Why is the 'Tek tag on Willits so controversial?

[Walt Zink]

to me, this is a non-issue. he tagged him WITH THE BALL FIRMLY IN HIS GLOVE! when he fell, WELL after issuing the tag, the ball popped loose. i would liken it to a running back hitting the ground and the ball pops loose. he's not charged with a fumble. so why should 'tek's hitting the ground cause the play to be looked at differently? i mean, catching a fly ball is different. you have control for a SPLIT second. in this case, i look at how the angels players are reacting (most notably john lackey), and sense a lot of poor sportsmanship.

should the umps have conferred? yes. but the umpire at third had the best view and i think if even the left field ump didn't agree with the call, he would have made a point to come talk it over. he obviously didn't see an issue with the call either. but to hear this debated ad nauseum today is making me want to stab my eardrums and wonder if these people have any common sense. even the higher ups in baseball said the correct call was made. no hesitation.

[KCGHOST]

I don't know of anyplace this is being made into any kind of deal at all. Even last night's announcers didn't get a buzz out of it.

Oh, in baseball the ground can cause a fumble. See any of thousands of outfielders who have dove for a ball only to have it knocked out of their glove when they hit the ground. Or the wall if the were jumping for it.

[Walt Zink]

I don't know of anyplace this is being made into any kind of deal at all. Even last night's announcers didn't get a buzz out of it.

Oh, in baseball the ground can cause a fumble. See any of thousands of outfielders who have dove for a ball only to have it knocked out of their glove when they hit the ground. Or the wall if the were jumping for it.

ESPN it's everywhere. two shows on the radio have already had long-winded discussions. also there were discussions on the local sports radio shows.

and the wall and ground with a fly ball, i can understand that not being ruled a catch. you can still catch it and hit the wall and keep control. this play is completely different, hence why i don't get the amount of talk i'm hearing about it. and did you see john lackey's comments? good lord, he needs to grow up.

here's the quote:

"It's way different than last year," said Lackey, who was 0-1 with a 2.63 ERA in two starts this postseason. "We are way better than they are. We lost to a team not as good as us."

The Angels' aggressive play cost them dearly in the ninth inning. Erick Aybar whiffed on a squeeze play, allowing Boston catcher Jason Varitek to run down Reggie Willits, the potential go-ahead run.
Then Lackey was asked to describe the feeling in the clubhouse, and without hesitation and with clear irritation, he shot back, "Like I want to throw somebody through a wall."

He was not joking; his anger was palpable. Lackey pitched admirably, allowing two runs in seven innings Monday night. Boston scored both in the fifth inning, the first on a groundout by Jacoby Ellsbury and the second on a double to left field by Dustin Pedroia, who recorded his first and only hit of the entire series. Lackey was unimpressed.

"[On Sunday] they scored on a pop fly they called a hit, which is a joke," said Lackey, referring to a popup that was misplayed into three runs. "[On Monday], they score on a broken-bat ground ball and a fly ball anywhere else in America [except in Fenway Park]. And [Pedroia's] fist-pumping on second like he did something great."

[MVP31]

I actually think there's a very valid argument to be made here for the Angels. I'm certainly not an Angels fan by any means, but I can see why they (and others) are getting so up-in-arms about it.

What makes the play from last night any different than a collision at the plate? I think we all know that any time there's a collision the umpire waits to see if the defensive player holds onto the ball, even after he's hit the ground. In many instances, the runner will be deemed safe, even though the defensive player (catcher) clearly had possession before and after the tag was made, but as soon as he hit the ground he lost control of the ball.

I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with the ruling last night. I just don't think it's as black and white as many people are making it out to be.

[Walt Zink]

a collision at the plate is no different than a catch in the outfield where the player drops it. he held on for a split second only.

the tag last night was clearly made, and after applied, he fell. if - as varitek was applying the tag - the ball popped out? then willits is safe. that scenario would be no different than a collision at home plate. here, the ball didn't pop out on contact when applying the tag (which is the point of this particular play, much like making the catch is when running into a wall, etc). i just don't see why the angels are being so whiny about it. if it had gone the other way around? the angels would've been screaming about how the umps got it right.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I don't see any case here. I am not a Red Sox fan, no taking sides here. He made tag and clearly had possession of the ball long enough after the tag.

