Quote:
Originally posted by Dakota
Count the ASA rule book among those that disagree. ASA is explicit about it. To be intentionally dropped, it must first be caught.
|
I know you're not talking about ASA 8-2-J, because it is not at all clear that the fielder must first make a legal catch before it can be determined that he intentionally dropped it.
So, you must be referring to POE #28 where it
does say that the ball must first be caught before it can be intentionally dropped.
"Guiding the ball to the ground" is a very odd comment. It's hard to imagine what they were thinking when they came up with that peculiar phrase. It's difficult to get a mental image of that act.
The more common method of "not catching" the ball would simply be to allow the ball to hit one's open glove, never close it, and allow it to fall harmlessly to the ground at the fielder's feet. Do you think that's what they meant by "guiding the ball to the ground?"
In any case, I've contacted Merle Butler on this issue, and I am still waiting his reply.
I'd be curious for somebody to explain WHY 8-2-J is even in the rulebook IF a fielder is allowed to do what I just described.
The purpose of the rule SHOULD be to prevent the defense from deliberately mishandling a fly ball that would unfairly put forced runners in jeopardy -or- unfairly create the impression that they are in jeopardy.
The fielder can accomplish this in one of two ways, both of which could be characterized as "intentionally dropping the ball" -
1. by quickly dropping a caught ball leaving some doubt in the runner's mind whether it was a legal catch or not. Although the runner would have the benefit of knowing that they DON'T have to run because the umpire would signal/call the batter out ... and, in any case, the runner would have to be TAGGED for the out.
2. by simply allowing the ball to hit their glove leaving no doubt in the runner's mind that they must now run. This latter case is the one that would most likely result in a double play since the fielders will not have to waste any time attempting to tag the runner and the runner clearly MUST run.
The rule is nearly SENSELESS if the only interpretation is
first case and not inclusive of the
second.
Yet, I'll have to admit, that DOES seem to be the case. It's insane, though.