Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels

Mike and Mike were talking about the Varitek tag play at third. They are talking about how the Angels got screwed on the botched squeeze play where they tagged Willits out at third base and Varitek dropped the ball after the tag.

When I saw it I thought he was out and after watching the replays I still think he was out.

Does anybody actually know how the rule book or case book says how this should have been ruled? Supposedly there's really not much in the rule book about it according to the guys on Mike & Mike.

He was out. The ball was safely secure in the glove when the tag was applied, and only fell out after the tag

Quote:

---

He was out.

---

Thats what I thought too, but there's been several of the so called experts say they think they blew the call and he should have been safe.

He was out. After the game, TBS was talking about how they asked some head umpire or something the official rule, and like RSR said, as long as the ball is safely and securely in the glove when the tag is applied, the player is out.

Quote:

---

safely and securely in the glove when the tag is applied, the player is out.

---

That's not completely right. What about a collision at the plate, and the ball comes lose when the baserunners arm hits the catchers glove? How about a runner sliding into second and his foot hits the glove and the ball comes out?

I think he was out too, but there's got to be more to the interpretation of the rule than just that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reade

That's not completely right. What about a collision at the plate, and the ball comes lose when the baserunners arm hits the catchers glove? How about a runner sliding into second and his foot hits the glove and the ball comes out?

I think he was out too, but there's got to be more to the interpretation of the rule than just that.

---

If the ball is in the glove when the tag is applied, and the player still has control of the ball after the tag, the player's out. If the ball comes out of the glove during the tag, the player's safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

If the ball is in the glove when the tag is applied, and the player still has control of the ball after the tag, the player's out. If the ball comes out of the glove during the tag, the player's safe.

---

This is the interpretation I have of the rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

If the ball is in the glove when the tag is applied, and the player still has control of the ball after the tag, the player's out. If the ball comes out of the glove during the tag, the player's safe.

---

Agreed. It wasn't a "baseball play" that caused the ball to come loose, it was an act of clumsiness, therefore he was out.

Agree....the runner was out. It's a lot like when the defense attempts a double play, the second baseman catches the shortstops throw, tags second, takes a step, and then drops the ball while he is attempting to remove the ball from his glove. The runner is ruled out in every case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swampdog

Agree....the runner was out. It's a lot like when the defense attempts a double play, the second baseman catches the shortstops throw, tags second, takes a step, and then drops the ball while he is attempting to remove the ball from his glove. The runner is ruled out in every case.

---

Yep. That's the exact example Rob Neyer used in his ESPN chat today.

Besides...the ground can't cause a fumb...ooops.....wrong forum. never mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

If the ball is in the glove when the tag is applied, and the player still has control of the ball after the tag, the player's out. If the ball comes out of the glove during the tag, the player's safe.

---

You make it seem likes its so black and white, and seem to refuse to admit baseball has done a poor job here.

I, like many in here, am a Red Sox fan. I agree he was out. But its a VERY FAIR argument to ask how it is different than a play at the plate. If this was a play at the plate, and the ball secure in his glove when making the tag but was plowed through and after his body hit the ground the ball dropped out, is there anyone that can HONESTLY say that they believe that wouldn't have been called safe??? Thats something that happens a handful of times every season, and its commonplace where if the catcher doesn't have possession of the ball AFTER the impact is completely over, the player has ALWAYS been called safe.

I don't know why the rule is any different at 3rd, 2nd, or 1st than it is at home. I think LAA have a very legitimate gripe there despite my opinion that he was in fact out.

Had it happened at home, he'd have been ruled safe and nobody really would have questioned it. Lets be honest here.

I think the difference is that a runner knocking the catcher down and causing the ball to come loose is a baseball play while the catcher falling to the ground, banging his glove on the ground, after the tag, causing the ball to come out, is not a baseball play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

You make it seem likes its so black and white, and seem to refuse to admit baseball has done a poor job here.

---

Uh, no.

