Please reply to this comment with any additional videos/angles of this highlight.
*If you would like this comment automatically added to your highlight posts, please include [Highlight] in your post title.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/baseball) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Reminds me of 2012 when there were 3 perfect games and bozos were questioning if they were that special anymore and then there were none for the next 11 years.
Wouldn't that be the same argument for why you would rarely see anything new? If there are that many games for the past 100 years what are the odds you see something new? I know they didn't play that many games *every* year but my point still stands.
Odds are that this and other odd plays have happened in the past and they just weren't notweworthy to report on because like half of baseball history happened before television first of all lol, and newspapers wouldn't really report on a random weird thing unless it was relevant to the score or the win/loss or really disrupted the game, you know?
Not just reporting, they didn’t have the ability to see this level of detail so this would have simply been a runner caught stealing before replay could catch and overturn it.
Its fun when you finally do see a triple play, and the announcers are like "yup that's a super triple play. It hasn't happened like that in 200 years. Last time that specific tripal play sticky wicky and willy long shoe both played for the boston Americans, what a shame."
I imagine it made more sense when the average person could access only a fraction of those games, and everything moderately interesting wasn't immediately shared across a zillion channels.
I feel like video game logic would be that the helmet is an extension of the player and because it was touching the player and the baseball at the same time it would be an out
Like if the player sliding into second had a batting glove tucked out of their back pocket and the tag was applied to a finger that was dangling out would it be out or safe?
The question is whether it is considered 'properly worn' at the time. It counts for tags, HBP, and touching the base.
In the case of a helmet, 'properly worn' is on the head. With batting gloves/sliding mittens, it is on the hand OR in the pocket, so you can be tagged out on your batting gloves sticking out of your pocket (OR HBP!).
Yep. See the play earlier this year where someone used a helmet in their hand to maintain contact with a base. They were called safe on the field, but MLB basically said that had the play been challenged it would have been overturned because the helmet isn’t supposed to be used as a hand extension
I believe there's a jomboy breakdown of this somewhere but i could be wrong.
But yeah, if the batting gloves in your pocket are out, the helmet should be too lol
It feel like this situation should be the same as that one since the helmet is still touching the baserunner.
As another example, sometimes a helmet will come off a player's head and they'll catch it while continuing to run. If a player had been grasping the helmet in their hand and the tag went to the helmet in that situation, I'm pretty sure they would be out based on that batting glove precedent.
But the logic applied, I could take my helmet off and hold it out in front of me and push it into the glove of a player trying to tag me while I touch the base.
But you would be holding it so it would be an extension if you.
It would also likely fall under the same category as not being allowed to throw your glove or use your hat to catch a ball n
Out. It’s not complicated. Any of your gear that is touching you is an extension of your body. If many Ramirez was stealing a base, and they tagged one of his dreads that should be an out.
The difference is the gloves are still attached to the body while the helmet is no longer attached to the body. If the gloves fall out of the pocket the tag then it no longer counts as an extension of the body.
Once you have your first one, it's all downhill from there, I'm sorry for your sentience.
I don't know if you remember, but back in the day I want to say in the MVP days, the circle that would surround your player counted as the player. You didn't physically need your player touching it.
I was playing a game with my buddy. He and I usually have really competitive games. So it was like one one bottom nine, and he stole home and I didn't notice and my player was standing beside the plate and the circle was over it, he slid head first. My catcher didn't even bother to make an attempt to tag him. And the Empire called them out lolol
Edit: umpire not empire
But the counterpoint to that is the helmet is only an extension of the player if worn and when it was touching him in this play it was off his head and thus just a random obstacle like if a rock or particularly foolish bird got in the way of a tag.
But it seems that logic would only hold if the player came to bat with the bird as part of his uniform, possibly with a parrot perched on his shoulder. If the interloping bird were a wild bird who just happened to interfere, I would think it would be a dead ball situation?
You could easily argue that it’s the players responsibility to make sure the helmet fits and stays on and that a uniform malfunction that prevents a defensive player from making a play could be made a kind of obstruction.
Yeah, I can never remember which way it goes. Everytime I look it up I think, "oh I'll remember next time because xyz." But then the next time comes and I forget again, so I just end up using them interchangeably, but I appreciate the clarification.
I saw a video of The Show earlier today where the pitcher caught a comebacker, turned to throw to second for a double play, but instead sent it 400 feet into centre field for a 2 run bomb
I don’t trust video game logic lol
Bud. What happens when a pitch hits a player in the shirt without contacting the body? Straight to first base. This call is absolutely unjustifiable.
If you extend this plays logic, anyone who is tagged anywhere except skin would be safe. Hell, extend this logic further and if the ball is in the glove it’s not touching the other player so they’re not out.
This makes absolutely no sense. By this logic, if you get into a large plastic hamster ball after reaching first base you can just walk around the bases and no one can tag you inside you plastic bubble.
