toss glove

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by GarthB

So my question remains. If FED's interpretation differs from the BRD or any other guide book, what then?

That's why Carl has a lifetime business. If the national FED interpretation changes, he will change his book and charge you 20+ dollars for the update.

Peter

[dddunn3d]

How about this: F1 catches the ball which lodges in his glove. F3 anticipates the coming play by removing his glove. F1 then tosses the glove/ball combination to F3, who then puts it on his hand. Where's the violation.

[Rich Ives]

Originally posted by dddunn3d
How about this: F1 catches the ball which lodges in his glove. F3 anticipates the coming play by removing his glove. F1 then tosses the glove/ball combination to F3, who then puts it on his hand. Where's the violation.

The ball is lodged.

[WindyCityBlue]

When I requested the interp from one of the IHSA baseball rules interpreters, I asked him in reference to the play as explained in the original post.

He said that the spirit of the rule is that the umpire should only rule the ball dead after it lodges in a defensive player's or umpireÂ’s uniform/equipment AND the ball becomes unplayable. If a ball goes in an umpireÂ’s ball bag or inside a playerÂ’s shirt, play will not easily continue and a "Dead Ball" call is in order. The offense is awarded bases based on the fact that had we allowed the kid to dig in his jersey or go into the umpire's ball bag he/she certainly would have advanced.

He said that the major Federation rules differences (from NCAA & OBR) are designed to prevent injury, speed up the game, encourage sportsmanship and involve as many athletes as possible. He related the batter’s box rule from a few years ago, as an example. The intent was to speed up the game and promote sportsmanship. Ideally a batter would not have the ability to show up an umpire and the game would move faster if he/she couldn’t wander between pitches. For the first two years, we had umpires enforcing it to the letter - a kid thinks it is ball four and starts walking to first on a borderline 3-1 pitch. It is called a strike and then the kid is called out for being out of the box. This even happened in the Colorado and Illinois High School State Finals. The outcry was incredible and the Fed made a point of clarification. Now, we've learned, “The intent of restricting the batter to the box is to prevent a delay in the game. If violation of this rule results in a delay, the result shall be a Strike called on that batter.”

He said that the same thought goes with the previous rule interpretation concerning plays of this type. Since the defense would not be jeopardized by handing, tossing or otherwise transferring the ball to another for the purpose of finishing a play and the offense clearly is not at any more risk, the play should be allowed.

He referred me to a play involving a catcher that lost his mitt (ball inside) on a swipe tag at home. There was no collision but when the mitt went flying, seeing this, the third base coach sent the next runner home. The catcher only had time to pick up the mitt with both hands (not putting it on) and tag the sliding runner. Since the tag was applied prior to the runner reaching home, he was called out - correctly! Again, the supporting rule is that the ball shall be secured by the mitt or bare hand when making the play.

If you feel that this interpretation is incorrect, I invite you to discuss any of the plays I mentioned as examples in my earlier posts (or this one) with your state rule interpreter. I would be surprised if they argue with this one. Logic should prevail with most of our rulings and I would have a hard time penalizing a kid that makes this kind of terrific play.

[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?

[His High Holiness]

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

[GarthB]

Originally posted by His High Holiness

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

You know Tim better than that.

Can't remember the last time Stevens lost a disagreement with national. In fact, he is the author of a new interp that made it in last year. No, I think Elliot would agree with Stevens.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Rich Ives

The ball is lodged.

Sorry, coach. As Tim Stevens puts it:

Rule 2-9-1 defines a catch as possession of a live ball in flight. If that ball happens to be trapped in another's glove, it still is a catch.

Rule 8-3-3-c applies mostly to catcher's equipment and that sort of thing, although it would be applicable if for some reason the ball were to lodge in a glove and the player were unable to properly remove it (the glove) or have the presence of mind to do so.

[WindyCityBlue]

HHH,

A couple of years ago the NFSHS tried to institute a rule that would forbid the catcher from throwing the ball down to third or first (to go around the horn) after a strike out.

The Illinois Rules Interpreters and Clinicians had a field day with it. The rule never made it and was abandoned before the season began.


Mary Struckhoff was on the IHSA staff for a long time and (now the Officials guru with NFSHS) still has many good contacts here in Illinois. I think she trusts the judgement of a select few and protects them to the end.

[jumpmaster]

Originally posted by His High Holiness
...(and make us suffer through a 3000 word post.)...

Peter [/B]

Of course, now we just have Rut and his 3000 words incoherent ramblings...

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
HHH,

A couple of years ago the NFSHS tried to institute a rule that would forbid the catcher from throwing the ball down to third or first (to go around the horn) after a strike out.

The Illinois Rules Interpreters and Clinicians had a field day with it. The rule never made it and was abandoned before the season began.

I remember that abortion of a rule. In Virginia, our state interpreter told us to enforce it. Most of the big dogs ignored him. The ones that enforced it certainly did not make any coach's lists!

Peter

[DownTownTonyBrown]

I'll try to keep mine short.

You might want to look at the casebook 8.3.3 Situation A... there is the glove toss - tossed to prevent ball from going out of play: two base award.

Garth, WCB, HHH have made the correct ruling/interpretation. The others are silly.

8.3.3 Situation D adds some more.

There is much within rule 8.3 that points to this interpretation (live, playable ball) despite this individual event (ball lodged in glove and the combination being thrown to make a defensive play) not being discussed directly.

[Rich Ives]

Garth.

Different sources disagree.


If I said a stop sign means "come to a complete stop" you'd disagree just because of who I am.

[WindyCityBlue]

I am not Garth. I disagree with you because you are incorrect. This play has been explained and clarified at the Fed level. I'm not sure if your state requires annual attendance at rules meetings, but our does. This very rule was discussed several years ago. Several people have shown you how it should be interpreted. At least two of those sources are State reps.

You can continue to disagree, but I can't believe that you would actually call it this way. I applaud your tenacity, but would not want to be the Crew Chief when you made that call. Actually, you would not want me to be the Crew Chief when that call was made.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by jumpmaster

Of course, now we just have Rut and his 3000 words incoherent ramblings... [/B]

This is all coming from a guy that cannot handle a baseball game without ejecting someone?



It appears you cannot coherently get a point across without acting like a rookie. I guess you are really respected in your parts.

Peace