Detached equipment

Answer this with a question - batter hits ball into gap, starts heading to second - realizes he's going to be put out, turns around starting back to first.  Somehow his shoe comes off, throw comes to second baseman who tags the shoe before the runner gets back to first - is the runner out?  

So what's the difference with the helmet?  That isn't on his head...

Surely a had to be there type situation. I'm sure depending on which side you're rooting for the helmet either was or was not touching the runners back, but I don't believe you "should" take an out there... Beyond that - if the defense cannot make a simple throw, do they "deserve" the out?

JohnF,

When I was ruminating over the question, the shoe thing popped into my head as well

As you said, you’d really have to be there, and IMHO, no, they don’t deserve the out.

1. The definition of a tag refers to touching the runner, so there wasn't a tag here.

2. The only mentions of detached equipment in the rule book pertain to unrelated situations.

3. "Deserve" isn't part of the rule book, but justice is always on my mind when I umpire.

If I were the umpire in this situation, I would consider two questions:

First, did any act by the runner other than running hard cause the helmet to be dislodged?  If yes, it could be interference, which includes any act by the team at bat that "obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder making a play." Intent would not matter if the runner knocked his helmet off and it confused or hindered the fielder attempting to tag him.  If it just fell off without an act by the runner to knock it off, I wouldn't have interference.

Second, did the presence of the detached helmet between the fielder's glove and the runner prevent the fielder from making the tag?  By that I mean, would the swipe tag have made contact with the runner before the runner touched the base if not for being blocked by the helmet. I wouldn't entertain the concept of "electricity" from children's games of tag: it wouldn't matter to me if the glove touched the helmet while the helmet was in contact with the runner.  But it would matter to me if the helmet prevented the glove from making contact with the runner. If so, I would call the runner out, knowing I would have an argument that would eventually be settled by the UIC, whose job it is to rule on points not covered by the rules.

FED contains the specific statement "... if the clothing is reasonably well fitted."

I'm sure the concept applies in other codes.

Safe.  Don't overthink it.

Here's a different situation -- but in the same general arena of weird plays:

•  Bunt lands directly in front of home plate.

•  Catcher picks it up and attempts a tag as batter heads to first.

•  On the attempted tag, the ball goes directly into the batter's back pocket.

Two questions:  

-  Is it a legal tag? (Catcher never retained control).

•  If not, can the batter/runner just keep running ... and running?

1.  Legal tag - no

2.  I would treat it as if the ball left the field of play like being thrown in the stands.

Not a tag.

In FED, award one base to any runners were attempting to advance (or if forced); no bases to any runners not attempting to advance.  Rule 8-3-3f.

In NCAA and OBR, decide "what would have happened" (but no outs) and award that.

+1

If this happens, I want video.

Back to the original op, you have helmet falling down the runner's back, still touching him and the tag is applied to the helmet, touching the batter.

Why is that not an out? If the helmet is on his head and he is tagged it's an out. If you have helmet in contact with the body and a tag, isn't that the same thing?

Because once an item is no longer in its proper place, it is no longer part of the body. I can anticipate where the conversation will go, and I'll head it off a bit here--I don't have a magic answer as to when a helmet goes from being loose-fitting to not on the head. 

Got it, thanks for the clarification