Change the rule: Willits was safe!

October 8, 2008 at 7:14 AM

33 Comments

Recommended (0) | Share

Take a moment to reflect on a season that never really happened. To understand��what's happening here, I need you to take��a few��jumps toward the future and a few to the side, and��remember the bizarro version of 2008. Psychedelics are optional. ��

The Boston Red Sox finished the year with the best record in baseball; a testimony to the steady influence and brilliance of former World Series winning manager Terry Francona. The local nine are supported by one of the best, young starting rotations in the league, a historically good bullpen, and an offense built from the farm, peppered with a few free agents and one of the biggest trade deadline acquisitions in history.

In the first round of the playoffs, the Sox face the pesky Detroit Tigers (only because I used one of Samara��s photos and I want her to be happy in this bizarre world as a thank you). Jacoby Ellsbury, one of the fastest players to ever wear ��Boston�� across their chest, hits a dribbler down the third base line and takes off toward first. Carlos Guillen charges, bare-hands, and delivers a strike to first-baseman Miguel Cabrera. Cabrera catches the ball and squeezes, but as he is bringing his glove into his body, the ball slips out. Jacoby is safe.

During the ALCS, the Red Sox face off against the New York Yankees. During a crucial ninth inning, Jason Varitek grounds into a certain double-play, but as Jeter touches second and makes his turn to throw to first, Jed Lowrie takes him out. DJ flips head over heels, lands on the ground, and the ball rolls slowly toward the outfield. Everyone is safe, and the crowd roars and starts a ��twoooo-thous-and�� chant (hey��s, its my world.)

Finally, while playing the Dodgers in the World Series, Jason Bay is charging home off a JD Drew single to left field. The throw comes in from their gold-glove caliber #99 and hits Russell Martin perfectly. Martin braces himself, crouches in preparation as Canadian-born Bay delivers a textbook hockey check. Martin lands flat on his back, his glove hits the ground, and the ball trickles over the web and hits the dirt. Bay is safe, and Red Sox win.

All of these seem realistic, right? Well, except the part about the Yankees being in the playoffs. The point is, whether you want to admit it or not, anytime a ball is not secured for the duration of a play, it is commonly accepted the player is safe. Which introduces the entire purpose of my bizarre-2008 recap, Reggie Willits was safe.

Here is the rule book��s definition of a tag:

A tag (2.00) occurs when the ball is live and a fielder has the ball in his hand or glove (or both) and

(a) a base is touched by his person, or

(b) a runner is touched by any part of the glove/ball, hand/ball, or glove/hand/ball combination

Such fielder must have complete control of the ball during and after the touch. If the fielder bobbles or drops the ball during or after the touch of the base or runner, and the bobble or drop is due to his lack of control of himself or the ball, or due to contact with a runner, it is not a tag.A fielder shows complete control by(a) regaining control of his own body after extenuating efforts to make a tag (especially in regard to a fall, dive, or a collision), and(b) showing that his release of the ball is (or will be) voluntary and intentional.

Now read that bold part again, my friends. Seriously, stop drinking Red Sox Nation kool-aid, and read part b in bold. Soup Campbell, the announcer from last night��s game, was on Mike & Mike yesterday claiming Boston conspiracy theories. He compared the play to an outfielder colliding with a wall and dropping a catch, and said if the call went against NY or Boston it would have been a bigger deal than it is.

I don��t believe there is a conspiracy, Boston just has a history of changing the rules. 1) Larry Bird Rights. 2) The Tuck Rule. And now, 3) The Tag Rule. Look, you can debate whatever you want, but there are��five points from the game that are evident to anyone who watched with an unbiased mind:

1.�� There is no reason to execute a suicide squeeze in that situation with the momentum that L-Triple-A going for them

2.�� For a guy who had 9 bunt singles and 9 bunt sacrifices during the regular season, Aybar looked terrible trying to lay that one down.

3.�� If Tek would properly execute a run-down, the talk would be about another base-running gaffe (hello, Vlad Guerrero) costing the Angels a chance at victory.

4.��I hope this doesn't��lead to��another reason to use instant replay during a game. The more the media covers this, the more likely it's going to happen. Instead, let's all agree on observation #5 and just move on ...

5.�� If the rule book isn��t clear enough on what the proper call should have been in that situation, the rules need to be changed. Reggie Willits was safe.