[Imgran]

Right, this is more like losing the baseball on the transfer in the outfield. In that case the player is still out because the play controlled the ball long enough.

[Los Bravos]

You have to voluntarily reach in and take the ball out of your glove on an outfield catch for it to be valid. Corey Hart had the ball most of the way through his tumble a few days ago and clearly controlled it for a little while, but it came out upon hitting the ground and was ruled a non-catch.

The only question I've had in all of this is if the rule on a play like the one with Varitek's tag is similar. The rule was displayed on ESPN today and it doesn't appear to have any provision for a post-tag drop of the ball, at all.

Cal Ripken and John Kruk made the same point that MVP31 makes about homeplate collisions.

However it should play out, there should have been a conference. The umpires, once again, were more interested in standing behind one of their guys regardless of the validity of his decision.

[efin98]

However it should play out, there should have been a conference. The umpires, once again, were more interested in standing behind one of their guys regardless of the validity of his decision.

If he was any closer to the play his face would have been in their crotches- they didn't need to confer, his eyes saw the entire play clearer than anybody on the field. :rolleyes:

[DownUnderDodger]

I don't know the rule per se, but I would have thought that once the tag has been made, the batter is out and the play is over, therefore whatever happened the ball after the batter was out was inconsequential?? My view of the play was exactly that, the batter was tagged and hence out, then the ball was dropped. Or is the play not over until the ump calls it over?

[gman5431]

Yeah, it was an interesting play, in a hotly contested game between two great teams, that ended up being the difference (or part of it). Therefore, it has been made a big deal. But, the umps got it right, the tag was applied and then the ball came lose. If you dont agree with the call, then what you actually dont agree with is the RULE, because the call, according to the rule book is out.

G Man

[Domenic]

If the ball had popped out of Varitek's glove when he slapped it against Willits' leg, then I could see a legitimate debate. However, the ball popped out after his glove raked down the length of Willit's calf, and after Willits was ruled out - and after the contact had ended.

[spark240]

The rule was displayed on ESPN today and it doesn't appear to have any provision for a post-tag drop of the ball, at all.
...
However it should play out, there should have been a conference. The umpires, once again, were more interested in standing behind one of their guys regardless of the validity of his decision.

Why should there be a conference if there is no provision in the rule to discuss? The tag was made and the out was called as per the rule, as far as the rule goes. So what else is there?

Perhaps it is a subject for the rules committee after season's end, but for umpires on the field?

[Evangelion]

Why is the 'Tek tag on Willits so controversial?
ESPN made it controversial. That's the simple answer to the question.

People like Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic view baseball as if it's football and making a issue out of the call our their A.M radio broadcast, then it just spread from there.

[Los Bravos]

If he was any closer to the play his face would have been in their crotches- they didn't need to confer, his eyes saw the entire play clearer than anybody on the field. :rolleyes:Don't roll your eyes at me, pal.

He didn't even see the ball was loose until it rolled clear of the human shield made by Varitek and Willits. He was blocked from signifigant portions of the play by their intertwined bodies.

spark, I'm not sure there was a provision of the rule to discuss. I think Welke should simply have been asking the other guys what they saw and if it weighed into the call. The constant refrain from them is that the idea is to do everything possible to get it right. They didn't do that in this case.

Finally, no one has answered the question about home plate collisions to my satisfaction. We've all seen that play happen and work like Ripken describes. Is that just a de facto practice of the umpiring corps that's evolved over time (like their strike zones have) or is there a rule that's in effect for plays at the plate that isn't anywhere else?

Look, I've got no dog in this hunt. It was a stupid play to try at that time and part of me is happy to see Scioscia have it blow up in his face. I just want the call to be done right and to make some sense. I'm not sure that's the case with this play.

[Walt Zink]

Don't roll your eyes at me, pal.

