Quote:
Originally posted by His High Holiness
Quote:
Originally posted by GarthB
Per the Washigton State FED baseball clinician and the WIAA newly appointed Director of Baseball, Tim Stevens, the result of the described play would be the same as in OBR...an out.
"When F4's glove is throw to F3 and F3 catches it, he has caught the ball, and it is still a force out...no different from OBR. That is what I meant by 2-9-1.
The bit about 8-3-3c would be if the ball got lodged and the kid started freaking out and spent all his time trying to dislodge the ball, and the runner is circling the bases like mad the whole time."
Maybe it's for that new edition, eh Peter?
|
Garth;
It would appear that the BRD has an error. If Freix were here, he would have a field day  (and make us suffer through a 3000 word post.) OTOH, I would not put it past the National FED to overrule Washington state and Illinois.
Peter
|
I agree with Carl on this one and many more. I just don't mind stating if and when I do disagree with him.
Unfortunately, this rule is clearly written in Fed, and the glove is clearly player equipment. Once the player removes his glove to throw it BECAUSE he cannot remove the ball, he has now proven the ball is lodged. In the example of the ball remaining in a loose glove after it comes off a player's hand it doesn't mean the ball is lodged in it........it's merely secure. I would also agree with the decision of that play mentioned.
While I strongly like and respect the logic of the interpreter, and would also like concurrence with OBR ruling.......I wouldn't accept a verbal interpretation (unless instructed to by my association) until put in writing by the Fed since the issue is already clearly covered in black and white written rule.
Just my opinion,
Freix