Quote:
Originally Posted by RKBUmp
Im still not seeing based on your description of the play how you consider this to be a catch. You may consider the glove hitting the ground a secondary action after the catch, but the definition of a catch requires the fielder to maintain control of the ball if during the attempt to gain control they collide with a fence, another play, the ground etc and lose possession of the ball.
|
I agree. Two things are happening on this play, the catch of the throw and the touch of the base. In order to legally touch a base to meet the tag requirement, the ball must be legally possessed at the time. So in the April 2010 case play, it was very obvious that F3 possessed the ball in her bare hand as she dove to touch the bag because it said, "
F3 has control of the ball and is holding the ball securely while diving". In other words, she's not bobbling it or still trying to get a handle on it. She has it securely in her hand.
In the OP play, F3 has to demonstrate that she has clear possession of the ball in her glove during the tag of the base. Just because the ball was in the glove as the foot stayed in the bag was not enough evidence. She still has to meet the definition of Catch to demonstrate that possession, and the fact that she lost control of the ball when her glove hit the ground means she never had control of the ball to begin with. Just like when the fielder loses the ball after making a diving catch but then hitting the ground and the ball comes out of the glove doesn't constitute a Catch, F3's action of having the ball go into her glove but then losing it when the glove hits the ground also doesn't make this a Catch. She never legally possessed it.
So I think you got the call right.