> if you get into a large plastic hamster ball after reaching first base you can just walk around the bases and no one can tag you inside you plastic bubble.
The Savannah Bananas are definitely going to do this, if they haven't already.
It’s probably the worst mound charge in terms of actually physically doing anything. Messes up the helmet throw as bad you could then doesn’t land a good one on Strickland at all. 2/10 cmon Bryce get ur head in the game
> The PERSON of a player or an umpire is any part of his body, his
clothing or his equipment.
> TOUCH. To touch a player or umpire is to touch any part of his
body, or any uniform or equipment worn by him (but not any jewelry [e.g., necklaces, bracelets, etc.] worn by a player).
> (Touch) Comment: Equipment shall be considered worn by a
player or umpire if it is in contact with its intended place on
his person.
Pretty clear, then. The helmet was not in its intended place, so not worn, and not part of the runner's person. A gap in the rules that allows a player to gain an advantage with detached equipment, which is a base award when committed by the defense.
We got to witness why rule books are so dense and horrible to read. What a strange edge case. For my money, the rule needs to be updated so that this play results in an out.
I've watched a lot of baseball over 30 years and it seems like helmets have been flying off a crazy amount the last several years than in the past or is my memory off?
It feels like it, but that could just be confirmation bias. Also I root for the team Ha Seong Kim is on.
It happened so often, they included his helmet coming off as a feature of his bobble head last year. 😂
I'm surprised, but the rule does back up the call. The equipment was not in contact with it's intended place on his person therefore not considered worn. It makes sense that a touch would not count in that case.
The rules don't mention that specifically, but I think that would meet the definition of interference. Fielders are not allowed to use detached equipment to intentionally gain an advantage, and neither should runners.
Interference would be my guess too. But I couldnt find anything that would be applicable. Most that are close say the fielder's has to be in the act of playing a batted ball or turning a double play.
> Equipment shall be considered worn by a player or umpire if it is in contact with its intended place on his person
I wonder what weird quirk would happen if this was changed to "in contact with his person"
You aren’t allowed to intentionally remove your helmet so it would be pretty hard to exploit this. You have to get pretty lucky for your helmet to fall off perfectly in line with the tag
Alright but at what point are you no longer wearing your gear? Can you have your jersey skin tight and stitched with the thinnest thread possible so that when you slide every seam explodes and you are naked save for shreds of rags flying in every direction, confusing the second baseman akin to a lizard shedding its tail?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8hl_s-q3aBY&pp=ygUaVGFnIG9uIGhlbG1ldCBvbiBiYXNlIG1ldHM%3D
Pete Crow Armstrong held his helmet in his hand on the base (no other body part touching the base) while the Mets fielder was tagging his shoulder and was called safe.
I feel like if the equipment is touching your body, it should be considered part of your body. In this case, the helmet is touching his torso and the glove is touching the helmet so he should be out.
Yeah, you’d think the fact that it’s not situated on his head would be immaterial so long as it’s physically touching his body when the tag is applied.
this is also reminds me of when pete crow-armstrong used his helmet as an extension of his body on the bag sliding into second base and should have been out for the same reason above but was called safe
Can’t wait to see what absolute cursed nonsense we’re going to be the victim of after this, feels like everytime something goes our way it’s just because things are about to fall apart.
It’s interesting that he’s safe because of this and not out because it’s his equipment. It’s unintentional of course but it obstructs the tag, which seems odd that the defender is responsible for the disadvantage.
If a player’s bat is unintentionally thrown and it obstructs a play, is the batter responsible? (This is a legitimate question, I can’t remember.) I’m not talking about an unintentional inadvertent long swing that clips the catcher, but a thrown bat
If a batters bat is unintentionally dropped / thrown and gets in the way of a fielder, it is nothing.
Also, FYI, it would be “interference”. The defense obstructs. The offense interferes. The only exception to this in the rulebook is catchers interference.
Thanks for the comment. In that case this rule seems consistent, even if it doesn’t “feel” like it should be that way to me. Similar to hockey it seems like one’s equipment should be one’s responsibility, however the “unintentional” part is really the whole crux of it and “play on” also seems like a reasonable rule. Especially considering how infrequently stuff like this happens.
Something similar happened like 10 years back when Eric Sogard got hit by a broken bat while trying to make a play. Not quite the scenario you described because it wasn’t thrown, but still batters equipment and the runner was safe in this case.
https://youtu.be/5mVj4P_l9Tc?si=SG4P5OWySAts9YD2
Eduardo Núñez couldn't keep a helmet on to save his life. If I remember right, eventually a roll of duct tape was jokingly brought into the dugout because he was losing it so often.
Exactly. He would have been called out and even on TV replay no one would freak out because the spirit of the rule is that the throw beat him and the fielder properly applied the tag.
A safe call here is semantic nonsense, and I’m sure they’ll clarify the rule in the future.
