Angel/Sox game

[AltaLomaStorm]

I would like to hear what the collective has to say regarding two calls in last night's Angel/Red Sox game...

1. Scioscia's squeeze call (good or bad call), and
2. Varitek's tag of Willits @ third base (out or safe). MLB.com has the play from a couple of different views.

[bob_r]

I would like to hear what the collective has to say regarding two calls in last night's Angel/Red Sox game...

1. Scioscia's squeeze call (good or bad call), and
2. Varitek's tag of Willits @ third base (out or safe). MLB.com has the play from a couple of different views.

1) I think it was a bad call, everybody knew it was coming. Would have got a walk, then could have stole second. Now you would have a runner on 2nd and 3rd.

2) Looks like he had control and the ground popped it out, of course I'm biased because i'm a Boston fan.

[Chris O'Leary]

I would like to hear what the collective has to say regarding two calls in last night's Angel/Red Sox game...

2. Varitek's tag of Willits @ third base (out or safe). MLB.com has the play from a couple of different views.

I say he was out.

Varitek had possession of the ball at the time he applied the tag to the runner. The ball didn't come loose until a few frames after he applied the tag (and I think when his elbow or glove hit the ground).

[AltaLomaStorm]

1) I think it was a bad call, everybody knew it was coming. Would have got a walk, then could have stole second. Now you would have a runner on 2nd and 3rd.
I think most "suspected" it was coming, which probably accounted for the first two pitches being high and tight. But the pitch he actually tried to bunt was a very bunt-able (is that a word?) pitch. All he has to do is get the ball down...helps if he has the barrel of the bat out front :rant:

2) Looks like he had control and the ground popped it out, of course I'm biased because i'm a Boston fan. Gotta love the honesty.

[Macker]

2) Looks like he had control and the ground popped it out

Agreed. However, this isn't football where the ground can't cause a fumble. The fielder must voluntarily release the ball. For example -- outfielder clearly catches ball, takes two more steps and crashes into wall. Ball comes loose. That's not a catch, despite the fact that he had it under control before hitting the wall. Looks to me like the Angel runner should have been safe.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I've been accused of being anti-Boston, although that it and of itself is far from true.

But, anyway, it was a bad call on Sciosia's part. Too much of a risk when there were other, safer options. If it had worked, it would have been a gutsy call at best.

And, he was out. The tag was made and Varitek losing the ball had nothing to do with the tag. At least, not enough to make it even questionable.

[AltaLomaStorm]

Agreed. However, this isn't football where the ground can't cause a fumble. The fielder must voluntarily release the ball. For example -- outfielder clearly catches ball, takes two more steps and crashes into wall. Ball comes loose. That's not a catch, despite the fact that he had it under control before hitting the wall. Looks to me like the Angel runner should have been safe.
Having the luxury to watch the play from different angles, I agree Macker (although I am an Angel fan :happy:) He transfers the ball to his glove, makes the tag and begins to fall. The ball pops loose immediately upon contact with the ground. I don't believe he held the ball "securely or firmly" in his glove.

But then again, if Willits is safe and the Angels score...Frankie (instead of Shields) pitches the 9th...he gives up a single, walks one and then a big fly for a 5-3 Angel loss...

[Macker]

In checking over the rules, now I'm not so sure. The outfielder running into a wall scenario is covered under the definition of a catch. However, this isn't a catch; it's a tag. The definition of a tag requires the ball to be held firmly when the tag is made. It doesn't mention anything about the ball subsequently coming loose.

I would say Varitek firmly held the ball when he applied the tag, in which case the out call was a good one.

[ipitch]

And, he was out. The tag was made and Varitek losing the ball had nothing to do with the tag. At least, not enough to make it even questionable.

I think it was a good call, but if it was, then what about plays at the plate? As Scioscia said, when a catcher is plowed over at the plate, hits the ground, and then the ball comes out, a lot of times the runner will be ruled safe.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I think it was a good call, but if it was, then what about plays at the plate? As Scioscia said, when a catcher is plowed over at the plate, hits the ground, and then the ball comes out, a lot of times the runner will be ruled safe.

It was impact with the runner that led to the catcher dropping it, though. If Willits had anything to do with Varitek dropping it, he would have been safe. But with tags basically being the bang bang plays that they are, once that last bang goes off, the tag and clean removal of the glove from Willits, the play is over.

