Ball lodged in glove: FED interpretation

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
I will never understand the hatred some few brother officials have for Offiicating.com.

They're just proving the old adage, first documented in one of his classic studies by Peter Osborne, I think, that umpires are notoriously cheap b*stards, and despite their otherwise patriotic dispositions, just tend to have a natural animosity to the idea that somebody wants to make money off of them.

[LilLeaguer]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
LilLeaguer:

Andy and I correspond several times a year. Why not send me your question? Let me see if I can get him to give us a ruling for Little League.

Papa C:

Thanks for the offer. Maybe I'll take a swing at putting together a formal version of the question that is appropriate for Little League. (The fact that the FED was guided by safety concerns is probably relevant, I'd guess, but I haven't really thought it through.)

LL

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
[/B]

Much of the previous discussion on this topic was concerned specifically with a ball "lodged" in a defensive player's glove and this fact of the ball being lodged was not discovered by the umpire until after plays/tags had been made. What is an umpire to do when this discovery (of a lodged ball) is made after defensive plays have been made and outs called?

Does Tim Stevens address this?

[/B][/QUOTE]Tim Stevens posted his article on this over on McGriffs. On the BASKETBALL forum at McGriffs, to be precise, Tony.

Makes sense to me.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Much of the previous discussion on this topic was concerned specifically with a ball "lodged" in a defensive player's glove and this fact of the ball being lodged was not discovered by the umpire until after plays/tags had been made. What is an umpire to do when this discovery (of a lodged ball) is made after defensive plays have been made and outs called?

Does Tim Stevens address this?

[/B]

Tim Stevens posted his article on this over on McGriffs. On the BASKETBALL forum at McGriffs, to be precise, Tony.

Makes sense to me. [/B][/QUOTE]Tim Stevens did not post that article. It was, of course, stolen and put up on McGriff's.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Tim Stevens posted his article on this over on McGriffs. On the BASKETBALL forum at McGriffs, to be precise, Tony.

Makes sense to me.
[/B]

Tim Stevens did not post that article. It was, of course, stolen and put up on McGriff's.
[/B][/QUOTE]Aaaaah! Now it does make sense. If the perp hadda posted it on the Baseball board at McGriffs, his I.P. address woulda then shown up- and you coulda traced that person through his I.P.

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Tim Stevens did not post that article. It was, of course, stolen and put up on McGriff's.

Carl;

Here is the relevant question:

Is Garth still a crook if he goes to McGriffs and reads it? How about if he reads it over Tee's shoulder while Tee is on McGriffs?

Peter

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by His High Holiness

Carl;

Here is the relevant question:

Is Garth still a crook if he goes to McGriffs and reads it? How about if he reads it over Tee's shoulder while Tee is on McGriffs?

Peter

Two both your questions:

[Edited by Carl Childress on Sep 29th, 2004 at 08:16 AM]

[jumpmaster]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
LL,
...the frozen rope that is rocketed down the third baseline with R1 and R2, one out in a tie game. The umpire sees that the ball never waits - says, "Show me the ball." and the fielder raises the glove. Since the umpire knows that the ball never touched the ground, he signals "Out." The fielder then gets up and while trotting into the pitcher, takes his glove off in order to free the ball which is stuck in the now broken webbing...

...R1 and R2 and 2 outs - the batter crushes a one hopper down the third baseline. He snares it and steps on third for the final out. His teammates are trotting off the field and congratulating him. The offense is now off the field and just about to their dugout, when you, the PU notice the kid take off his mitt and forcefully push the lodged ball out. He tosses it to the other pitcher coming to the mound...

Windy has a point. I think we can all grasp the concept, even if we don't agree, of F1 tossing his glove to F3 for an attempted putout. Based upon the Fed ruling, the plays that Windy outlines should be "dead ball, award bases" scenario. However, practicallity says this won't happen.

To stir the pot even more - Windy, do you overrule your partner who has signaled out, the players have cleared the infield and you now know the correct interpretation?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by jumpmaster

Windy has a point. I think we can all grasp the concept, even if we don't agree, of F1 tossing his glove to F3 for an attempted putout. Based upon the Fed ruling, the plays that Windy outlines should be "dead ball, award bases" scenario. However, practicallity says this won't happen.

To stir the pot even more - Windy, do you overrule your partner who has signaled out, the players have cleared the infield and you now know the correct interpretation?

That's not how I read the rulings. I read them as "a ball becomes lodged when an umpire notices that the ball is lodged. Outs made prior to the ball becoming lodged stand."

So, in both plays above, I have outs. Had the out not been the third out of the inning, then award bases to the remaining runners.

[Atl Blue]

Outs made prior to the ball becoming lodged stand.