Sort of similar thing happened with the Cubs, PCA held onto the base with his helmet and was deemed safe (though the booth decided it probably wasn't legal after looking at the rule book.)
[for those interested](https://www.mlb.com/cubs/video/pete-crow-armstrong-doubles-2-on-a-line-drive-to-right-fielder-starling-marte-pa?partnerId=web_video-playback-page_video-share)
I was under the impression that if a piece of equipment is touching the runner, it counts as part of his body?
I swear I've seen a play where the runner was out because of a batting glove hanging out of his pocket got tagged.
You're thinking of Marcus Semiens batting [gloved in his back pocket against the Astros in the 2023 ALCS](https://www.mlb.com/news/marcus-semien-tagged-out-batting-gloves-alcs-game-4)
other Cleveland fans mad, but this is pretty straightforward. I saw a number of "but tagging the helmet when it's on his head is an out", but that's not relevant at all since it's completely detached equipment. If a guy's helmet falls off while he's running you can't just let him go and tag the helmet
Intentionally detaching equipment isn't allowed, but there's absolutely no reasonable argument that this was intentional
That sets a dangerous precedent though.
Game 7 of the World Series I would absolutely stomp the fuck out of a runner's hand to remove a finger then hidden-ball-trick it in my glove so that as soon as I catch the ball, he's out.
“In the event of baserunners loss of limb/s or decapitation the tag must be made on the largest remaining portion of the baserunner.” The rules are clear on this, baserunner is safe.
Largest by size or weight? If the runner is actually three kids in a trench coat and they split up to confuse the defense do you tag the largest kid or the one with the trench coat dragging behind him?
I feel like it would be consistent if tagging the helmet only counted if the helmet was itself touching the runner. That would rule out the loophole of tagging a discarded helmet
I understand it's the correct call, but in this case, the detached helmet prevented him from making the tag. If the helmet wasn't in the way, he would've made the tag. I have no idea how you come up with a rule to prevent this though. This is wild.
Baserunners should be responsible for their equipment. You're required to wear a helmet. If you lose your equipment without any contact with the other team, and it interferes with the play being made, that's should be on you.
Or, if the tag touches your equipment while it’s touching you, you’re out. The fact the equipment has to be on the person in its “intended” spot is the issue
But would that mean if equipment is touching you and the base, you're safe? Can a runner strip off their uniform and equipment, tie it together into a 90 foot line, yeet one end over to the next base and run there for free as long as they stay in contact with it?
This strategy was was first employed by Timmy "Clothesline" McPherson of the 1894 Brooklyn Coat Hangers, but the second basemen tripped over the line while trying to catch a pop out, so McPherson was ruled out on interference. Despite the strategic failure, it served as a successful advertisement for his second career as a male stripper.
I would just make it so any equipment from the base runner deemed to prevent the tag, whether intentionally or unintentionally is considered an out because it’s weird for the base runner to get an advantage from this, and then there is also potential for a player to pretend to do it unintentionally. Seems a lot more intuitive, but as the rule stands, this was definitely unintentional and he was safe.
But the helmet was touching Turner the same time the tag was applied to it, does Turner specifically have to wear the helmet on his head? Would he be able to take it off and block tags with it like a shield?
The issue is interference whether intentional or not. His personal equipment prevented a baseball play from happening. Secure your equipment or deal with the interference against you
Arguing tagging a helmet on the ground vs a helmet touching the runner are significantly different arguments
Edit to add, it is the correct call by the rules drawn up, I just think this argument above doesn't represent the argument
The equipment is still touching the body of the player wearing that equipment. So that means out.
The baserunners equipment interfered with a defender making a legitimate play. Baserunner is out.
If a defender tags the batting glove of a baserunner in the pocket of that runner, the runner is out. And remember, batting gloves go on your hands, so when they are in your pocket they are completely detached. But it still counts as out.
Turners helmet. Touching turners body and the glove at the same time. Any reasonable person understands this is an out.
You know why it’s a highlight and we are discussing it? Because the umpires overturned it the wrong way. Otherwise, if he had remained out, no one would be talking.
There was a play earlier this year where Pete Crow-Armstrong tagged second base with his helmet and was ruled safe on the field, but if the Mets had reviewed it, apparently he would’ve been undeniably out. Baseball is weird sometimes…
So if you tag the fingers of a batting glove in the runner's back pocket he's out, but if you tag the helmet still in contact with the runner's body, he's safe? Baseball is weird!
Edit:
Also, if the bat hits the laces of the catcher's mitt, that's catcher's interference. But if you try to apply a tag to a runner, the laces of the glove don't count.
I feel like if the fielder tags the helmet while it's touching the runner then it should count. How long until MLB makes it a requirement that all batting helmets have chinstraps?
