Empty glove and out of the baseline

[rjgarcia76]

Had a call in a USSSA tournament I was not familiar with...runner on 1st, ground ball to the second baseman who fields it and attempts to tag the runner with the ball in her throwing hand. Runner dodges around the bare hand tag and makes it safely to 2nd. Defensive team's coach wants the runner called out for going out of the baseline. Umpire references an "empty glove rule" and basically says that since the fielder was not trying to make a tag with the ball in her glove, that it negated the runner going out of the baseline and affirms runner is safe on 2nd. The call really didn't end up influencing the game one way or the other, but I'd like to know if it was a correct call going forward in case it happens again. Thoughts?

 

[eddieq]

OK, it's been a couple of years since I called USSSA, but that sounds like a "MSU" rulebook.

Did the runner veer more than 3 feet from a direct route between her and the base at the time the tag was attempted? If so, you should have an out. If the umpire acknowledged that they did that but then gave you this empty glove thing, you'd have grounds for a protest. If he said, "no, she was within that 3 feet" then it's a judgement thing and you just have to deal.
'
Fair enough?

 

[djcarter1966]

Well @Comp and the gang will jump in and while this is a made up rule from the umpires mind I believe his mind judges if a play is being made on the runner. As I break this down more though even without a play being the fielder since they now have the ball in hand they can stand in the base path and it is now the runner who must not plow them over but still can't get out of the base path, all that to say is the play being made part even relavent to the discussion, I'm probably overthinking but I my mind what really matters is did she go out of the base path or since a play is not being made is this one of those situations where a base path does not exist yet....man I hate being confused ...one of our resident blues please straighten me out...and help the OP because think all I did was muddy the waters...but now I'm curious, sorry

 

[The Man In Blue]

I have never heard of an “empty glove rule” ... (MSU Manual indeed) ... but the call sounds correct.

The fielder had the ball, so she is not subject to obstruction there.

The fielder reached out with an empty hand, which is not a legal tag. Can’t be a tag attempt if the tag would not be legal.

Without a legal tag attempt, the runner can’t be avoiding a tag attempt.

Curious if anybody will make a case for a fake tag or calling the empty-hand reach an obstruction ...

EDIT ... I may have misread the OP. Was the tag attempt an EMPTY HAND or reaching out with the ball in hand (rather than in the glove)?

 

[rjgarcia76]

I have never heard of an “empty glove rule” ... (MSU Manual indeed) ... but the call sounds correct.

The fielder had the ball, so she is not subject to obstruction there.

The fielder reached out with an empty hand, which is not a legal tag. Can’t be a tag attempt if the tag would not be legal.

Without a legal tag attempt, the runner can’t be avoiding a tag attempt.

Curious if anybody will make a case for a fake tag or calling the empty-hand reach an obstruction ...

EDIT ... I may have misread the OP. Was the tag attempt an EMPTY HAND or reaching out with the ball in hand (rather than in the glove)?

The fielder did have the ball in her throwing hand, but was not able make the tag due to the runner dodging around it (arguably by going more than three feet out of the direct route from the runner to the bag).

 

[The Man In Blue]

My bad ... totally misread your OP.

A legal tag can be made with either/both hand and/or glove as long as the ball is secured in said hand/glove. The runner could be called out for deviating more than three feet from the runner’s base path.

 

[testandor]

OK, it's been a couple of years since I called USSSA, but that sounds like a "MSU" rulebook.

Yup!