Voluntary Release II: The Controversial Call That Wasn't

This is a summary of the issues surrounding the play I first wrote about right after it happened on Monday night. This also provides an overview of the somewhat controversial and elusive rule interpretation of voluntary release that doesn't seem to have received the attention it deserves. Since I've already covered some of the issues here, this is a slightly abridged version of an article I wrote for Seamheads.com.

The play, of course, involved the Angels' botched squeeze play in the top of the 9th of game four of the American League Division Series, a game the Red Sox eventually won 3-2 to advance to their ALCS matchup with the Tampa Bay Rays. With the scored tied 2-2, Reggie Willits on third base with one out, and Erick Aybar at the plate, the Angels attempted to squeeze home the go-ahead run. But, Aybar whiffed at a Manny Delcarmen offering, and Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek ran Willits back to third base. Just before Willits reached third, Varitek lunged and tagged him, falling to the ground in the process.

With the ball securely and firmly (remember those words) in Varitek's glove, he tagged Willits while he was clearly off the base. But, in the process of making the tag, Varitek's momentum caused him to fall to the ground on his left elbow. As soon as said elbow hit the ground, the ball squirted out of his glove, but umpire Tim Welke had already called Willits out. However, Welke had momentarily taken his eyes off the ball, focusing instead on the spot where the tag had occurred, and didn't actually see the ball come out of Varitek's glove. He immediately turned his head, though, and, witnessing the ball on the ground, reinforced his call by indicating the runner was out again. Angels' manager Mike Scioscia came out to argue, but was rebuked by Welke, and surprisingly didn't seem to put up much of a fight. Welke, despite the fact he didn't actually witness Varitek lose control of the ball, inexplicably didn't ask for help on the play.

I explained the concept of voluntary release, to some extent, in Monday's post. In the Official Rules of Major League Baseball, Rule 2.00 covers the definition of terms. Since I already provided the rule book's definition of "catch" and "tag" there, I'm not going to repeat them in this post.

People seem to want to use football analogies when discussing this play, but the voluntary release requirement means football analogies don't apply. There's no "a ground can't cause a fumble", nor does how many feet you get down have any relevance. The only thing that matters is whether or not the fielder is able to release the ball, from his glove or hand, voluntarily and intentionally. Most often, this involves removing the ball from the glove with the throwing hand. Voluntary release is the reason why, when an infielder loses control of the ball while in the act of removing it from his glove in turning a double play, the out still counts. The act of pulling the ball out of the glove is voluntary release.

The question here is whether or not voluntary release applies to the tag play. The definitions in the rule book refers to the concept as a requirement of the catch but says nothing about it in the definition of the tag. Since Varitek held the ball securely and firmly in his glove at the time of the tag, this one is pretty cut and dried, right? Not necessarily. In addition to the rule book, there exists a much more detailed manual, titled "Rules of Professional Baseball: A Comprehensive Re-Organization and Clarification", written by former minor league umpires and Brinkman/Froemming Umpire School instructors Chris Jaksa and Rick Roder, to deal with the countless vagaries in said rule book. This manual is widely used in umpire instruction at the professional and amateur levels.

The manual clarifies the definition of a tag in Rule 2.00 of the Official Rules, which fails to deal with action that occurs after the tag, with the following interpretation (from the 2008 edition, which is slightly different from the wording I provided on Monday):

"Catch" and "tag" are similar concepts. 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.

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.

The two conditions of showing complete control are what's important here. Since Varitek fell and dropped the ball upon the impact of his elbow with the ground, he neither regained control of his own body nor showed voluntarily and intentional release of the ball. Therefore, he failed to satisfy the requirements of a tag. According to the Jaksa/Roder manual, that is.

So, at the very least, this leaves the issue in an extremely gray area. The interpretation offered by the Jaksa/Roder manual clearly indicates the call was incorrect. Varitek did not show complete control during and after the tag, so Willits should have been ruled safe. But, Steve Palermo, Major League supervisor of umpires, defended the call, although in very unconvincing fashion, choosing instead to refute the "ground can't cause a fumble" football analogy by saying, "That's the NFL. We don't have that in baseball. He had possession of the ball when he made the tag." Palermo's statement uses none of the important rule book terminology, so instead of clarifying, it leaves the issue still open to interpretation.