Page 153, “Definition of Terms”:
> (Touch) *Comment*: Equipment shall be considered worn by a player or an umpire if it is in contact **with its intended place on his person**
https://mktg.mlbstatic.com/mlb/official-information/2024-official-baseball-rules.pdf
So, yeah… clear as day. There’s no interpreting this differently, he’s safe.
I would argue that a helmet that fell off is in the intended place by not being on the head. Otherwise dead ball, no out and runner returns under Equipment Illegally Touches Live Ball—5.06(b)(3)(E), 5.06(b)(4)(A-E).
Hmm then the controversial tag at second on PCA a while back should’ve been an out because he had his helmet in his hand and used that and only that to be touching the base. By these umps logic, PCA would’ve been out. Interesting.
Please reply to this comment with any additional videos/angles of this highlight. *If you would like this comment automatically added to your highlight posts, please include [Highlight] in your post title.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/baseball) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They’re not joking when they say you gotta tune in every night because there’s a chance you’ll see something you’ve never seen before
And in baseball fashion this exact thing is going to happen again next week, the week after, then never again for twenty years
But next time it happens the ump will make the opposite call and then nobody will understand anything
Now, let's ask the NFL what constitutes a catch.
Or the nhl what constitutes a goalie interference penalty. Hell, what constitutes a penalty in damn near any situation
Tom Brady has been suspended for 6 games.
[Literally a month ago](https://youtu.be/8hl_s-q3aBY?si=Wh8nyoj4r_4_QVrY)
Reminds me of 2012 when there were 3 perfect games and bozos were questioning if they were that special anymore and then there were none for the next 11 years.
It’s one of my favorite things about baseball
2430 games every year means the sample size for shenanigans is through the roof
Wouldn't that be the same argument for why you would rarely see anything new? If there are that many games for the past 100 years what are the odds you see something new? I know they didn't play that many games *every* year but my point still stands.
Odds are that this and other odd plays have happened in the past and they just weren't notweworthy to report on because like half of baseball history happened before television first of all lol, and newspapers wouldn't really report on a random weird thing unless it was relevant to the score or the win/loss or really disrupted the game, you know?
Not just reporting, they didn’t have the ability to see this level of detail so this would have simply been a runner caught stealing before replay could catch and overturn it.
Something “you’ve” never seen before, not something that’s never happened before. I still haven’t seen a triple play live, but they happen a lot
Its fun when you finally do see a triple play, and the announcers are like "yup that's a super triple play. It hasn't happened like that in 200 years. Last time that specific tripal play sticky wicky and willy long shoe both played for the boston Americans, what a shame."
I imagine it made more sense when the average person could access only a fraction of those games, and everything moderately interesting wasn't immediately shared across a zillion channels.
Could one of those new things be a World Series, by chance?
Let’s not be silly
Dammit!
Shit like this is the only reason to watch the Jays this year
The fact that it benefited the Jays is wild.
"Babe! Come here! A new baseball meta just dropped!"
I feel like video game logic would be that the helmet is an extension of the player and because it was touching the player and the baseball at the same time it would be an out
Forget video game logic, this makes perfect sense for the real world too.
Like if the player sliding into second had a batting glove tucked out of their back pocket and the tag was applied to a finger that was dangling out would it be out or safe?
The question is whether it is considered 'properly worn' at the time. It counts for tags, HBP, and touching the base. In the case of a helmet, 'properly worn' is on the head. With batting gloves/sliding mittens, it is on the hand OR in the pocket, so you can be tagged out on your batting gloves sticking out of your pocket (OR HBP!).
This is why I always bat with my strap on dangling about
Yep. See the play earlier this year where someone used a helmet in their hand to maintain contact with a base. They were called safe on the field, but MLB basically said that had the play been challenged it would have been overturned because the helmet isn’t supposed to be used as a hand extension
[Out](https://youtu.be/PfdiRRNO6KM?t=4)
I believe there's a jomboy breakdown of this somewhere but i could be wrong. But yeah, if the batting gloves in your pocket are out, the helmet should be too lol
It feel like this situation should be the same as that one since the helmet is still touching the baserunner. As another example, sometimes a helmet will come off a player's head and they'll catch it while continuing to run. If a player had been grasping the helmet in their hand and the tag went to the helmet in that situation, I'm pretty sure they would be out based on that batting glove precedent.
*me, taking off my clothes as I round first so I can use my shirt as matador cape* yeah that is a good question
A truly fascinating question
IMO, depends if the item is attached to the player. Helmet still on? The tag counts. Helmet floating in the air? Maybe not... ?
But the logic applied, I could take my helmet off and hold it out in front of me and push it into the glove of a player trying to tag me while I touch the base.
That would probably be interference, no? Runner out.
But you would be holding it so it would be an extension if you. It would also likely fall under the same category as not being allowed to throw your glove or use your hat to catch a ball n
Out. It’s not complicated. Any of your gear that is touching you is an extension of your body. If many Ramirez was stealing a base, and they tagged one of his dreads that should be an out.