Quote:

---

I think the difference is that a runner knocking the catcher down and causing the ball to come loose is a baseball play while the catcher falling to the ground, banging his glove on the ground, after the tag, causing the ball to come out, is not a baseball play

---

Thats what I was thinking also. Its almost a judgement call on the part of the umpire. What really surprised me was after Scioscia came out of the dugout, that the umps didn't confer with each other just to be sure they all saw the same thing.

Quote:

---

I, like many in here, am a Red Sox fan. I agree he was out. But its a VERY FAIR argument to ask how it is different than a play at the plate. If this was a play at the plate, and the ball secure in his glove when making the tag but was plowed through and after his body hit the ground the ball dropped out, is there anyone that can HONESTLY say that they believe that wouldn't have been called safe??? Thats something that happens a handful of times every season, and its commonplace where if the catcher doesn't have possession of the ball AFTER the impact is completely over, the player has ALWAYS been called safe.

---

Exactly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acetoolguy

I think the difference is that a runner knocking the catcher down and causing the ball to come loose is a baseball play while the catcher falling to the ground, banging his glove on the ground, after the tag, causing the ball to come out, is not a baseball play.

---

this like nearly most of the other posts I've read in hear scream homer fan. one is a baseball play and one isn't??? WTF???

Quote:

---

Uh, no.

---

Really funny, because you above most others I would have thought would be above bias homer'ism'.

Look....i'm not saying he wasn't out, all i'm saying is that it's very clear that LAA have a legitimate gripe, and had the play occurred at the plate rather than 3rd he'd have been safe. I'm sorry, but refusing to admit something as clear cut as that shows to me one can't look beyond their fandom bias. Had the roles been reversed, I'd bet my 1st born Sawx fans would be screaming conspiracy in these forums today.

I think MLB has done a poor job handling this or at least explaining their rationale, and the reason they haven't is also clear to me, because they don't have an answer. Its ironic that these situations pop up during postseason play, but this is obviously an area which MLB rules committee needs to revisit and clarify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reade

Thats what I was thinking also. Its almost a judgement call on the part of the umpire. What really surprised me was after Scioscia came out of the dugout, that the umps didn't confer with each other just to be sure they all saw the same thing.

---

I agree there's always going to be judgement involved, but I think this highlighted an area that MLB needs to clarify because it's blatantly and horrifically inadequate.

I know it's a movie, but in the movie A League of their Own, didn't the catcher chick get plowed over, fall to the ground and THEN her hand hit the ground which caused the ball come loose? That was accepted by pretty much every baseball fan I've ever known as an accurate depiction of the call. Fact is, we've accepted the ground contact after a collision at the plate to be a 'safe' call, yet here when it's to our benefit people say a collision at 3rd causing the catcher to fall and his glove strike the ground which leads to the ball bouncing out is somewhat different, not only out but not even a 'baseball play'. Interesting, really.

from Ken Rosenthal to the guys from WEEI, they could not find a rule in the rulebook for a play like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cartman00000001

from Ken Rosenthal to the guys from WEEI, they could not find a rule in the rulebook for a play like that.

---

Bingo....as I said, MLB needs to revisit their rulebook and provide clarification. Nice job.

Quote:

---

they could not find a rule in the rulebook for a play like that.

---

Thats exactly what David Campbellfrom ESPN said, then he went on the mention that MLB gives the umps and coaches a case scenio book that covers strange plays that might come up, he also said this book is almost impossible to get a hold of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Really funny, because you above most others I would have thought would be above bias homer'ism'.

---

What the hell are you talking about?

You've completely baffled me in this thread. It's seems to me that you just randomly decided to pick a fight with me, considering I hadn't said anything that would go against anything you've said, nor have I refuted any of your points.

Yes HGM, but you exist, so...

You know, in "A League of Their Own" (good movie), the catcher, Gina Davis, dropped the ball on purpose. Many dont realize that. Something about her love for her sister (who crashed into her, attempting to score) overriding her own desire to win.

Also, I dont see any homerism here. The guy was out, and thats how I see it, no matter who it was. I have seen bad calls go in favor of my team, and I can admit to it when it happens.