I'll briefly add my opinion on this here, something I didn't do in the Seamheads article. My inclination is to believe the Jaksa/Roder manual is correct, since the interpretation it offers intends to elaborate on and clarify what exists in the rule book. The same interpretation existed in the 1992 edition that I own a copy of, and 16 years later, the wording was slightly different, but the interpretation was the same. This leads me to believe this has been the accepted view of this issue for years, but since the rule book definition remains vague, it's possible even major league umpires are divided on this one.

The issue boils down to one specific and easily answerable question. Does the voluntary release requirement apply to a tag play as it does to a catch? If the answer is no, then Bill Welke was correct and the controversy is settled. If the answer is yes, then the call was wrong and that fact needs to be admitted. Major League Baseball has a recent history of coming clean in such situations. But, in this case, MLB officials appear to have dismissed this as a non-controversy when, in fact, there is considerable evidence to the contrary. Obviously, as far as the Angels-Red Sox ALDS matchup is concerned, the answer to this question will have no effect on its outcome. However, it's important for the rest of us -- the fans, players, managers, coaches, and, most importantly, the umpires -- to know, so that this particular gray area becomes black or white in the future.

Voluntary Release

I'm not talking about the armed forces here. Of course, this is about baseball, and the fact that I've never seen a bigger blown call in such an important game. It's one thing watching Don Denkinger miss what is strictly a judgment call in the 1985 World Series, but what happened tonight was a rule interpretation, was totally obvious, and easily correctable.

Most people don't know this--the announcers clearly didn't--but, after making a catch or applying a tag, a fielder must show voluntary release of the ball in completing the catch or tag. On the blown squeeze play tonight, Jason Varitek made the tag on Reggie Willits at third, but the ball came loose when his elbow hit the ground. He clearly did not release the ball voluntarily, and there is no question that the third-base umpire couldn't possibly have seen it this way.

I'm surprised that Mike Scioscia didn't know this, because if he had, it would have been a no-brainer for him to ask the umpire to get help in interpreting the rule. Additionally, based on Major League Baseball's relatively new philosophy of making sure to get the call right, I can't understand why the crew chief didn't automatically call for a conference on this one.

I'm now waiting for someone to point out the mistake. It's been 14 years since I went to umpire school, and I still remember this, so I'm completely flabbergasted that it seems I'm the only one who knows the correct interpretation of this rule. The fact that no one else seems to know has me questioning whether or not I'm mistaken, but I don't think I am.

Updated 10/7/08 @ 12:36AM: Apparently, MLB's Director of Umpires says that the ruling was correct because Varitek had the ball firmly in his glove when applying the tag. Rule 2.00 defines a tag as "...the action of a fielder in...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."

In the same section of the rules, the definition of a catch has the added stipulation that "In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional."

So, maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the accepted interpretation (the baseball equivalent of case law) is the same principle applies to the tag as to the catch. However, that opinion does not seem to be reinforced by the Director of Umpires or the wording of the rule book. I'm still not convinced, but maybe I'll back off on my statement that this is the most blatant blown call in an important game that I've ever seen. For now, that is. Stay tuned on this one.

Updated 10/7/08 @ 7:13PM: On "Mike and Mike in the Morning" today, Dave Campbell, about six minutes into an interview that you can listen to on ESPN.com, states "...there's a rule book, and then there's the case book. It's very difficult to get a hold of the case book." Well, I have a copy of the case book, or at least the Brinkman/Froemming Umpire School's version of it, which is titled "Rules of Professional Baseball: A Comprehensive Re-Organization and Clarification", Fourth Edition. My copy of this edition is last updated in 1992, so unless the interpretation has changed since, here's what it says:

"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 (or both) and:

(a) a base is touched by his person or
(b) a runner is touched by any part of the glove/ball or hand/ball combination.

