David Ducat Jr on 
Rob Main on 
Vic-Chief on He’s Safe, there shouldn’t be a debate about this play-AA
Now pay attention to the play in regular speed, than watch the next version at the 43 second spot, you will see Mr. Welke start coming up with his out call before the play is done, too quick gang and again I mean no disrespect to Tim Welke. Also you’ll see at the 43 second point how it happens in real time and how the ball comes out quickly after the tag. Don’t pay attention to any of the slow motion versions of this play unless you know how to stick a “slow-mo” chip in your brain! ~Bugsy and Vic~
By the way for you non-YouTubers: click on play arrow, let it start and then in the lower right hand corner click on the arrow pointing up and you’ll see “HQ” pop up, click on that for a clearer version of the video, it will re-start in better resolution.
For me and Vic it’s all about timing. Apparently there is an interpretation that nullifies the “ultimate rule of timing”=let the play finish. Or is there?! I’m being facetious!
The funny thing is, go back to the video and look at Variteck’s facial expression after he realizes he doesn’t have the ball, he’s pretty surprised by the call. If in fact we are going to call plays like this, this way, then they need to come out in a case note in BLACK AND WHITE. Too big of a play to have half the umps call it one way and the other half call it the other way. But my argument is, HOW LONG IS LONG ENOUGH THEN. That’s why Vic says, keep it simple and look for voluntary release of the ball.
All of you know how I teach about “perception” within a play and this was bad perception the ball rolling around on the field. Also, go back to the video and note that Tim kept his eyes at the point of the tag, he never (initially) looked for the ball to make sure Variteck had it.
I figured Vic would agree me, hey listen gang. I’ve been taught by many very good umpires, Vic, John McSherry, Joe Brinkman, Richie Garcia, and one of the all time great rules men, the late Nick Bremigan. And we never discussed that there was a difference in a play like the Variteck play.
Vic says “Politically correct” and I say jokingly but the same thought in spirit, “it’s a conspiracy I tell ya!” LOL Tim Welke went to Harry’s school, or is it umpires sticking with umpires? But nonetheless, our job here at UmpireTeacher.com is to teach you the right way to umpire.
One more point, Harry states “showing complete control of the ball during and immediately following”, well if you watch that play in “real time”, Variteck fell immediately after the tag. Once again, don’t get stuck on the slow-mo replays. WE DON’T SEE PLAYS IN SLO-MO! (I’m not yelling…LOL…just emphasizing.)
Again, this isn’t about bashing Tim Welke, I’m sure Vic has worked with him and he’ll tell you he’s a good ump. This is about using plays like this to teach you guys out there who want to be the best you can be. And along with that thought, we’re not trying to trash Harry Wendelstedt either, ya kidding me?! But Vic and I know our stuff and we want you all to get it right.
Bottom line: slow your timing down, let the play finish and THEN call it. Remember the ol’ “show me the ball”?!.
~Bugsy~
Harry’s reasoning is “Politically Correct” but Umpires make calls on judgement not what they think looks good! I totally disagree with him on this.
We are taught the play is not over until its over (a little Yogism). If Tim(Welke) had waited, I am positive he would have called him safe and I guarantee you that with the ball on the ground, there would not have been an argument.
Because the catcher fell to the ground and Tim couldn’t see the ball, that is all the more reason, he should have waited. If you use Harry’s ruling, what happens when an outfielder dives for a ball, it hits his glove for an instant, he rolls over and the ball comes out, try calling that a catch. There is no difference. It must be a voluntary release of the ball.
Vic
So one of our members sent this to me directly from
"The Harry Wendelstedt School for Umpires" from
Harry's weekly Rules Review:
I would like to preface that even though there is only two Professional Umpire
Schools, they are VERY competitive but personally I believe no matter which one
you attend, if you attend a Pro School, you cannot go wrong. Though I've
never attended Harry's School, I've worked with many good umpires from both
schools because ultimately it comes down to what
you do with your career after you attend Pro school.
But I've gotten off the beaten track, this is about
the Variteck play. Read below. WRMM=
Wendelstendts Rules Mechanics Manual.