[AltaLomaStorm]

It was impact with the runner that led to the catcher dropping it, though. If Willits had anything to do with Varitek dropping it, he would have been safe. But with tags basically being the bang bang plays that they are, once that last bang goes off, the tag and clean removal of the glove from Willits, the play is over.
Captain, I appreciate your comments. :thumbsup: I just believe it was very similar to a play at the plate where the ball is dropped following a collision. If the ball was held firmly and securely, he would have maintained possession following contact. Varitek is falling as he makes the tag, continues falling forward and loses possession of the ball.

Ahh, the joy of differing opinions...GET THE %@#& BUNT DOWN!!!

[ipitch]

It was impact with the runner that led to the catcher dropping it, though. If Willits had anything to do with Varitek dropping it, he would have been safe.

WOULD have been ruled safe? Probably.
SHOULD have been ruled safe? No.

Maybe I missed something else in the rule book, but if an impact jars a ball loose a half-second later, the runner should be out.

"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 touching a runner with the ball, or with his hand or glove holding the ball, while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove."

[Captain Cold Nose]

WOULD have been ruled safe? Probably.
SHOULD have been ruled safe? No.

Maybe I missed something else in the rule book, but if an impact jars a ball loose a half-second later, the runner should be out.

"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 touching a runner with the ball, or with his hand or glove holding the ball, while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove."

But in this case Willits had nothing to do with the ball coming loose. If he did, the ball likely would not have waited to fall out of the glove. That's the difference, what causes the impact and when it was. My interpretation, at least. The dropping of the ball was post-impact, post tag and the effects thereof.

[bluezebra]

Agreed. However, this isn't football where the ground can't cause a fumble. The fielder must voluntarily release the ball. For example -- outfielder clearly catches ball, takes two more steps and crashes into wall. Ball comes loose. That's not a catch, despite the fact that he had it under control before hitting the wall. Looks to me like the Angel runner should have been safe.

1..However, this isn't football where the ground can't cause a fumble.

Not true. This is one of a multitude of wrong info the clowns in the booth give out, especially in the NFL. The ground CAN cause a fumble. Runner trips without contact by opponent, ball pops loose. Fumble is caused by hitting ground.

2..The fielder must voluntarily release the ball. For example -- outfielder clearly catches ball, takes two more steps and crashes into wall. Ball comes loose. That's not a catch, despite the fact that he had it under control before hitting the wall. Looks to me like the Angel runner should have been safe.

Again, not true. A catch on a flyball, and a tag on a runner, are two totally different situations. Once the tag has been made, and fielder had control of the ball during the tag, any later release (such as when falling) has no bearing. OUT!

Bob

[Chris O'Leary]

Again, not true. A catch on a flyball, and a tag on a runner, are two totally different situations. Once the tag has been made, and fielder had control of the ball during the tag, any later release (such as when falling) has no bearing. OUT!

I agree.

If he lost control while still in the process of making the tag, he would have been safe.

However, if you want the runner to be safe after he makes the tag and then loses contact, then you run into the issue of how long the fielder has to maintain control after losing contact. Does he have to hold it for 1 second or 3? Then you end up with some arbitrary limit (or the baseball equivalent of "making a football move" in the case of a fumble or dropped pass).

To me, control at the moment the tag is applied and maintaining control in the instants after the tag is applied is enough, which I think is the logic of the ump.

[mudvnine]

Once the tag has been made, and fielder had control of the ball during the tag, any later release (such as when falling) has no bearing. OUT!

Bob

So are the umpires interpreting the "swipe" tag at a bag (typically 2nd on a steal) are wrong? We see many times, the fielder control the ball (change it's direction with the catch and tag movement), make the "swipe" tag of the runner, continue to control the ball as his arm continues through the upward motion, and then have the ball sail out into right field.

By your definition, at the "fielder had control of the ball during the tag" and only lost the ball after he had finished his arm motion at the sudden stop of momentum at the top of the arc of his hand path, as he tries to change the gloves direction to reach for the ball.

In these cases the runners are ruled safe, similar to how Varitek's sudden stop of momentum (hitting the ground) caused the ball to come out, making Willits safe, as seen in "swipe" tags over the ages.

Reggie should have been awarded home on principal, for the ump screwing up such a routine call!


Signed,
A Die Hard Angel Fan :cry: :cry: :cry:

[ipitch]

But in this case Willits had nothing to do with the ball coming loose. If he did, the ball likely would not have waited to fall out of the glove. That's the difference, what causes the impact and when it was. My interpretation, at least. The dropping of the ball was post-impact, post tag and the effects thereof.