He didn't even see the ball was loose until it rolled clear of the human shield made by Varitek and Willits. He was blocked from signifigant portions of the play by their intertwined bodies.

spark, I'm not sure there was a provision of the rule to discuss. I think Welke should simply have been asking the other guys what they saw and if it weighed into the call. The constant refrain from them is that the idea is to do everything possible to get it right. They didn't do that in this case.

Finally, no one has answered the question about home plate collisions to my satisfaction. We've all seen that play happen and work like Ripken describes. Is that just a de facto practice of the umpiring corps that's evolved over time (like their strike zones have) or is there a rule that's in effect for plays at the plate that isn't anywhere else?

Look, I've got no dog in this hunt. It was a stupid play to try at that time and part of me is happy to see Scioscia have it blow up in his face. I just want the call to be done right and to make some sense. I'm not sure that's the case with this play.

actually, from the video i've seen, varitek's arm was not shielded from the view the 3rd base ump had. i'd have to look again, but 'tek's arm was still outstretched - not covered by his body. to me, that gives both the 3rd base ump and the left field ump a pretty clear view.

[runningshoes]

Finally, no one has answered the question about home plate collisions to my satisfaction.

At home plate, the ump is waiting to see if the collision caused the ball to come out of the glove. On this play, the ball was clearly still in Tek's glove after he made the tag and its collision with the ground cause it to come out of the glove. If the home plate ump sees the ball come out of the glove as a result of the glove hitting the ground, he would indeed call the runner out.

[efin98]

Don't roll your eyes at me, pal.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Los Bravos]

There were several replays on the TBS broadcast and the angle looking at it from the stands behind third base is what I'm going on. It most closely approximates the view Welke had. You can see the tag, you see Tim make the call, then there is a pile up as they run together and suddenly you see the ball roll out from behind them, never having seen it come out. Maybe he saw it better but he didn't seem interested in anything but telling Scioscia that he'd seen the tag. I don't dispute that the tag was made cleanly on Willits befoire he got back. It's what happens right after that raises the questions.

His refusal to at least go through the motions of conferring with other members of a crew that had a guy positioned to see it well who wouldn't have even been there in a regular season game, just doesn't look right. I doubt seriously they would have overruled the call and, again, I'm not sure it should have been. But to have it made by one guy, without any apparent effort to be positive, doesn't befit the importance of the play or the game, to me.

[Los Bravos]

At home plate, the ump is waiting to see if the collision caused the ball to come out of the glove. On this play, the ball was clearly still in Tek's glove after he made the tag and its collision with the ground cause it to come out of the glove. If the home plate ump sees the ball come out of the glove as a result of the glove hitting the ground, he would indeed call the runner out.I've seen that exact scenario end with the runner being called safe. I think most of us have.

[efin98]

There were several replays on the TBS broadcast and the angle looking at it from the stands behind third base is what I'm going on. It most closely approximates the view Welke had. You can see the tag, you see Tim make the call, then there is a pile up as they run together and suddenly you see the ball roll out from behind them, never having seen it come out. Maybe he saw it better but he didn't seem interested in anything but telling Scioscia that he'd seen the tag. I don't dispute that the tag was made cleanly on Willits befoire he got back. It's what happens right after that raises the questions.

His refusal to at least go through the motions of conferring with other members of a crew that had a guy positioned to see it well who wouldn't have even been there in a regular season game, just doesn't look right. I doubt seriously they would have overruled the call and, again, I'm not sure it should have been. But to have it made by one guy, without any apparent effort to be positive, doesn't befit the importance of the play or the game, to me.

Why does he have to confer on a call that was clear? If it was not going to change the call there is no point in crying foul over them not conferring :rolleyes:

"9.02 c.: If a decision is appealed, the umpire making the decision may ask another umpire for information before making a final decision. No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere with another umpire's decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making it.
9.04 c.: If different decisions should be made on one play by different umpires, the Crew Chief shall call all the umpires into consultation, with no manager or player present. After consultation, the Crew Chief shall determine which decision shall prevail, based on which umpire was in best position and which decision was most likely correct. Play shall proceed as if only the final decision had been made."