Categories: 2008 ALDS, Erick Aybar, Jason Varitek, Reggie Willits, Vladimir Guerrero

PREVIOUS: Shutterfly TRIVIA: Bases loaded walks

NEXT: ALCS Rotation Set

Discussion

33 Comments on "Change the rule: Willits was safe!"

Posted by Tom A., October 8, 2008 12:00 AM

On Colin's note...how about a real discussion. Per the Globe's Extra Bases Blog:

Red Sox manager Terry Francona today announced his rotation for the ALCS:

Game 1: Daisuke Matsuzaka

Game 2: Josh Beckett

Game 3: Jon Lester

Game 4: Tim Wakefield

Game 5: Matsuzaka

Game 6: Beckett

Game 7: Lester

Me personally I'm surprised that its Beckett in game 2 and not Lester. I'd rather have Lester in 2 and 6 rather than 3 and 7. I want him to close it out earlier rather than later. Otherwise, not too much else is a surprise.

Posted by Shawn Medeiros, October 8, 2008 12:17 AM

The rule across the board should be an out. He made the tag and then lost the ball because of the ground, not because of Willits.

I totally agree it is like the transfer at second base. You get the out but drop the ball and still get the out.

How is the play any different than that other than the player is applying a tag to the runner. The tag was applied, he was out, hit the ground and the ball popped out.

The umpire got it right.

Posted by Chon, October 8, 2008 12:17 AM

I did not find anywhere in the rule book that was pointed out in bold:

Such fielder must have complete control of the ball during and after the touch...........

Posted by Colin, October 8, 2008 12:20 AM

Ok Dice-K I'm not surprised with, but as for Beckett, I am slightly. I think he was rather ornery and I definitely think he was kinda shitty against the Angels. He's had better success against the Rays but with him on the mound it's really going to be our bats that save the day.

Against the Rays that's all we can really hope for, strong bats. The Rays THRIVE from close games and we need to deny them their wishes.

Gentlemen, this will not be an easy ALCS. No ALCS for the Red Sox is a cakewalk and now we face a respectable opponent who went from worst to first. They aren't as predictable as the Angels and they have a more competent manager. That being said, I just hope October Boston and the lot have learned their lessons from the Trop beatings.

Posted by Evan Brunell, October 8, 2008 12:40 AM

@Tim: I think if the call is reversed, we are still talking about it and saying that he was out...

Personally, I think he was out, even after reading the play. I've always understood that the rule is that the player has control of the ball for the play and then it doesn't matter. I've seen plays where a fielder catches the ball but drops it on a transfer and the batter is still ruled out. The reason the catcher is not awarded an out play at the moment of collision at home plate is because he HAS to hang onto the ball for the duration of the play.

@Colin, I think that Lester was put in for a potential game 7 because he deserves that role, but Beckett is still put in what can be described as crucial games. I don't think that you can say that it will be our bats that save the day, he was coming off an oblique. I think he'll be fine.

Posted by Dictionary.com Guy, October 8, 2008 7:56 AM

How fitting that your last name is Crabb ...

Posted by Bob, October 8, 2008 8:16 AM

Sorry, but I disagree. Varitek clearly held the tag and then tripped over the base much later. To me, that's no different than if a second baseman holds a tag and then drops the ball on the transfer. I do agree that Varitek needs to learn how to properly execute a run-down.

Posted by Walt Webb, October 8, 2008 9:18 AM

I agree that Varitek got the tag. The ball came out once he hit the ground after making the tag. The Angels just made to many bad plays against a team that never beats itself. The Rays will give Boston a go but the Red Sox will let their experience carry them back to the World Series.

Walt AKA All Sports on the Web

All Sports on the Web

Posted by Troy, October 8, 2008 9:53 AM

Sorry. He was out. Ball in glove..tag..out.

#10

Posted by Colin, October 8, 2008 9:55 AM

I hope this is a sarcastic article, because I watched the replay and he was out. My say is that when the ump makes that call and then the ball dropped, he was still out. The ump's word is final save for the HR replays now.

The umpire made the out signal and afterwards Tek lands and drops the ball. Honestly for a Sox fan you've written some dreck recently.

#11

Posted by Tom A., October 8, 2008 10:24 AM

Man...if I wanted an article that was just there to try and antagonize me I'd go read Shaughnessy in the Globe or Callahan in the Herald (no these aren't complements). I really hope this was a sarcastic article (which I don't think it was) and even if it was, it was a poorly written one.

As for the play Tek held onto the ball through the entire motion of tagging him and later tripped on the base. This clearly makes him safe.

Sorry, but is this really going to be focus of this week? I guess only if you're trying to be "edgy and controversial".

