Ball lodged in glove: FED interpretation

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Mike Ricketts

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

Because the glove and ball might go in different directions when the fielder throws the combo, the LL powers-that-be could decide that safety concerns should trump baseball principles.

If they did, they wouldn't be the first committee to do so.

[Kaliix]

Carl,
Believe it or not, I do understand that the written rules cannot cover every conceivable play and/or situation.

It just seems to me that the people who write the rules should be trying to write them so that they are clear, unambiguous and as complete as possible. In writing the rules, one should hope that they need as little further explanation as possible. There will likely need to be casebook examples for illustration purposes, but those cases should only illustrate, not interpret, if at all possible.

It seems like the rules writers are content with their ambiguous attempts at writing rules and are content to need further interpretations and countless case book illustrations to further clarify their poorly worded rules. That should be the exception not the rule. They should strive for clarity and completeness and not accept less.

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

[mcrowder]

Carl, I don't hate this site, or officiating.com at all. I support your right to have a pay-section, with articles and such. I just thought it was off-putting that the conversation that seemed to spur this article originated here, in the free section ... and was put off by you're taking it do the pay-side and then try to use that to force us to pay. It's like the guy that gives someone drugs for free, gets them hooked, and then starts charging (well.... obviously not THAT bad, but you see my point, I'm sure.)

PS - I belong to a LOT of forums that are obviously healthy monetarily, which do not have pay-sections. They live on banners - what prevents you from doing the same.

[WindyCityBlue]

Mick, Bob, Brad, et al.



This is ridiculous...I answered the question that jumpmaster posed directly to me...Windy. I have no idea why it was deleted. What is the rationale now?

[jumpmaster]

Originally posted by 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.

I agree with you, but in order to enforce this do we need another interp from the FED? The original interp dealt with the concept of dead ball status after the U discovers the ball is lodged or as we say here "stuck". As Papa C so aptly pointed out, a "stuck" ball is a lodged ball.

A little hillbilly logic based upon the FED interp (in honor of advocus diablo):
lodged ball = dead ball; dead ball = no outs, safes or runs can occur; therefore any out that occurs during a lodged ball are negated, even if the lodged ball is not known at the time the out is called. (A=B, B=C, A=C)

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
Mick, Bob, Brad, et al.



This is ridiculous...I answered the question that jumpmaster posed directly to me...Windy. I have no idea why it was deleted. What is the rationale now?

I didn't delete it. I don't think I even saw it.

[scyguy]

Kaliix, you have now been assigned the task to write this rule in a clear, unambiguous way. Give it a shot.

[WindyCityBlue]

Quote from Jumpmaster:

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?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Alan,
You knew exactly what you were doing with this question, but it was worthy bait.
I have a problem with the ruling as written. The play I described for all to discuss is not covered, since it is not apparent that the ball has become lodged until the players have left the field of play (abandoned the bases, etc.).

According to the Wizard, we took an oath to enforce all of the rules of the game. (I didn’t, but that’s his fantasy.) If we must enforce the lodged ball rule and rule on anything not specifically covered by the rules, I could make very convincing arguments either way.

A couple of guys here are of the opinion “See no evil, hear no evil.” One even cited that he knew a kid had a game winning hit with an illegal bat, but because it was the thirteenth inning, he let it go when no one noticed. Others have said that we need to enforce the rules we detest even more than the rules we like. Make no mistake, I don’t like this rule interpetation. That said, if I am the PU and see it happen as described, I will probably announce as loud as I can, “Time, let me see that mitt.” That will get my partner(s) attention and we will get together. I will keep the players where they are and tell my partner(s) what I just saw.
If we agree that the ball became lodged after it hit the ground, we will announce the ruling according to Fed protocol. (dead ball advance) We will take the heat and look like schmucks for enforcing a sh*t rule. But, you asked what I would do and these are my thoughts. Letting the play stand would be easier, but we have to enforce a lot of other rules that make us look silly, so why should this one be any different.

Now, some of you will say, “He can’t over rule his partner. We talked about this before.” This is exactly what I’ve proposed all along. One guy made a call, without benefit of all of the information. His partner sees something (in this case an incorrect judgement call and ruling) and informs his partner(s) of the issue. I have said that I would ask for consensus and try to make the right call - no matter how ridiculous the FED interp. I’ve remained consistent, now, what would you do in this situation?

[jumpmaster]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
Letting the play stand would be easier, but we have to enforce a lot of other rules that make us look silly, so why should this one be any different.

Now, some of you will say, “He can’t over rule his partner. We talked about this before.” This is exactly what I’ve proposed all along. One guy made a call, without benefit of all of the information. His partner sees something (in this case an incorrect judgement call and ruling) and informs his partner(s) of the issue. I have said that I would ask for consensus and try to make the right call - no matter how ridiculous the FED interp. I’ve remained consistent, now, what would you do in this situation?

I agree with you and yes, I was curious to see if you would move on the "overturn your partner" position.

In case 1 (the hot line drive), the BR is out for out #3 because the ball was "caught" before it became "lodged".

In case 2 (screaming one hopper), the right thing is to put the runners back on base with the appropriate advancements for a lodged ball. The tag at 3rd occured after the ball became lodged. Prepare to deal with the $hi+house.

If I know that my partner has interpreted a rule incorrectly, I must step up and correct this for three reasons: (1) little dogs lie quietly because it is easy (2) leaders make calls and live with it (3) that is what umpires are paid for. Leadership is about stepping up and taking the right position, even when it is unpopular.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by jumpmaster

I agree with you, but in order to enforce this do we need another interp from the FED? The original interp dealt with the concept of dead ball status after the U discovers the ball is lodged or as we say here "stuck". As Papa C so aptly pointed out, a "stuck" ball is a lodged ball.