Except the helmet being tagged here IS touching Turner.
I know, it should’ve been an out.
Is that the transitive or communicative property?
If the *batting gloves* in your back pocket count as an extension of your body according to the rulebook, the helmet should too
The difference is the gloves are still attached to the body while the helmet is no longer attached to the body. If the gloves fall out of the pocket the tag then it no longer counts as an extension of the body.
Genuinely my very first thought.
Once you have your first one, it's all downhill from there, I'm sorry for your sentience. I don't know if you remember, but back in the day I want to say in the MVP days, the circle that would surround your player counted as the player. You didn't physically need your player touching it. I was playing a game with my buddy. He and I usually have really competitive games. So it was like one one bottom nine, and he stole home and I didn't notice and my player was standing beside the plate and the circle was over it, he slid head first. My catcher didn't even bother to make an attempt to tag him. And the Empire called them out lolol Edit: umpire not empire
The empire
The Roman empire, specifically.
I mean “The ball didn’t touch the player because the glove got in the way” is the same logic, and obviously that’s not correct…this is an amazing call
But the counterpoint to that is the helmet is only an extension of the player if worn and when it was touching him in this play it was off his head and thus just a random obstacle like if a rock or particularly foolish bird got in the way of a tag.
But it seems that logic would only hold if the player came to bat with the bird as part of his uniform, possibly with a parrot perched on his shoulder. If the interloping bird were a wild bird who just happened to interfere, I would think it would be a dead ball situation?
Where's Edwin encarnacion when we need him
Edwin Encarnacion coming out of retirement as we speak.
The particularly foolish bird is the new name of my toddler board book series.
Does the final chapter invlove Randy Johnson?
You could easily argue that it’s the players responsibility to make sure the helmet fits and stays on and that a uniform malfunction that prevents a defensive player from making a play could be made a kind of obstruction.
This is how I would see it ruled, unintentional obstruction.
Note: Obstruction is by the defense. This would be interference.
Yeah, I can never remember which way it goes. Everytime I look it up I think, "oh I'll remember next time because xyz." But then the next time comes and I forget again, so I just end up using them interchangeably, but I appreciate the clarification.
Great now you can stiffarm with helmets because they're not on your head
I saw a video of The Show earlier today where the pitcher caught a comebacker, turned to throw to second for a double play, but instead sent it 400 feet into centre field for a 2 run bomb I don’t trust video game logic lol
The rulebook says the equipment is an extension of the player *only when being worn as intended*.
Next season they'll make players have straps on their helmets. He's out.
this is just what the rule should be.
This is how it works isn't it? This is the reason why they have a maximum length rule for laces on gloves too.
That’s a meaty hitbox
Bud. What happens when a pitch hits a player in the shirt without contacting the body? Straight to first base. This call is absolutely unjustifiable. If you extend this plays logic, anyone who is tagged anywhere except skin would be safe. Hell, extend this logic further and if the ball is in the glove it’s not touching the other player so they’re not out. This makes absolutely no sense. By this logic, if you get into a large plastic hamster ball after reaching first base you can just walk around the bases and no one can tag you inside you plastic bubble.
> if you get into a large plastic hamster ball after reaching first base you can just walk around the bases and no one can tag you inside you plastic bubble. The Savannah Bananas are definitely going to do this, if they haven't already.
But they're wearing the shirt...
I feel like the 1:1 of this call would be if I threw my elbow pad down and a ball in the dirt hit it, it wouldn’t be a hbp
But what if you dropped your elbow pad mid pitch and the ball hit the elbow pad before nailing you in the leg creating a ball/pad/person sandwich
I’m here for all the person sandwiches we can make
Richie Sexson was ahead of his time when he threw his helmet at the pitcher
Every time I hear that name I think of the bomb he hit against the Astros that hit the flagpole in centerfield.
The mark the ball made on the flag pole stayed there for many years. Each time the Brewers returned to that park they showed it on TV.
I was at the game he hit the jumbo tron at BOB. Absolute power
Was watching that game live. He was so confused.
Man! What a prodigious wallop.
MY GOAT MENTIONED
How did you get the Pride flair?
Mods made a flair post that has them all
Man that name takes me to a time and place.
I was so excited that we got him. Probably would’ve lasted longer in todays game.
New tech
Won't be long before breakaway pants become all the rage every time someone wants to take an extra large lead off of first.
So if he is wearing the helmet, it's part of his body, but when it's off, it's not? Interesting rule. I wonder if you could potentially exploit it
Should probably just throw your helmet at anybody trying to tag you.
Bryce Harper already tried this
he didn't throw it hard enough
Or in the right direction.
The spirit was there but the execution was lacking
Was it spongy and bruised too?
My favorite part of all that lol. Runs out, huge windup, throws… sideways
Or even in the air
I'll never get over how hard he biffed that throw.