#12

Posted by Ryne Crabb, October 8, 2008 10:25 AM

This is not a sarcastic article. I am a Sox fan, diehard too, but if anything, I'm the Bill O'Reilly of baseball ... I don't mind leaning to one side or the other if I believe in it, and in this case, I think the rule needs to be changed!

I don't need to defend myself, but I am not going to be a Red Sox homer and talk only about how great they are and how wrong everyone not drinking the kool-aid is ...

#13

Posted by Tim Daloisio, October 8, 2008 10:29 AM

Here's the damning point in the definition:

the bobble or drop is due to his lack of control of himself or the ball, or due to contact with a runner, it is not a tag

This is not football....there is no "ground can't cause a fumble rule".

Ask yourself this, why did Varitek drop the ball?

Answer - His momentum from diving at Willits in effort to tag him brought him to the ground at which time the ball left his glove.

The ball was dropped due to his lack of control of himself.

Much like the "tuck rule" moment for the Pats, this was an on field ruling that was in the grey area and left up to the umpires judgment. The ump made the call...and so it stands.

But...if we were to go by the letter of the law and rewatch the play with that in mind, I would argue that a majority of individuals with no rooting interest would call Willits safe.

#14

Posted by Tim Daloisio, October 8, 2008 10:38 AM

I guess the question here is when did Varitek regain complete control of his body following the tag? Did he exhibit that before tripping on the base? or is tripping on the base within the continuation of the play?

Just to point out that I am not siding on Ryne just because he's a fellow writer...I found the examples in the article and the tone did some discredit to the overall argument.

But I think that there is validity to the assertion that this wasn't as black and white as we are all willing to believe because the call went our way.

#15

Posted by Eric Hanson, October 8, 2008 10:47 AM

"I��m the Bill O��Reilly of baseball..." Does that mean you're going to start yelling at us to shut up?

Seriously though: besides Varitek's flubbing of the run down, this is at best a semantics call about how long the period between the tag and the drop can be before it crosses from out to safe. If it becomes a rallying cry for Angels fans, so be it, but I don't think it's as clear cut as you make it out to be. Defining the length of time needed for possession would be the best way to fix the problem, such as it is.

#16

Posted by Tom A., October 8, 2008 10:53 AM

Sorry if I came off as grouchy this morning. I sort of am due to the debate and then this hitting me the wrong way. My earlier muddled points were twofold.

1. I think Ryne (and I guess on this Tim as well) are wrong. I don't think that the part of the rule that Ryne or Tim quoted is particularly damning. I say this simply because the runner was not the cause of Varitek dropping the ball. He held onto the ball for a significant time after the tag, tripped on the base afterward, and the ball came out. I personally don't think the runner was the cause of this like the rule states. Of course here its a matter of interpretation, but then again isn't everything in baseball just that? I also don't think a rule change would do anything to "fix" this.

2. My second point was that the article came off on first read as shock journalism. I understand now that that wasn't the intention at all (sorry Ryne), but the analogy at the beginning came off as an annoying attempt to rile people up. Overall I love reading Fire Brand because people aren't afraid to write/say things about the team that we should to talk about, but also don't frame things in a way that is meant to intentionally antagonize their readers like Wilbur or Shaungnessy or Callahan. So, Ryne, I'm sorry if my first comment came across as insulting (its early here in Chicago), but I just felt that this argument could have been framed better at the start.

#17

Posted by STI, October 8, 2008 11:01 AM

Bringing up the "Tuck Rule" is something like the sports equivalent of Godwin's law.

There are three things you need to understand about the tuck rule:

(1) The tuck rule had already been invoked AGAINST the Pats earlier in the 2001 season. So it's not like the ref made it up on the spot.

(2) Based solely on the motion of Brady's arm, the call was obvious--in fact, the broadcast announcers said that the ruling of a fumble should be overturned.

(3) You are in fact, correct, though, that the tuck rule was the wrong call--but not because it didn't apply. Rather, the Raiders defender should have been called for roughing the passer, because he deliberately hit Brady in the head. It should have been 15 yards and an automatic first down.

#18

Posted by Chops, October 8, 2008 11:02 AM

I agree, Ryne. Willits was safe. I'm thrilled to see the Red Sox advance, and I think mistakes - by umps and players - are just a part of the history of the game.

Of course, umps should try to get this (and every other ruling) right in the future. For now... bring on the Rays!

#19

Posted by Tim Daloisio, October 8, 2008 11:07 AM

@Eric, really good point about this being a semantic argument re: the definition of continuation and length there of.

