Quote:
Originally posted by CecilOne
I guess we have to back up and set aside the IDB situation temporarily. Visualize an attempted catch by any fielder, which the fielder loses or drops after contact, in effect not a legal catch. If that fielder could do that intentionally, touching but not catching the ball without "Merely guiding the ball to the ground"; then that would allow the rule to be applied.
The intent of the rule is to protect runners from being deceived into thinking a fly ball will be caught and therefore not advancing. Basically, that means anything the fielder does to cause that deception, while handling the ball in flight, is an IDB. But we are told "Merely guiding the ball to the ground should not be considered an intentionally dropped ball"; so it would have to be something else.
Can a fielder intentionally fake a catch without "guiding the ball to the ground"? If so, that would be an IDB.
I still agree with Tom and others that the rule is difficult, should not have the "guiding the ball to the ground" exception; but is probably a deterrent eevn if we can't figure it out.
|
There is no "guiding the ball to the ground" exception. It is not even mentioned in the rule.
It is mentioned in the POE as a guide for those who chose to reconfigure the rule to suit their own beliefs. The interpretation is that a player cannot drop something they don't have. The interpretation is actually to make the call EASIER for the umpire.
It is so simple, I am amazed that it has generated so much discussion. It is quite similar to the thought process with obstruction. Either the player has possession of the ball or not. No gray areas. On the IDB, the umpire cannot make that ruling unless they believe the fielder caught the ball for an out. Umpires rule on dozens of catches a game, what is so difficult with understanding this? Either the fielder has the ball or they don't. No gray areas.