Also, I'm not a Boston fan, nor did I want Boston to win the series.

Quote:

---

Had the roles been reversed, I'd bet my 1st born Sawx fans would be screaming conspiracy in these forums today.

---

I'm glad you said and not me, because god knows all Cubs fans do is whine and cry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

What the hell are you talking about?

You've completely baffled me in this thread. It's seems to me that you just randomly decided to pick a fight with me, considering I hadn't said anything that would go against anything you've said, nor have I refuted any of your points.

---

Geez, is that how its going to be now? Whenever someone disagrees with you you're going to play the 'stop picking on me you're trying to pick a fight' card?

You said he was out and were definitive in that. I said its not as clear cut as you make it, although I agree he was out by my loose definition MLB has done a poor job and needs to review it. You stated, "Um, no" in response to that statement. Sounds like you refuted my point to me.

Anyhow, it may disappoint you but 'um, no' this is not about you houston.

Quote:

---

Thats exactly what David Campbellfrom ESPN said, then he went on the mention that MLB gives the umps and coaches a case scenio book that covers strange plays that might come up, he also said this book is almost impossible to get a hold of.

---

The acquisition of this book would actually be good news and journalism.

Quote:

---

Also, I dont see any homerism here. The guy was out, and thats how I see it, no matter who it was. I have seen bad calls go in favor of my team, and I can admit to it when it happens.

---

It appears to me however that people refuse to admit that LAA have a legitimate gripe or at least the right to question it. Thats what i'm refering to as homerism because had the roles been reversed Boston would too have that legitimate gripe/right and I'm willing to bet many in here would invoke it. I too think he was out...but dang I think its pretty amazing how much this same thing happens at the plate with the reversed call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Geez, is that how its going to be now? Whenever someone disagrees with you you're going to play the 'stop picking on me you're trying to pick a fight' card?

---

When I'm not actually disagreeing with someone, and they somehow have it in their mind that I am, and they randomly pop into a thread and start arguing against me for something that I'm not even saying, yes, I'm going to say that they're picking a fight with me.

And, amazingly, you're STILL arguing with me, when I've made it abundantly clear that I don't disagree with you, and I have not refuted anything you've said except one statement in which you were saying that I'm doing something which I'm not...see right below.

Quote:

---

You said he was out and were definitive in that. I said its not as clear cut as you make it, although I agree he was out by my loose definition MLB has done a poor job and needs to review it. You stated, "Um, no" in response to that statement. Sounds like you refuted my point to me.

---

I said "Uh, no" only to the part I quoted in the post where I said that...which was you saying that I'm "making it seem like its so black and white" and that I'm "refusing to admit baseball has done a poor job here."

Quote:

---

Anyhow, it may disappoint you but 'um, no' this is not about you houston.

---

When you target statements directly at me, yes, it's about me.

Quote:

---

When you target statements directly at me, yes, it's about me.

---

OK houston, we'll let it be about you if it makes you feel better. Can we move on now? :rolleyes:

Or, you know, all of you children could try that GROWING UP thing.

No, no, please, continue skewing a conversation to infantile back and forth...that's the better choice. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arctic Blast

Or, you know, all of you children could try that GROWING UP thing.

No, no, please, continue skewing a conversation to infantile back and forth...that's the better choice. :rolleyes:

---

agreed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

.

I know it's a movie, but in the movie A League of their Own, didn't the catcher chick get plowed over, fall to the ground and THEN her hand hit the ground which caused the ball come loose? That was accepted by pretty much every baseball fan I've ever known as an accurate depiction of the call. Fact is, we've accepted the ground contact after a collision at the plate to be a 'safe' call, yet here when it's to our benefit people say a collision at 3rd causing the catcher to fall and his glove strike the ground which leads to the ball bouncing out is somewhat different, not only out but not even a 'baseball play'. Interesting, really.

---

Erm well in Rookie of the Year the Cubs have a 12 year old pitcher, in Major League Ceranno carries his bat arounf the bases, so Im not sure movies should be where you get baseball rules.

