Runner Knocks Off 1B Mitt With Ball In It

There are 3 scenarios I see here.

1. The 1b has control of the ball and the foot on the bag.  Runner is out and whatever happens after that could be incidental contact and ball would be live - allowing runners at other bases to advance.

2. Ball and runner reach the glove simultaneously - thus the 1b never had control.  Runner safe ball live.

3. 1b had control of the ball but attempted to tag the runner as the foot was pulled from the bag at the point the ball was in control.  Runner safe ball live.

This is all under the assumption the contact happened on the baseline and the runner was not in the fair territory (outside the running lane).  Then you have runner interference - runner out - ball dead and possible placement of other baserunners.

This is a had to be there - had to see it play to make one definitive call.

@NewUmpire posted:

There are 3 scenarios I see here.

1. The 1b has control of the ball and the foot on the bag.  Runner is out and whatever happens after that could be incidental contact and ball would be live - allowing runners at other bases to advance.

2. Ball and runner reach the glove simultaneously - thus the 1b never had control.  Runner safe ball live.

3. 1b had control of the ball but attempted to tag the runner as the foot was pulled from the bag at the point the ball was in control.  Runner safe ball live.

This is all under the assumption the contact happened on the baseline and the runner was not in the fair territory (outside the running lane).  Then you have runner interference - runner out - ball dead and possible placement of other baserunners.

This is a had to be there - had to see it play to make one definitive call.

In the case I saw, I think it was close to #1 but the umpires on the field called it like it was #3.

There's a lot going on here - definition of a catch, touch base or tag runner, secure possession, voluntary release, runners lane interference, legality of  attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play, willful or incidental collision...

Even in #3 scenario - was the tag before the foot hits the base? The ball is still in the glove, so it seems we have a catch and now have involuntary separation of the glove by an act of the runner. How do you penalize the defense for that (other than of course judgement of crappy throw by 3b ;-)).  In other such collisions (say at the plate) if the ball leaves the C mitt, yeah sure safe, but the ball is still in the mitt. It's great fodder to ask a room full of umpires and see how many opinions you get ;-).

@JohnF posted:

There's a lot going on here - definition of a catch, touch base or tag runner, secure possession, voluntary release, runners lane interference, legality of  attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play, willful or incidental collision...

Even in #3 scenario - was the tag before the foot hits the base? The ball is still in the glove, so it seems we have a catch and now have involuntary separation of the glove by an act of the runner. How do you penalize the defense for that (other than of course judgement of crappy throw by 3b ;-)).  In other such collisions (say at the plate) if the ball leaves the C mitt, yeah sure safe, but the ball is still in the mitt. It's great fodder to ask a room full of umpires and see how many opinions you get ;-).

The way I read the situation is the combination of a bad throw and bad footwork pulled 1st baseman into the running lane at roughly the same time as the runner, which causes the contact that ends up dislodging the ball/glove.

If this is the case, then play is clean and runner is safe at 1st base, and may advance to 2nd on his own risk as play is still live. However, if umpire determines the contact to be malicious, or even like the time A-Rod swatted at the glove, then the story changes.

Ultimately, the real answer is "had to be there to see it". 

Even when you are there - judgement is a big factor.   

The angle / proximity to a play can contribute to what you see.  Sometimes the players are between the ump and the play - creating an obstructed view.

And to be completely honest - HS umpires are in short supply.  Sometimes you get one that is older, less mobile, just there for the $ and wants to get out as quickly as possible.  Like any profession, there are good and bad.  Sometimes even a great ump has a bad day.

Hell even MLB umps guess sometimes.

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/...yals-cleveland-game/

Hernandez guess on a regular basis it appears...and doesn't do it particularly well! Off course Cowboy Joe West has been blowing calls in the MLB for what 4 decades now?

There are so many high quality umps i never understand why MLB won't get rid of the bad ones they have.

Well, here's what happened according to the report in the newspaper:

With runners on first and second, [batter] hit a ground ball to third baseman who fielded it cleanly and tagged third base for the second out of the inning.  [3B] threw the ball across the diamond in search of an inning-ending double play and while the throw took first baseman slightly up the line, he was still in position to make the tag. Upon applying the tag, however, [1B] collision with [batter] knocked his glove off the the ball went flying toward second base. The dislodged ball made [batter] safe.

I agree had to be there and honestly I'm struggling with this - either way I assume you will have one coach asking about the play, but I guess 2-24-4 sums up things: "...The ball is not considered as having been securely held if it is juggled or dropped after the touching, unless the runner deliberately knocks the ball from the hand of the fielder (8-4-2h2)". For interference you don't have to ascertain intent, just the act, but on a train wreck, glad I can keyboard jockey it ;-).

While google-ing I found something similar with safe being the ruling: 

https://www.mlb.com/cardinals/...-at-busch-c197674234

2-24-4 only applies on a tag play.  There's a different standard on a force out.

If the first baseman had held the bag with any part of his body, as soon as the ball hits the back of the glove the out is earned.

That's part of the judgement and unclear in the OP description, but the newspaper description makes it sound like he was off the bag when the collision occurred, and then 2-24-4 does apply.

@T_Thomas posted:

If the first baseman had held the bag with any part of his body, as soon as the ball hits the back of the glove the out is earned.

"If the first baseman had held the bag with any part of his body, as soon as the ball hits the back of the glove the out is earned."

Are you saying the 1b does not have to have control of the catch?  That the ball only needs to contact the back of the glove?   I would say the 1b must control the ball.  A bobble hits the back of the glove, but is not in control and the runner is safe.   A scoop where the ball pops out of the glove the runner is safe.

No, of course not, but on a bang-bang force play, the timing of the out comes when the ball hits the back of the glove, and the fielder isn't held to the same standard of control throughout the play as on a tag play.

@T_Thomas posted:

No, of course not, but on a bang-bang force play, the timing of the out comes when the ball hits the back of the glove, and the fielder isn't held to the same standard of control throughout the play as on a tag play.

agree