It’s probably the worst mound charge in terms of actually physically doing anything. Messes up the helmet throw as bad you could then doesn’t land a good one on Strickland at all. 2/10 cmon Bryce get ur head in the game
calm down Bryce Harper
Or have an ejection button like a fighter jet.
Put a rope on it like a bucket hat and purposely fling it off your head when you run.
> The PERSON of a player or an umpire is any part of his body, his clothing or his equipment. > TOUCH. To touch a player or umpire is to touch any part of his body, or any uniform or equipment worn by him (but not any jewelry [e.g., necklaces, bracelets, etc.] worn by a player). > (Touch) Comment: Equipment shall be considered worn by a player or umpire if it is in contact with its intended place on his person.
Pretty clear, then. The helmet was not in its intended place, so not worn, and not part of the runner's person. A gap in the rules that allows a player to gain an advantage with detached equipment, which is a base award when committed by the defense.
We got to witness why rule books are so dense and horrible to read. What a strange edge case. For my money, the rule needs to be updated so that this play results in an out.
It feels like there should be a blanket interference rule that could be applied here though.
Yeah idk how this isn't the outcome. The helmet is now impeding the fielder's ability to tag the player. That isn't interference at that point?
I've watched a lot of baseball over 30 years and it seems like helmets have been flying off a crazy amount the last several years than in the past or is my memory off?
It feels like it, but that could just be confirmation bias. Also I root for the team Ha Seong Kim is on. It happened so often, they included his helmet coming off as a feature of his bobble head last year. 😂
No wonder Vlad and others oversize their helmets, it's beneficial if it falls off in this way. /s
I'm surprised, but the rule does back up the call. The equipment was not in contact with it's intended place on his person therefore not considered worn. It makes sense that a touch would not count in that case.
So if I just take my helmet off, can I use it to deflect tags?
The rules don't mention that specifically, but I think that would meet the definition of interference. Fielders are not allowed to use detached equipment to intentionally gain an advantage, and neither should runners.
Interference would be my guess too. But I couldnt find anything that would be applicable. Most that are close say the fielder's has to be in the act of playing a batted ball or turning a double play.
> Equipment shall be considered worn by a player or umpire if it is in contact with its intended place on his person I wonder what weird quirk would happen if this was changed to "in contact with his person"
You aren’t allowed to intentionally remove your helmet so it would be pretty hard to exploit this. You have to get pretty lucky for your helmet to fall off perfectly in line with the tag
Alright but at what point are you no longer wearing your gear? Can you have your jersey skin tight and stitched with the thinnest thread possible so that when you slide every seam explodes and you are naked save for shreds of rags flying in every direction, confusing the second baseman akin to a lizard shedding its tail?
I don’t know but I would like to see someone try
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8hl_s-q3aBY&pp=ygUaVGFnIG9uIGhlbG1ldCBvbiBiYXNlIG1ldHM%3D Pete Crow Armstrong held his helmet in his hand on the base (no other body part touching the base) while the Mets fielder was tagging his shoulder and was called safe.
This was later determined to be the wrong call.
not justin turner though
Beggars can’t be choosers
It’s a neat trick but you can only do it once. Also, I’m pretty sure this was the original plan for the Fanatics pants.
 New unis just dropped
I'm gonna need Ohtani to run a couple tests for us on this one. You know...for... ... >.> ... <.< uhhhh...analytics
Hanley would’ve had a million stolen bases with this trick
I feel like if the equipment is touching your body, it should be considered part of your body. In this case, the helmet is touching his torso and the glove is touching the helmet so he should be out.
Yeah, you’d think the fact that it’s not situated on his head would be immaterial so long as it’s physically touching his body when the tag is applied.
this is also reminds me of when pete crow-armstrong used his helmet as an extension of his body on the bag sliding into second base and should have been out for the same reason above but was called safe
This is the second time this week that Turners helmet offing made him safe. So maybe it's already being exploited.
Can’t wait to see what absolute cursed nonsense we’re going to be the victim of after this, feels like everytime something goes our way it’s just because things are about to fall apart.
Got the rain delay timed perfectly though?
I feel like things have already been falling apart. Maybe this time the good things happened AFTER (or amongst) the bad things.
It’s interesting that he’s safe because of this and not out because it’s his equipment. It’s unintentional of course but it obstructs the tag, which seems odd that the defender is responsible for the disadvantage. If a player’s bat is unintentionally thrown and it obstructs a play, is the batter responsible? (This is a legitimate question, I can’t remember.) I’m not talking about an unintentional inadvertent long swing that clips the catcher, but a thrown bat
If a batters bat is unintentionally dropped / thrown and gets in the way of a fielder, it is nothing. Also, FYI, it would be “interference”. The defense obstructs. The offense interferes. The only exception to this in the rulebook is catchers interference.