I agree that last night's call was correct. I'm just saying that collision plays at the plate are often called differently, even though they should be called the same. The amount of impact or who causes it doesn't matter, according to the rules (unless it's in the rules somewhere, and I missed it).

[Macker]

The ground CAN cause a fumble. Runner trips without contact by opponent, ball pops loose. Fumble is caused by hitting ground.

Agree on #2 as you could see from my subsequent post. I don't claim to be a football expert, but doesn't #1 depend whether the ball popped loose before the ball (not necessarily the player) hit the ground? For example, runner stumbles, knee or shoulder hits ground while player has ball above ground. Ball comes loose -- fumble. Player falls and ball comes loose from hands when ball comes in contact with ground -- not a fumble.

However, in baseball, either scenario is not a catch but a valid tag.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I agree that last night's call was correct. I'm just saying that collision plays at the plate are often called differently, even though they should be called the same. The amount of impact or who causes it doesn't matter, according to the rules (unless it's in the rules somewhere, and I missed it).

Well, at no other base is the runner allowed to collide with the fielder in an attempt to get the ball loose. So, it is different. Just as the way the base is defended differently. You're not going to see a runner going into third with the thought of possibly taking the third basemen out. Sliding at them, sure, but heavy contact is accidental for the most part.

[Shake Zula]

That was pretty dubious decision... shame on Aybar for not bunting

and GO RAYS

[Baseball gLove]

Aybar is a switch hitter. Why did he try to bunt from the left side to give a clear view to the catcher? I also think it was bad decision to call the squeeze.

[mudvnine]

Here's another question, had Aybar actually bunted the ball and executed correctly, would the Sox have had an argument that he should have been called out and Willits sent back to third for stepping out of the box when bunting the ball?

The angle of this photo is not straight on, but it sure looks as though Eric's left foot is behind the plate and way out of the box . . . can you imagine that ruling if that scenario had played out?

[ipitch]

Well, at no other base is the runner allowed to collide with the fielder in an attempt to get the ball loose.

Are you sure? Do you remember when Albert Belle knocking Fernando Vina to the ground between 1st and 2nd? The umps said it was perfectly legal, but some players considered it to be a cheap shot.

[ipitch]

Here's another question, had Aybar actually bunted the ball and executed correctly, would the Sox have had an argument that he should have been called out and Willits sent back to third for stepping out of the box when bunting the ball?

The angle of this photo is not straight on, but it sure looks as though Eric's left foot is behind the plate and way out of the box . . . can you imagine that ruling if that scenario had played out?

It probably is out of the box, but since there's no line, how can you be sure? It is possible to step like that and still have your foot partially in the box (if your feet are big enough).

[mudvnine]

It probably is out of the box, but since there's no line, how can you be sure? It is possible to step like that and still have your foot partially in the box (if your feet are big enough).

What's the official ruling of being in the box? The MLB rule states:

6.03 The batter’s legal position shall be with both feet within the batter’s box.

Is that completely in or is half of the foot outside of the box still considered in also?

[ipitch]

What's the official ruling of being in the box? The MLB rule states:

6.03 The batter’s legal position shall be with both feet within the batter’s box.

Is that completely in or is half of the foot outside of the box still considered in also?

As long as any part of your foot is on the line, you're still in the box.

The rule is kind of a joke, because those lines often get erased quite quickly and the umps don't really care.

[Baseball gLove]

What's the official ruling of being in the box? The MLB rule states:

6.03 The batter’s legal position shall be with both feet within the batter’s box.

Is that completely in or is half of the foot outside of the box still considered in also?

You neglected this part. His heel could be touching the line and he would be in compliance.

6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when—(a) He hits a ball with one or both feet on the ground entirely outside the batter’s box.
Rule 6.06(a) Comment: If a batter hits a ball fair or foul while out of the batter’s box, he shall be called out. Umpires should pay particular attention to the position of the batter’s feet if he attempts to hit the ball while he is being intentionally passed. A batter cannot jump or step out of the batter’s box and hit the ball.

[mudvnine]

You neglected this part. His heel could be touching the line and he would be in compliance.

6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when—(a) He hits a ball with one or both feet on the ground entirely outside the batter’s box.
Rule 6.06(a) Comment: If a batter hits a ball fair or foul while out of the batter’s box, he shall be called out. Umpires should pay particular attention to the position of the batter’s feet if he attempts to hit the ball while he is being intentionally passed. A batter cannot jump or step out of the batter’s box and hit the ball.

Thank you . . . I was a little too impatient, should have read a little bit further.

With that said, I'm guessing that Aybar would have been ruled in the box, had he actually made cotact.