point of contact to the base! The play went to review. I think MLBU dropped the ball on this one, and interpreted it as, “Well, there’s nothing in the Rules that says he can’t use/do that explicitly. Maybe implicitly, but not explicitly.” In the words of TheFatElectrician… “It’s not a war crime the first time.” … Quack Bang, Out. 🦆 I'm pretty sure this didn't go to review. Didn't MLB say that if it had it wouod have been flipped? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMax Posted May 6 Report Share Posted May 6 3 minutes ago, Biscuit said: I'm pretty sure this didn't go to review. 670TheScore (Chicago Sports Radio… yes, I listen to the Enemy’s radio station… mostly to listen to poor Bears 🐻 fans lament and complain about the Bears… #PackersOwner #BearsStillSuck) interviewed the player-in-question the next morning… and I thought I heard him say it went to review. Most tag-or-no-tag plays get requested to go to review, don’t they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velho Posted May 6 Report Share Posted May 6 10 minutes ago, MadMax said: interviewed the player-in-question the next morning… and I thought I heard him say it went to review. Most tag-or-no-tag plays get requested to go to review, don’t they? It did not go to review. I looked at it (both feeds). There was no review and the Mets didn't even ask the umpires "wtf?". Per reporter MLB acknowledged it's illegal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayhawk Posted May 6 Report Share Posted May 6 47 minutes ago, MadMax said: I’ve seen tags touching the sliding “oven” mitt while it was jammed in the back pocket (so… obviously “worn” not in intended location), and they went as valid tags for Outs juuuuussst fiiiiiine. Actually, I believe there was an approved ruling stating that those mitts, when in the pocket and tagged, IS an out. The reason is that they actually ARE "worn" properly in the back pocket (such as a batter-runner trying to leg out a double and getting tagged on it in his pocket). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMax Posted May 6 Report Share Posted May 6 10 minutes ago, Velho said: It did not go to review. I looked at it (both feeds). There was no review and the Mets didn't even ask the umpires "wtf?". Per reporter MLB acknowledged it's illegal Then I’m expecting that C.T. should receive less games, or be shuffled off to Padookaville -level games as a form of purgatory, or have to attend some exhaustive clinic / session as a consequence for missing a ruling. He should! Why? <leans closer> Because that’s what happens to us when we miss rulings! And yes, that includes FPSR. And, as absolutely petty and ridiculous as it sounds / reads, that includes “keeping everybody in the dugout” because “it’s a rule.” Really. Lemme tell ya that story some other time. And we wonder why we can’t retain, develop, and progress umpires. 🧼 📦 … off. 1 minute ago, grayhawk said: Actually, I believe there was an approved ruling stating that those mitts, when in the pocket and tagged, IS an out. I’m not disputing it, whatsoever. <climbs back on 🧼 📦 > So we’ve gotta have an “approved ruling”that the oven mitt in the back pocket, when HBP, is a valid HBP, but the wrist-card-reader, when worn on the belt, is not? 🤨 World’s gone stupid. 🧼 📦… off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchAngel72 Posted May 6 Report Share Posted May 6 1 hour ago, MadMax said: In the words of TheFatElectrician… “It’s not a war crime the first time.” … Quack Bang, Out. 🦆 Bruh... Quoting TFE, you just elevated yourself EVEN MORE in my book. Holy crap! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.