The difference in this play would be : the ball did not come loose during the tag, but after the tag wheN Varitek fell over. It was VERY clear that that it was the collision with the ground that casued the ball to come loose not the collision with the runner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRYFYN1

Erm well in Rookie of the Year the Cubs have a 12 year old pitcher, in Major League Ceranno carries his bat arounf the bases, so Im not sure movies should be where you get baseball rules.

The difference in this play would be : the ball did not come loose during the tag, but after the tag wheN Varitek fell over. It was VERY clear that that it was the collision with the ground that casued the ball to come loose not the collision with the runner.

---

I agree with everything you say here....but disagree that if the catcher is plowed over when a runner is headed home, and the catcher holds the ball and after hitting the ground it is VERY clear that the ball then comes loose, that the ruling would be the same. In fact, I have seen...and I think most with a non-biased mindset looking at it will agree they have seen situations just as the one I mention here in which the player was ruled safe.

Again, this from a Sox fan. I feel the player should have been out, but the rule is not clarified whatsoever, and is often ruled the opposite way than it was ruled yesterday when it occurs at the plate.

I do actually agree with you on this, though, dickay. It's strange that two different rules seem to apply to the same basic event occurring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

OK houston, we'll let it be about you if it makes you feel better. Can we move on now? :rolleyes:

---

Dude, I had no interest getting involved in a discussion with you, because I don't and never did disagree. You popped into the thread, quoted me, and said that I was "making it seem" like something that I didn't even discuss. And now you're trying to turn this dumb little argument around on to me?

See, right here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

You make it seem likes its so black and white, and seem to refuse to admit baseball has done a poor job here.

---

That's in response to a post of mine that you quoted. But I guess you weren't talking about me? :rolleyes:

Please. I'm sorry for getting off-topic, but I find it INCREDIBLY rude and immature that you pop into the thread and target me with a response, acting as if you disagree with what I said when you don't and as if I'm doing something that I'm not, and accuse me of "bias homerism" and then try to say that I'm "making it about me when it's not" or some crap, and act as if I instigated this.

The Angels should focus more on how they were incapable of getting hits when they needed to get them, and preventing the Red Sox from scoring.

Just a thought.

They need another bat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michaelg123789

They need another bat

---

To compete with the rest of the AL, they do.

Much like the Cubs, the current Angels were built for the long haul, but not for winning series against great teams. The Angels are like an NL team. It's worked in the playoffs for them before (they won a WS on account of it), but it doesn't keep them from getting knocked around by superior teams most years.

The Red Sox are built to win in the playoffs. That's why they win in the playoffs.

This crap gets old quickly, someone tries to get opinions from others and it turns into a **** kicking contest.

And I'm not saying its anyone in particular but about half of the threads on this site ends up with someone calling someone else names or putting down someone else beliefs or thoughts.

If it wasn't for the updates(patches) for game, I wonder how many people would actually still be here. I for one wouldn't be, and I don't actually post here that often and probably won't anymore.

I guess I will get some childish backlashing for posting this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justanewguy

To compete with the rest of the AL, they do.

Much like the Cubs, the current Angels were built for the long haul, but not for winning series against great teams. The Angels are like an NL team. It's worked in the playoffs for them before (they won a WS on account of it), but it doesn't keep them from getting knocked around by superior teams most years.

The Red Sox are built to win in the playoffs. That's why they win in the playoffs.

---

With Torii Hunter, Vlad and Texieria they should have been able to match the Sox for power. Especially since they shut down Pedroia and papi isn't Papi anymore.

The truth is they were just unlucky.

Or if they were run by anti-sabrs they'd say they "Lacked intestinial fortitude, didn't know how to win and were unclutchy."

Yeah, you're right, for the most part. I'm sorry. There was no need for this nonsense. All I did was post what I thought the correct call for the play was. I'm honestly still completely baffled as to why there had to be any debate here, and why the post I made was attacked, considering nobody was disagreeing with anybody.