runner on 2nd, ball hit to pitcher, ball is lodged in his glove, he cannot get it out, so he tosses glove to first before batter-runner reaches first. Ruling--runner at 2nd is awarded home and batter is awarded 2nd. Is this correct?

Nope, ball is live in play. I've even seen that same play at the major league level, pitcher tosses glove to first and runner is out.

let me apologize by saying that I was looking for a FED interpretation. According to 8-3-3c, two bases if a fair batted or thrown ball becomes ....lodged in a defensive player's or umpire's equipment. So help me, I am not sure I am understanding rule.

Yes -- that's the FED interp.

thanks Bob, it almost happened last night but the kid got it out of his glove. I thought "what would I have called if he tossed glove".

Fed ruling incorrect
 

Wait a second Bob.

A kid hits a ball to any infielder, the ball gets lodged in the webbing and he removes it and flips it to the baseman for an out. Are you implying that you are going to rule that the ball was unplayable because it was lodged in a player or umpire uniform? I hope not.

The thought behind that rule, as explained by (IHSA Rules Interpreter and Officials Committee Member) Jay Lyons two or three years ago at the IACAO clinic, is to award bases for a ball slipping insde a uniform, ball bag, or in the case of a catcher, between his chest protector and jersey. We are trying to penalize a player that purposely hides a ball, with the intent of deception - or - award the offense for the ball being put in a place that would make it impossible to continue play.

This was a point of clarification several years ago and was reinforced by the Chicago White Sox game that had the exact play. In fact, that ball was gloved by the pitcher and was used as a direct reference by a clinic attendee.

Re: Fed ruling incorrect
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
[B]Wait a second Bob.

A kid hits a ball to any infielder, the ball gets lodged in the webbing and he removes it and flips it to the baseman for an out. Are you implying that you are going to rule that the ball was unplayable because it was lodged in a player or umpire uniform? I hope not.

WCB, my question is whether he tosses the glove because he cannot remove the ball. The quote "lodges in a defensive player's or umpire's equipment" seems to imply his glove. Are you saying that in a FED game we call the kid out?

In Fed, NCAA and all leagues that use the OBR, this would be an out. The ball lodging in the webbing of the glove is not deceptive, nor does it prevent the conclusion of the play that was described.

As proof, what would you call if on that same play, the infielder took his glove off and tagged a runner that was off base? Would that not be an out according to the rules? The ball was secured by the hand or glove while it contacted a player not in possession of a base - OUT! Take it to the extreme and an outfielder charges in, dives and catches a ball that gets lodged in the webbing. He gets up, realizes the ball is stuck and runs in towards second to tage the runner who left early. He gets tagged with the ball, lodged in the mitt, still on the hand or being held...OUT!

Wait, there's more...on the same diving play, he gets up and the runner is already back in at second. You signal Out on the catch and see him struggle to get the ball out from between the fingers of his mitt. Are you telling me that you would call "Time" negate the out and award bases?

Re: Fed ruling incorrect
 

The White Sox don't play by FED rules - they play by OBR. What happened in that game doesn't apply.

In FED it is a dead ball and a two base award.

Wait, there's more...on the same diving play, he gets up and the runner is already back in at second. You signal Out on the catch and see him struggle to get the ball out from between the fingers of his mitt. Are you telling me that you would call "Time" negate the out and award bases? [/B][/QUOTE]


You make a good point with the first two examples, but this last one is a simple out since he has secured the fly ball for the out and he is not making an attempt to toss his glove. Even the other examples, if he is removing glove to apply tag then we do not have a rule violation. The rule only addresses "tossing" glove.

Sorry Rich,
I just got off the phone with one of the IHSA Rules Interpreters and he confirmed that NFSHS even had an overhead Point of Clarification on this exact play.
Any player that secures the ball in a glove or hand in order to effect the out has complied with the rules. There is no penalty for tossing, handing or kicking the mitt to the other player. Further, If that ball gets hung up in the laces of the glove or between the fingers, who is in jeopardy? What advantage does the defense gain? What disadvantage does the batter or runner have? His/Her job is to beat the ball to the bag...they failed.

You can disagree with this all you want. Call it and see what happens. You will be wrong, two rules support it.

BTW, the state interpreter I spoke to, sits on the rules committee that advises the NFSHS about points of emphasis, clarification or rules updates/alterations.

2004 BRD Item 22 Play 26-22 - Dead ball, two base award.

And if FED interpreters disagree with the BRD, what then?

I've sent this in to our state interpeter for his ruling as well. I'll post it when I receive it.

This may be a case where various state interpreters disagree with the the national interpretaion. The FED clarification that I understand is coming out this year with regards to the shoulder turn during the stretch is one area that for years has been under discussion. Some state FEDs forbid the Mike Mussina stretch, others allowed it. Now it will be legal everywhere.

The BRD only reports on the national interpretation. State interpretations may vary. We have had any number of discussions over the years on the Internet where different states do things in different ways.

When I posed that first question, Peter, I was referring to national FED interpretation, not the states. Many state interpeters turn to the national offices for their interpretations. That's how FED works, The national offices will not address individual umpires. They direct them to turn to their state organization which in turn may turn to tne national offices for guidance.

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