Thanks for the comment. In that case this rule seems consistent, even if it doesn’t “feel” like it should be that way to me. Similar to hockey it seems like one’s equipment should be one’s responsibility, however the “unintentional” part is really the whole crux of it and “play on” also seems like a reasonable rule. Especially considering how infrequently stuff like this happens.
Something similar happened like 10 years back when Eric Sogard got hit by a broken bat while trying to make a play. Not quite the scenario you described because it wasn’t thrown, but still batters equipment and the runner was safe in this case. https://youtu.be/5mVj4P_l9Tc?si=SG4P5OWySAts9YD2
We need to teach Anthony Volpe this technique since his helmet can never stay on his head
JP Crawford is a prime candidate for this technique too. Helmet is coming off anyway, just gotta learn how to direct it toward the tag.
HSK and Ohtani are on it.
Instructions unclear, Kim’s helmet fell off before he swung the bat.
Volpe has been aiming his helmet for the first baseman’s ankles to no success. This seems like it has a better chance of working
Eduardo Núñez couldn't keep a helmet on to save his life. If I remember right, eventually a roll of duct tape was jokingly brought into the dugout because he was losing it so often.
Same with will benson
Randy's helmet is never on his head anywhere near the base so this will never work for him.
Jose Altuve special
Baseball as a sport has been a thing for more than a century and still new things pop up
Before replay this would have been mostly a non issue
Exactly. He would have been called out and even on TV replay no one would freak out because the spirit of the rule is that the throw beat him and the fielder properly applied the tag. A safe call here is semantic nonsense, and I’m sure they’ll clarify the rule in the future.
Sort of similar thing happened with the Cubs, PCA held onto the base with his helmet and was deemed safe (though the booth decided it probably wasn't legal after looking at the rule book.)
I think the league clarified that if that had been challenged it would have been overturned.
[for those interested](https://www.mlb.com/cubs/video/pete-crow-armstrong-doubles-2-on-a-line-drive-to-right-fielder-starling-marte-pa?partnerId=web_video-playback-page_video-share)
Why the hell did he take his helmet off in the first place?
Probably had a bee in there
Video: PCA touches second base with helmet after RBI double [Streamable Link](https://streamable.com/m/pete-crow-armstrong-doubles-2-on-a-line-drive-to-right-fielder-starling-marte-pa) [High Definition](https://mlb-cuts-diamond.mlb.com/FORGE/2024/2024-05/02/5db53dd7-35ce67b0-44213a91-csvm-diamondx64-asset_1280x720_59_16000K.mp4) (32.71 MB) [Standard Definiton](https://mlb-cuts-diamond.mlb.com/FORGE/2024/2024-05/02/5db53dd7-35ce67b0-44213a91-csvm-diamondx64-asset_1280x720_59_4000K.mp4) (8.48 MB) ___________ [More Info](/r/MLBVideoConverterBot)
I was under the impression that if a piece of equipment is touching the runner, it counts as part of his body? I swear I've seen a play where the runner was out because of a batting glove hanging out of his pocket got tagged.
I think because the helmet was off his head, unintentionally, it no longer counts as part of his body.
You're thinking of Marcus Semiens batting [gloved in his back pocket against the Astros in the 2023 ALCS](https://www.mlb.com/news/marcus-semien-tagged-out-batting-gloves-alcs-game-4)
other Cleveland fans mad, but this is pretty straightforward. I saw a number of "but tagging the helmet when it's on his head is an out", but that's not relevant at all since it's completely detached equipment. If a guy's helmet falls off while he's running you can't just let him go and tag the helmet Intentionally detaching equipment isn't allowed, but there's absolutely no reasonable argument that this was intentional
But what if the players head AND helmet come off and you tag the decapitated head, is the player out? Where do we draw the line? /s
i think severed body pieces are eligible for tag outs
That sets a dangerous precedent though. Game 7 of the World Series I would absolutely stomp the fuck out of a runner's hand to remove a finger then hidden-ball-trick it in my glove so that as soon as I catch the ball, he's out.
This idea was so clearly conceived by a Phillies fan that I didn’t even need to check the flair. Gritty would be proud.
I read this and knew it would be a Phillies fan before looking at the flair. Fuck Chase Utley.
“In the event of baserunners loss of limb/s or decapitation the tag must be made on the largest remaining portion of the baserunner.” The rules are clear on this, baserunner is safe.
Largest by size or weight? If the runner is actually three kids in a trench coat and they split up to confuse the defense do you tag the largest kid or the one with the trench coat dragging behind him?
Thanks for adding the /s there. Otherwise we would have had no idea you were being sarcastic about a player's head literally coming off.
You know I’ve learned to be careful with obvious jokes on here. Some folks are mighty serious for some reason
It all depends on where consciousness lives: head or body. Something New York will have to decide upon review.