Tim Welke was the crew chief for the ALDS between the Red Sox and Angels that's why there was no conference- they couldn't overturn him unless he had no clear view, HE DID HAVE ONE :rolleyes:

[Los Bravos]

1. I don't think his view was all that clear.

2. This thread has now moved into the realm of self-parody.

3. You guys should relax. They're not going to make you replay the game or anything.

[efin98]

I'm surprised nobody posted this but this but the play was ruled a "Caught stealing" and under rule 7.08(C) he was tagged out as if he was any other player trying to steal a base.

Nobody else was base and the pitch was strike 1 so after he was tagged with the ball the play was dead- the play ended on the tag.

[runningshoes]

I'm surprised nobody posted this but this but the play was ruled a "Caught stealing" and under rule 7.08(C) he was tagged out as if he was any other player trying to steal a base.

Nobody else was base and the pitch was strike 1 so after he was tagged with the ball the play was dead- the play ended on the tag.

How dare you come in here and suddenly make sense of everything? :D:applaud:

[efin98]

1. I don't think his view was all that clear.

multiple replays show him to be 10 feet at most from the runner and Varitek. He could see it clearer than anyone in the ballpark. Any closer and they would have tripped over him.

[ipitch]

I've seen that exact scenario end with the runner being called safe. I think most of us have.

Yep.


.........

[runningshoes]

I've seen that exact scenario end with the runner being called safe. I think most of us have.

I've seen it go both ways and always assumed the ump didn't see how the ball came out of the glove, so he plays it safe. Pardon the pun.

[Los Bravos]

I'm surprised nobody posted this but this but the play was ruled a "Caught stealing" and under rule 7.08(C) he was tagged out as if he was any other player trying to steal a base.

Nobody else was base and the pitch was strike 1 so after he was tagged with the ball the play was dead- the play ended on the tag.Would it have killed you to post that earlier? As runningshoes wrote, that actually serves as a decent rationale for all of this. Congratulations. You're the first person, including anyone from MLB, to provide one.

As for Welke, please read what I've written. I'm not saying he was too far away. I just question how clear his view of when the ball came out really was, because after the tag everyone was piled up on third base like something out of an Andy Capp barroom brawl. That's why I thought he may have not seen when the ball came out and thus needed to confer with the other umps.

If the rule was applied like you posit, and that seems perfectly valid to me, then it's irrelevant (obviously it's irrelevant on a de facto basis, anyway) to the outcome of the play.

[ipitch]

I'm surprised nobody posted this but this but the play was ruled a "Caught stealing" and under rule 7.08(C) he was tagged out as if he was any other player trying to steal a base.

Nobody else was base and the pitch was strike 1 so after he was tagged with the ball the play was dead- the play ended on the tag.

It's irrelevant that no one else was on base and that it was a caught stealing.

[Los Bravos]

I've seen it go both ways and always assumed the ump didn't see how the ball came out of the glove, so he plays it safe. Pardon the pun.Plays like that can be rather arbitrary. I've seen guys called out who weren't really tagged. They simply ran into the catcher who was holding the ball and the umpire more or less acts like possessing the ball "electrifies" the catcher's whole body.

[efin98]

It's irrelevant that no one else was on base and that it was a caught stealing.

How do you figure that?

[runningshoes]

That's why I thought he may have not seen when the ball came out and thus needed to confer with the other umps.

If you watch Welke's head after he makes the call, it's quite possible he wasn't even aware the ball came out of the glove until he saw it rolling on the infield.

I think this strengthens the case for his call being correct

[Los Bravos]

I think it strenghtens the case that he needed to ask someone why the ball was rolling around on the ground.

Again, I'd be perfectly fine with this call (and, again, it's a fait accompli, anyway), but I would just liked to have it be more of a considered decision.

Getting the call right in spite of a bad process doesn't leave me with a good feeling about it.

[runningshoes]

I think it just strengthens the case that what happened after Varitek made the tag, was irrelevant.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

[ipitch]

How do you figure that?

Because if the circumstances had been different (other runners on bases, and/or if it wasn't a caught stealing) the call would still be the same.