@Tom A, I guess I would argue that there is a more room for debate of this point than you and others think...but at the same time, the call didn't bother me (rooting interests aside) at the time or thinking about it now. The ump made a judgment call. I just thought that the definition of the rule gave room for some debate on the issue (since there's no game for a few days to focus my idle mind).

My official stance: He was out, because he was called out on the field and it is a judgment call on the umps part. I think the definition of continuation of the play until the fielder regains control is vague enough that if the play was called the other way on the field, it would not have been egregiously wrong.

#20

Posted by STI, October 8, 2008 11:13 AM

"4. I hope this doesn��t lead to another reason to use instant replay during a game. The more the media covers this, the more likely it��s going to happen. Instead, let��s all agree on observation #5 and just move on �Ķ"

Nope on both counts.

(1) I understand your argument, but that just seems too much of a stretch between the tag and the loss of control.

(2) Within reason, the "sanctity of the game" is FAR better preserved by giving the refs/umps the chance to get important calls RIGHT than by not allowing instant replay. There are several ways it could be implemented, I think, without creating an unnecessary drag on the game (e.g., "official reviews" only, limiting challenges per team per game, etc.).

#21

Posted by Tom A., October 8, 2008 11:19 AM

@Tim: I actually agree with you about it being more debatable. I was just taking a side in the argument (granted, one that I think correct). My overall point is that, as with most baseball plays, it was an interpretation call, the umpire made the call as such and I don't see why we're having this argument now. I haven't even heard complaints from the Angels camp (even Scoicia).

@ Eric: A rule change, even for time of possession wouldn't do much because no umpire is going to be counting seconds on holding the ball. Additionally, the transfer issues on potential double plays would be further complicated and overall too many plays are decided to quickly to say the fielder has to hold the ball for 2+ seconds. Plus I generally would like to keep replay out of baseball except for the HR calls it is already there for. That's a whole other discussion though. :)

#22

Posted by Tim Daloisio, October 8, 2008 11:24 AM

@Tom A: I blame the fact that we are having this conversation now on the call itself. If the call went the other way, we would be talking about Game 5. With idle time, we have nothing better to talk about as we aren't quite ready to jump fully into ALCS talk until tomorrow for our own sanity. It's like bye week before the Super Bowl right now ;)

#23

Posted by Colin, October 8, 2008 11:39 AM

Tim equals end of discussion.

The call was made and the Sox advance. Everything else is sour grapes.

#24

Posted by beth, October 8, 2008 1:01 PM

Pre-emptively accusing anyone who disagrees with you of "drinking the kool-aid" isn't a great way to foster a "debate."

Before you accuse any more straw-fans of drinking Kool-Aid, how about paying attention to part a) of the rule as well? Should the runner not be out even if Varitek kept the ball in his glove because Varitek fell over / made contact with the runner?

As for the questions at the end, for someone who stated you're not a conspiracy theory believer, the rest of this post sure made you sound like one...

1. There is no reason to execute a suicide squeeze in that situation with the momentum that L-Triple-A going for them

How do you figure? This is Anaheim's style - small ball, aggressive baserunning...they don't wait for the big hit. If there was no reason to do so, why did everyone in the park know it was coming? If there was no reason to do so, why did the AL's winningest manager decide to do it? Is a vast Sox conspiracy *really* more likely than a poor decision, or a good decision poorly executed?

2. For a guy who had 9 bunt singles and 9 bunt sacrifices during the regular season, Aybar looked terrible trying to lay that one down.

Yep, and shit happens, especially at a crucial moment. For one of the great pitchers of all time, Pedro Martinez sure looked mortal in the eighth inning of Game 7 in 2003. Are you seriously saying Aybar missed the bunt on purpose?

If so, was there also a Yankees conspiracy in 2003 that put Grady Little up to letting Pedro twist in the wind? Or did Pedro throw a cookie to Jorge Posada on purpose?

Furthermore, WHY would such conspiracies exist? For what purpose? It's like the TBS broadcasters were saying -- it would be good for baseball for someone other than the Sox to advance. *ANY* national sports league wants as many cities involved in the playoffs as possible and high turnover in that involvement from year to year. What would be in it for baseball to keep only one group of fans interested from year to year?

I'm not one to question someone else's fandom, but I find it surprising that you seem to give credence to any of this. But if you're going to throw it out there, flesh it out for us -- exactly how would this conspiracy work, and to what end?

#25

Posted by Tom, October 8, 2008 6:38 PM

For arguments sake, picture this.... Jason Bay is running home on Lowrie's single in the bottom of the 9th. The throw comes home in time, the catcher makes the catch, turns and tags Bay out as a collision ensues. The catcher is knocked onto his back and the ball pops out of his glove. The catcher had clear possession of the ball in his glove when he made the tag, but he lost the ball after the collision - after he had already tagged out the runner.