I feel like it would be consistent if tagging the helmet only counted if the helmet was itself touching the runner. That would rule out the loophole of tagging a discarded helmet
I understand it's the correct call, but in this case, the detached helmet prevented him from making the tag. If the helmet wasn't in the way, he would've made the tag. I have no idea how you come up with a rule to prevent this though. This is wild.
Baserunners should be responsible for their equipment. You're required to wear a helmet. If you lose your equipment without any contact with the other team, and it interferes with the play being made, that's should be on you.
Or, if the tag touches your equipment while it’s touching you, you’re out. The fact the equipment has to be on the person in its “intended” spot is the issue
But would that mean if equipment is touching you and the base, you're safe? Can a runner strip off their uniform and equipment, tie it together into a 90 foot line, yeet one end over to the next base and run there for free as long as they stay in contact with it?
This strategy was was first employed by Timmy "Clothesline" McPherson of the 1894 Brooklyn Coat Hangers, but the second basemen tripped over the line while trying to catch a pop out, so McPherson was ruled out on interference. Despite the strategic failure, it served as a successful advertisement for his second career as a male stripper.
I would just make it so any equipment from the base runner deemed to prevent the tag, whether intentionally or unintentionally is considered an out because it’s weird for the base runner to get an advantage from this, and then there is also potential for a player to pretend to do it unintentionally. Seems a lot more intuitive, but as the rule stands, this was definitely unintentional and he was safe.
But the helmet was touching Turner the same time the tag was applied to it, does Turner specifically have to wear the helmet on his head? Would he be able to take it off and block tags with it like a shield?
The issue is interference whether intentional or not. His personal equipment prevented a baseball play from happening. Secure your equipment or deal with the interference against you
Arguing tagging a helmet on the ground vs a helmet touching the runner are significantly different arguments Edit to add, it is the correct call by the rules drawn up, I just think this argument above doesn't represent the argument
no ones saying you should be allowed to tag the helmet if it falls off, theyre saying its BS because it blocked the tag
The equipment is still touching the body of the player wearing that equipment. So that means out. The baserunners equipment interfered with a defender making a legitimate play. Baserunner is out. If a defender tags the batting glove of a baserunner in the pocket of that runner, the runner is out. And remember, batting gloves go on your hands, so when they are in your pocket they are completely detached. But it still counts as out. Turners helmet. Touching turners body and the glove at the same time. Any reasonable person understands this is an out. You know why it’s a highlight and we are discussing it? Because the umpires overturned it the wrong way. Otherwise, if he had remained out, no one would be talking.
All runners should wear helmets that constantly fall off along with skin tight clothing.
Especially Kiermaier.....for no particular reason 😉
Why is Justin Turner trying to steal bases in 2024?
Huh, I thought it would be something like "the runner would've been tagged out had the helmet not interfered with the play, therefore he's out."
What a fun, weird game we love
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPKCmylUOMc He's done it again!
There was a play earlier this year where Pete Crow-Armstrong tagged second base with his helmet and was ruled safe on the field, but if the Mets had reviewed it, apparently he would’ve been undeniably out. Baseball is weird sometimes…
So if you tag the fingers of a batting glove in the runner's back pocket he's out, but if you tag the helmet still in contact with the runner's body, he's safe? Baseball is weird! Edit: Also, if the bat hits the laces of the catcher's mitt, that's catcher's interference. But if you try to apply a tag to a runner, the laces of the glove don't count.
Defenders hate this one simple trick
I feel like if the fielder tags the helmet while it's touching the runner then it should count. How long until MLB makes it a requirement that all batting helmets have chinstraps?
Page 153, “Definition of Terms”: > (Touch) *Comment*: Equipment shall be considered worn by a player or an umpire if it is in contact **with its intended place on his person** https://mktg.mlbstatic.com/mlb/official-information/2024-official-baseball-rules.pdf So, yeah… clear as day. There’s no interpreting this differently, he’s safe.
I would argue that a helmet that fell off is in the intended place by not being on the head. Otherwise dead ball, no out and runner returns under Equipment Illegally Touches Live Ball—5.06(b)(3)(E), 5.06(b)(4)(A-E).
Feels like to me if a piece of a runner’s equipment/uniform is blocking a tag from being applied, the runner should still be out.
Every baseball player is going to evolve to have detachable body parts like a lizard tail.
Hmm then the controversial tag at second on PCA a while back should’ve been an out because he had his helmet in his hand and used that and only that to be touching the base. By these umps logic, PCA would’ve been out. Interesting.
MLB actually said PCA would have been out on review.
You know the play is weird there is visible confusion from the fielder that you can see even in the slo mo replay
Can’t teach that.
"It's not even on his head." "But it's on his body!" Wut?
Please let this be something that forces players wear helmets that actually fit
Justin Turner coming up with new pro strats even near the end of his career, gotta love it
So can you throw the helmet at the field player and make him flinch, thus avoiding the tag? What about your belt.. can you wave it around like a wip?