A little hillbilly logic based upon the FED interp (in honor of advocus diablo):
lodged ball = dead ball; dead ball = no outs, safes or runs can occur; therefore any out that occurs during a lodged ball are negated, even if the lodged ball is not known at the time the out is called. (A=B, B=C, A=C)

Alan:

That is clearly not the intent of the FED committee or of Mr. Hopkins. Their sole idea is: They don't want a glove and ball flying about the infield.

Reductio ad absurdum (Hey, you used a little Latin)

Play: 1 out, R3, third baseman playing in to guard against a bunt. B1 smashes a hard line drive, caught by F5. He tags third and trots into his third-base dugout. The plate umpire (two-man crew) heads for the steps to retrieve the ball (they only have three in play) and sees the third baseman struggling to remove the ball.

Ruling: "Hey, that's a lodged ball!" he cries; he returns everybody to the field, sends R3 home to score, and puts B1 on second. Then he grabs his cell phone to arrange for security to ensure he gets to his car safely and out of town in one piece.

Get serious, guys. Nothing more is needed. The published rationale (Tim Stevens' article on Officiating.com) for the interpretation says it all:

The rules committee does not want to run the risk of having loose equipment flying around the field under any circumstances, short tosses notwithstanding.

As I am wont to ask: What's hard about that?

[Kaliix]

I would actually be happy to give it a shot. But first, someone has to explain to me what exactly the rule is and how it is intended to be interpreted.

When is lodged actually lodged? Is it immediately dead when it's discovered, when it actually becomes lodged, only when the glove is tossed, can outs be recorded when it is lodged, etc.

Give me all that info and I'll try and write you a rule.

Originally posted by scyguy
Kaliix, you have now been assigned the task to write this rule in a clear, unambiguous way. Give it a shot.

[DG]

It seems clear, from Tim's article, that FED does not want players throwing gloves with ball inside around. So as soon as one is tossed, the ball is dead, and awards made. That's all there is to it.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Jim Mills
Carl, a lot of dissatisfaction has been expressed about case plays being issued (or at least contemplated) that run counter to the rule's plain language. The case plays seem to indicate that the NFHS does not want the ball dead immediately if it lodges in a fielder's glove. Rather, it wants us to judge subsequent events. IF that is the case, the point is that they should make this a delayed-dead-ball offense instead of issuing case plays that are at odds with the black-letter law of the rule, which calls for an immediate dead ball.

Jim:

I say you shouldn't worry about an umpire's inability to sell the FED interpretation. In 15 years they've played about 36,000 games or so in the major leagues; and a batted ball has been stuck, uh, I mean "lodged," three times. We only know of its happening ONCE in a high school game in who knows how many hundreds of thousands of games.

Anyway, you're missing the simple point -- but that's only because, like some others, you don't think it the right ruling. On the other hand, I've never expressed my opinion about the propriety of this ruling. All I've said is the FED interpretation is exactly how I envisioned their meaning when they changed their rules for 1994.

In other words, I'm not defending the Committee's work; I'm only arguing that it's perfectly clear what they want an umpire to do.

As most everyone now agrees: The ball isn't dead until the umpire discovers it's lodged. He doesn't discover it's lodged until the player tries to throw the glove/ball. Logically speaking, that is when the ball becomes dead. It certainly cannot be a delayed dead ball. That would take it back to the moment it lodged and deprive the defense of a legitimately fielded batted ball.

The chances are you call a little OBR. Here's a passage from an interpretation in the MLBUM:

When a live ball enters a player's uniform or the catcher's gear, the ball is to be ruled dead and no subsequent outs can be obtained by the defense. The umpire is then directed to employ common sense and fairness and place the runners such that the act of the ball becoming dead is nullified. [5.10, quoted in J/R, p. 32]

Imagine: They are asking an umpire to use his common sense to figure out the fair result of an unusual play. Why, he'd never sell that to a coach.

Right?

[Dave Hensley]

This whole thread has, for the most part, just given me tired-head, but would someone care to reconcile the new FED interpretation, as reported on this site in both this forum and in Tim Stevens' article on the paid portion of the site, which defines a lodged ball as a dead ball in which the award, to both batter and runners, is two bases, with this play from page 67 and 68 of the October 2004 issue of Referee Magazine:

Play 13: With (a) no runners on, or (b) R1 on first, B1's line drive to the mound smacks into F1's glove, but the force of the hit rips the glove from f1's hand. The glove lands on the ground with the ball lodged in the webbing. F1 recovers the glove and prepares to throw the glove with the lodged ball to first base. Ruling 13: In (a) and (b), the ball is dead when the umpire sees the lodged ball. B1 is awarded first base. In (b), R1 is awarded two bases.

Can anyone explain why Referee believes the batter would only be awarded first base, and not second? As I understand it, the Stevens article clearly states the interpretation is to award two bases to the batter, as well as any runners.

[umpyre007]

Originally posted by Jim Mills
Players stand in and take 80+ mph pitches in the ribs. Infielders get hit in the face by bad-hop line shots all the time. And the NFHS is worried about a ball-glove combo separating upon being tossed, and causing injury? Talk about third-world. Get serious, indeed.

It would seem to me that if the FEDeralies want to pursue the safety issue with this interpretation then they ALSO need to revisit the wearing of casts (covered with foam, etc.) by players. Seems to me that a ball lodged in a glove would have sufficient padding to at least reduce the safety factor to that of a covered cast.

U7