Honestly, to me, it's a non-issue. I can't recall in my 20+ years of umpiring where I've ever seen a fielder tag a runner with an empty glove while the ball was pinned against the back of it. I've seen plenty of times where the fielder reaches with an empty glove to tag a runner while holding the ball well separated in the other hand. In the cases where I have seen a two-handed tag, the fielder is always holding the ball with the bare hand inside the glove, or it appears that way to me.Good reply, thank you. Now a slightly different take from those of you in blue. While you should and will uphold the rule, what do you think of it. Is this a rule that should be reviewed and possibly altered by the great umping powers that be? I'm always interested in how umpires explain rules. Here I'd love to learn if you like this rule. And why or why not.
YesIn most cases it could be really hard to say the hand holding the ball made no contact. Does it have to be the hand holding the ball?
No.The wrist, lower arm count?
Yeah that's the point. It would likely be difficult to call them safe.Yes
Now, good luck noticing that the fielder touched the runner only with the wrist, while no part of the hand touched the runner. That's really splitting hairs. But the rule is the rule, and if you can actually see that a fielder used only her wrist to touch the runner, you don't have a legal tag.
I'm not sure I catch your drift. The strike zone is defined in the rules of every sanction out there. Umpires are required to use it. So yeah, they should follow every letter of that law as well. Whether they do or not is usually a matter of judgment.I think it’s funny that rule has to follow every letter of the law until someone brings up where is the top of the strike zone.
Here’s how it’s different: we aren’t discussing balls and strikes coach.Well that's different and you know it. The difference is...uhhhh... Hey Blue, a little help here