Such fielder must show complete control of the ball during and after the touch, and show this control by voluntarily releasing the ball. If, during or after the touch and before voluntary release has been shown, the ball is bobbled or dropped, it is not a tag.

I'm assuming that, if you've read this far, you saw the game and the play last night. That being the case, I'm sure you can decide for yourself. Did Varitek voluntarily release the ball when his elbow hit the ground?

I guess the real question here is what interpretation of the rule is correct? I honestly thought that the case book I possess contains the accepted interpretations of what is a very vague rule book. But, I really don't know. All I know is, whatever the answer, it has no bearing on the outcome of last night's game. However, I still want to know the answer to the question of does the principle of voluntary release apply to a tag play? The answer to this question would make it abundantly clear whether or not last night's ruling was, in fact, the correct one.

O Canada

This is dedicated to a friend from the old neighborhood who is now a resident of the Great White North, and who recently complained about hearing "Turn Me Loose" on the radio, twice in the same day. My top ten favorite musical artists from Canada:

1. Neil Young - I'm guessing this comes as no surprise to anyone.
2. Rush - For most of my teenage years, this was my favorite band. Then, I took a few years off from idolizing Canadians before Neil Young became my most revered.
3. Joni Mitchell - The fairer sex can certainly hold their own north of the border.
4. Wolf Parade - based on my current level of interest, these indie-rockers from Montreal would probably rank second on the list, but I had to give some credit for historical significance.
5. The Band - Four Canadians and an Arkansan (Levon Helm) who met up in Toronto in the late-50s/early-60s. There's no Canadian band that does Americana better than these guys.
6. The New Pornographers - This Vancouver super-group consists of Zumpano's A.C. Newman, Destroyer's Dan Bejar, and the oft-considered hottest woman in indie-rock, Neko Case.
7. Kathleen Edwards - Even if Neko is the hottest woman in indie-rock, Kathleen is still the hottest woman on this list, in my opinion.
8. Sunset Rubdown - Excellent Wolf Parade side project. Or, is Wolf Parade a side project of Sunset Rubdown?
9. Triumph - They're no Rush, but the other power trio from Toronto is still worthy of top ten honors.
10. Arcade Fire - I thought Funeral was a bit over-rated, but I really liked Neon Bible, and it was either them, the Cowboy Junkies (the most boring live act I've ever paid to see) or one of the following...

Nostalgic Honorable Mentions:

• Bryan Adams - I have to admit that I saw him live, on the Reckless tour, in 1985.
• Corey Hart - I wasn't a big fan of his music, but for several years, I wore my black Wayfarers at night and my hair with his trademark spikey wet look.
• Aldo Nova - Aldo Caporuscio, as he's known in his native Montreal, can count Mike Stanton and, at one time me, among his biggest fans.
  

AL Cy Young

At first glance, the AL Cy Young seems like a no-brainer. Cliff Lee led the league in ERA, at 2.54, and wins, going 22-3 for a .500 ball club. But, as a friend pointed out to me--the same guy (some call him Smitty) who made the argument for Pedroia I referenced in my last article--Roy Halladay is not to be overlooked.

Halladay led the league in innings pitched (246, to Lee's 223 1/3), complete games (9, to Lee's 4), strikeout-to-walk ratio (5.28, to Lee's 5.00), WHIP (1.05, to Lee's 1.11), and OPS against (.621, to Lee's .633). Halladay's 2.78 ERA placed him second in the league, and he has the edge over Lee in strikeouts (206-170), but at 20-11, Halladay's winning percentage (.645) is considerably lower than Lee's mark of .880. Considering Halladay's Blue Jays (86-76) won five more games than Lee's Indians (81-81), this would seem to be a major edge for Lee. But, despite the fact that Cleveland averaged 4.96 runs per game for the season, they scored an average of 6.13 when Lee was on the mound. Halladay received an average run support of 4.72, more than Toronto's overall 4.41 average, but still 1.4 runs less than Lee. Run support is, of course, not the only team-related factor that would affect a pitcher's winning percentage--team fielding and bullpen being the others--but this shows that just comparing a pitcher's percentage to his team's is not enough.