What is your call?

Every time this happened in the past, the runner was ruled safe.

Now back to the play in question. Varitek made an acrobatic dive to tag Willits out. How do I say that? Because in looking at the replay, there is no way that Veritek could return to his feet after making the tag. He clearly lunged at Willits to make the tag which brought him to his knees. That being said, Veritek did not have control. There was no trip over the bag as some of you have said. In fact, Veritek does not even touch the plate until he has already lost the ball.

In my proposed scenario, the collision with the runner caused the ball to come free.

In Varitek's case, he dropped the ball without any outside influence - his acrobatic play caused him to not have control of the ball.

How is this different than the scenario I proposed above?

I'm not saying that the Angels would have won. Francisco Rodriguez would have come in and given up a few runs anyhow.

All that being said, I would like to know what rule book the author is referring to. The MLB's rule book does not contain the bold section that you refer to. Where did you find that rule, or did you make it up?

#26

Posted by Paul Tedford, October 8, 2008 10:49 PM

I'm late to the party, but I got to chime in. Without my Red Sox bias I still call him out. If you watch the video he was tagged (he's out), then the glove came off him, then he was tagged again and then he hit the ground and the ball came out. He was out on the first tag, the rule doesn't state you have to be tagged twice :)

It's clearly an out by the definition of the rule, b/c the ball didn't hit the ground until after the second tag!

What's amazing is that the umpire got it right!

#27

Posted by Paul Tedford, October 8, 2008 10:56 PM

Watching it again, he may not have tagged him twice but he clearly tagged him with the ball in his glove and only after that (and w/o the runner forcing the ball out) he hit the ground and the ball came out. I think it's the right call. However, if the glove had hit Willits heel for instance then I'm not so sure.

#28

Posted by SamR, October 9, 2008 2:06 AM

Ok this is how I look at the whole thing...

Aybar failed at bunt. Varitek applied tag to Willits. UMPIRE CALLED HIM OUT. Red Sox end rally. Score walk-off win. Game over. End of story.

Umpires opinions are a part of baseball and they effect every game ... Ours shouldn't ... So, while a healthy debate is all good, let's not make this into a big controversy ... What happened happened ... Enjoy the game for what it is and leave the umpire's calls alone ... Just my take

#29

Posted by Paul Testa, October 9, 2008 2:19 AM

Thanks for the episode of Jerry Springer.....He was OUT...Basball is judgement call and the up got it right. So did the second one on the grassy knoll

#30

Posted by KLF, October 9, 2008 2:33 PM

Wow, it seems like you all got your panties in one heck of a knot.

Rynee, excellent article. People worldwide hate Sox fans for their obnoxious attitudes that fail to see reason in regards to their particular team colors. As a fan whose first love is the crack of the bat, and the smell of the grass it is extremely satisfying for me to find a writer that puts his love of baseball before his love of team.

Let them all try to hang you with their comments, but as the writer who has generated the most debate in quite a long while, take it as a compliment.

As for the guy who commented "Shaughnessy in the Globe or Callahan in the Herald (no these aren��t complements)" absolutely take them as compliments, because you know that same guy has both writers saved in his online "favorites" and checks them out, just so he can sit at a bar and complain about them to his buddies...

And Beth, I appreciate how articulate your comment was, but let's be a little realistic. You are honestly going to tell me that you think that there are more people who would rather watch a "new" team be in the playoffs, then sit and watch one of America's favorite teams? Because hate them or love them, the Red Sox always draw a crowd, a crowd is what all Networks want, and viewership is ALWAYS good for baseball.

So even though I whole heartedly disagree with your argument Ryne, thanks for putting it out there. Sometimes too much "Kool- Aid" gives me a headache.

#31

Posted by Ryne Crabb, October 9, 2008 3:03 PM

I'm Ryne Crabb, and I approve that comment.

#32

Posted by SamR, October 9, 2008 6:47 PM

And sometimes people who accuse everyone else of drinking "Kool-Aid" give me a headache...

#33

Posted by Matthew, October 10, 2008 1:01 PM

Somebody else commented on this, but I haven't seen an answer. Can you explain where you found this rule? Section 2.00 of the 2008 Rulebook on MLB.com only has this:

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.

Where did you find all the stuff in bold, since that seems to be the crux of your argument?

via RSS

Poll

Which former Red Sox would you most like to see on the team this year?(answers)

MVN: Most Valuable Network