The problem with this interpretation is that the ball is lodged as soon as it goes INTO the glove, not when an umpire sees that the player can't remove it. Therefore, with the above ruling, ANY outs made after the ball is caught would not be allowed because the ball is lodged.

The logical answer is the player that caught the ball, even if the ball is "lodged", can do anything to cause an out (i.e., tag a base, tag a runner, make the catch, etc.). What he can't do is remove the glove and give/toss it to another player, or use the detached glove to tag a runner.

The problem lies not with the person that still has the ball, it lies with what to do when he can't give it to someone else. That's the point where we should stop allowing outs and award bases. Anything prior to trying to remove the ball stands.

[Kaliix]

Here's my question:
Why can't someone write the rule so that it clearly and unabiguously addresses the situation.

Why is it that the rule, as written, can't cover when the ball is considered lodged, what outs can be made (if any) with the lodged ball, and when does the ball become dead and bases awarded?

Why is that we need 20 interpretations to the rule???

This is not freakin' rocket science people. Geez!!!

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by Kaliix
Here's my question:
Why can't someone write the rule so that it clearly and unabiguously addresses the situation.

Why is that we need 20 interpretations to the rule???

Kaliix;

Here's my answer:

If the rules were clear, big dogs would have nothing to lord over little dogs. With things in a muddle, big dogs can always be right, no matter what they do. Likewise, little dogs can always be wrong and big dogs can make fun of them.

As a big dog, I prefer things to be ambiguous. It makes it easier to keep little dogs in their place. By using common sense and fair play, I can convince the coaches that I am right. Likewise, the little dogs that try to enforce the rules are seen as incompetent.

It is so easy when you understand the politics.

Peter

[Gee]

.....that is the reason I believe MLB does not publish the rules they play under. If one of the Big Dogs screws the pooch all they say is that they use a different book. Case closed. G.
-------------------------------------------





Here's my answer:

If the rules were clear, big dogs would have nothing to lord over little dogs. With things in a muddle, big dogs can always be right, no matter what they do. Likewise, little dogs can always be wrong and big dogs can make fun of them.

As a big dog, I prefer things to be ambiguous. It makes it easier to keep little dogs in their place. By using common sense and fair play, I can convince the coaches that I am right. Likewise, the little dogs that try to enforce the rules are seen as incompetent.

It is so easy when you understand the politics.

Peter [/B][/QUOTE]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Kaliix
Here's my question:
Why can't someone write the rule so that it clearly and unabiguously addresses the situation.

Why is it that the rule, as written, can't cover when the ball is considered lodged, what outs can be made (if any) with the lodged ball, and when does the ball become dead and bases awarded?

Why is that we need 20 interpretations to the rule???

This is not freakin' rocket science people. Geez!!!

Kaliix:

It's illegal for the batter to interfere with the catcher's attempt to throw to retire a runner. Can B1 interfere and remain in the box? Does he have to leave the box? What if he simply obscures the catcher's vision? What if the interference comes from natural momentum? What if the batter's backswing creates the interference? On the steal of third must the batter duck to give the catcher a throwing lane? Shouldn't the batter leave the box the instant he understands the catcher will be throwing?

Most rule books don't address most of those questions. Yet everyone seems happy with the written rule -- and then reads all the authoritative opinion and official interpretations that they can find.

The language of the FED statute is very simple -- if you believe that "lodged" means "stuck." Understand, most of the complaints here on the Board are made by umpires dissatisfied with the FED rule, not with the ruling.

More than one has gone to great lengths to create third-world plays (even more bizarre than the actual play) to prove how "ridiculous" the FED Committee is. Atlanta Blue put the quietus on that:

The logical answer is the player that caught the ball, even if the ball is "lodged", can do anything to cause an out (i.e., tag a base, tag a runner, make the catch, etc.). What he can't do is remove the glove and give/toss it to another player, or use the detached glove to tag a runner.

The problem lies not with the person that still has the ball, it lies with what to do when he can't give it to someone else. That's the point where we should stop allowing outs and award bases. Anything prior to trying to remove the ball stands.

Years ago Jean Kerr, the wife of the drama critic of the New York Times, wrote a best-selling book, later made into a movie: Please Don't Eat the Daisies.

She and her family lived in Connecticut, well away from the Big City where husband Walter worked. They liked to sleep late, but their children were early risers. So Jean devised rules for them to follow: "Please don't eat the daisies" was one. "Don't glue together the pages of the Sunday paper" was not.

Her point, my point: You cannot write a rule to cover every event; you cannot explain every rule and still keep the rule book manageable.

That's why we have rules interpreters. That's why we discuss rules on the Forum. That's when being an official is fun.

[Mike Ricketts]

Originally posted by LilLeaguer


I may indeed push an interpretation request up Little League channels.

LL

I don't see where a ball lodged in a glove would be an issue requiring further interpretation for OBR-based play like LL.