Other candidates among AL starting pitchers--Daisuke Matsuzaka (18-3, 2.90 ERA, .645 OPS) and Mike Mussina (20-9, 3.37 ERA, 4.84 K/BB)--fall short of Lee and Halladay. Francisco Rodriguez's record-setting season (62 Saves, 2-3, 2.24 ERA, 77 K in 68 1/3 IP) places him as the top candidate among relief pitchers. However, three other closers--Joakim Soria, Mariano Rivera and Joe Nathan--all were much more dominant, as evidenced by finishing considerably better than Rodriguez in OPS against, K/BB ratio, WHIP and ERA.

So, it comes down to Lee vs. Halladay. Despite the fact that his team's performance enters into it, it's hard to overlook Lee's 22-3 record and .880 winning percentage. Halladay's 9 complete games are impressive, but that and his marginal innings pitched and strikeout edges are really all he has of significance on Lee. Leading the league in two of the three pitching triple crown categories, and a winning percentage that ranks third all-time among 20-game winners, has to count for something. Count my vote for Cliff Lee.

National League MVP

Despite a bit of a slump during the season's stretch run, I'm sticking with my choice of Justin Morneau for AL MVP. Quoting something said to me by a friend of mine, who's a Red Sox fan, in an email conversation after having read "Making the Case for Morneau":

"...remember Ortiz, Youkilis, Lowell, and Drew have (all) been hurt at some point this year."

I contend that the fact that's even an issue backs up my point. That's how loaded this team is that they could afford to lose any one of those guys at any given time with minimal effect. This includes Pedroia. If he went down, the rest of those guys, and Jason Bay/Manny Ramirez (29 HR, 105 RBI, 105 R combined), would pick up the slack. Every one of those guys is better than anyone in the Twins' lineup, except Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau. Well, maybe Jason Kubel is about as good as Mike Lowell, but you get my point.

Enough said about that. It's time to move on to the other awards, starting with the National League MVP. This is a difficult one to pick, but the way I see it, it comes down to Ryan Howard or Albert Pujols. CC Sabathia's candidacy makes for an interesting debate, but I wouldn't give the MVP to a player who missed a half season due to injury, and for the same reason, I won't give the award to someone traded to his team at mid-season.

Ryan Howard had a great second-half, with 28 HR and 78 RBI in the season's final three months, and one could certainly argue that he carried his team in their run to catch the Mets in the NL East. So, I'm not going to worry about his low batting average (.251) and relatively low OPS (.882).

Albert Pujols' Cardinals ended the season four games out of the wild card spot, but they really didn't come quite that close, as there were two other teams between them and the Brewers. But, they remained a contender for much longer than anyone expected, and in my opinion, that leaves him in the mix of potential candidates. Pujols led the league in slugging, OPS, total bases, and the SABRmetric categories Adjusted OPS+, Runs Created, Adjusted Batting Runs, and Batting Wins, leading the last three categories by wide margins. I explained Adjusted OPS+ and Adjusted Batting Runs in the Morneau article, so I'll try to briefly describe the other two statistics here.

Runs Created is a runs estimator, similar to Adjusted Batting Runs, that assigns a positive value to outcomes like hits, walks, steals, home runs, etc. and negative values for outs, caught stealing and GIDP. Batting Wins attempts to measure the number of wins a player added relative to the league average hitter.

I'm going to go with Pujols here, based on his sheer statistical dominance and consistency, and the fact that he carried a team that most prognosticators didn't give a chance, especially after their staff ace, Chris Carpenter, went down with an injury that limited him to 15 1/3 IP for the year. They remained in contention for most of the season, and although they did slip a little near the end, they were a contender, and Pujols was inarguably the biggest reason for that. Based on these factors, he is my National League Most Valuable Player.