R3, no one
out, no count. The pitcher picks off R3 at third base and gets him in a rundown.
After several turns between home and third base, the pitcher makes a dive
towards R3 for a tag. He tags R3 just before he reaches the base, however, after
falling to the ground, the ball falls out of his glove. What's the call?
We have received tons of emails
regarding this play, in particular. Ultimately, this is a judgment decision as
to whether the fielder held the ball long enough to show secure possession of
the ball while in the act of tagging the runner. There is no "voluntary release"
requirement, however, the WRMM says:
"A TAG is the action of a fielder in touching a base with his body, glove, or
ball, while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove,
showing complete control of the ball during the tag, or touching a runner with
the ball, or with the hand or glove holding the ball, while holding the ball
securely in his hand or glove, showing complete control of the ball during
and immediately following [our emphasis] the touch of the runner."
If the umpire believes that the drop of the ball was a result of the tag action,
the tag has not been completed, but is the umpire believes the drop of the ball
was subsequent to the tag, the tag has been completed.
My original reply to our member to the
above answer was I disagreed. Below is Vic's answer and then mine. ~Bugsy~
Folks, that’s our man Larry G. on the “Power Team”, knows his stuff! Thanks Lar! Oh and just in case anyone didn’t know, Bugsy is a nickname. Mike “Bugsy” Segal, so Larry was probably making the first part of his comment based on my Newsletter intro or other comments I made about this play, whereas I was having some fun with Referee Magazine. I’ll get my newsletter article up on the site soon for those of you who want to reference back to it or you can go to the home page of http://www.umpireteacher.com and click on “UT News” on the left hand side. ~Bugsy~
Mike,
Mike Port in Referee did try to do a dance around this play with his saying that a tag is different than a catch/no catch situation.
I don’t believe there is any interpetation anywhere that proves Mike Port’s interpretation. In the Jaksa/Roder The Rules of Professional Baseball: A Comprehensive Reorganization and Interpretation of the OBR, it states on page 14, “Catch” and “tag” are similar concepts. A tag occurs when the ball is live and a fielder has the ball in his hand or glove(mitt)[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.
Jaksa/Roder adds the following to the rulebook definition – Such fielder must have complete control of the ball during and after the touch. If the fielder bobbles 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) retaining control of his own body after extenuating efforts to make a tag (especially in regard to a fall, dive, or a collidsion) and (b) showing that his release of the ball is (or will be) voluntary and intentional. A fielder need not regain control of his body if he is able to voluntarily release the ball; the voluntary release alone is proof of complete control.
In my opinion, and that is all it is with J/R interpetation. Tim Welke had this play incorrect and yes, he did a great job of keeping Sciosia in the game.
First off, how many times have we all called this type of play? When i witnessed it live, my training instincts took over and I asked why is Tim fixating on the spot of the tag, rather than taking his eyes to the ball as the play was still “fluid”, and I would want to insure the catcher did not drop the ball. After the call, and Scosia’s mild dispute, and all the talking heads, I began to wonder if there was a part of the book I had not read well enough. After all the dust had settled, I feel as though MLB bamboozled the nation by pulling this “interpretation” out of a hat! This was certainly the biggest call of the year for the Angels.
Larry G. of our “Power Team” brought up a great point. There was no ejection!!
Which brought to mind, Vic Voltaggio taught me many years ago, everybody can learn to call balls & strikes and safes & outs but the people that rise to the top are the umpires who know how to handle situations.
Tim Welke kept the manager in the game, that’s a good thing because that kind of play is an ejection waiting to happen. Imagine if it happened to Lou Pinella!
Gang,
Also watch the umpire’s eyes, once he makes the call he doesn’t watch the fielder to make sure he holds onto the ball. Timing, people, timing. Part of timing is letting the play FINISH. There’s no “1-2-3″, he held it long enough in a play like this, it’s up to Varitek to hold onto the ball after he hits the ground. Thanks to Frank Laperic one our “Power Team” people from the East coast of the big USA bringing this to my attention. I had forgotten about the play while working on the site and this is a great play to learn from. Again, we don’t knock other umps people, because trust me, we’ve all done this but to prevent it…..keep your focus and don’t get too comfortable.