Ball lodged in glove: FED interpretation

[DG]

What if the pitcher "catches" a one hopper and then thinking the ball is lodged throws the glove and ball to 1B and the ball comes out of the glove while on the way to 1B? Was it really lodged? How do we rule? Is it possible for a baseball to lodge in a glove such that it can not be extracted with reasonable effort?

I am only asking to illustrate how stupid this has become. FED wants to award 2 bases when a glove is thrown with ball inside. RIGHT or WRONG, THAT'S IT. That's all there is to it. Take a caught ball and make a triple play with it, go to the dugout and extracate the ball from glove with a crowbar, I don't care. Can we use our judgement to determine when a glove is thrown with ball inside? That's a tad bit obvious.

[GarthB]

I know that officiating.com is supposed to scoop everyone, but a few days ago, on a private email list I saw the contents of a conversation between a southern state Fed clinician and Elliot HOpkins that took place after Tim Steven's article and which appears to be saying two things:

1. The majority opinon of the FED national rules committee is that a ball cannot be "lodged" in a fielder's glove.

2. The issue has yet to be completely decided, despite Elliot's earlier comments. A final interpretation, and an explanation of what "lodged" means will be forthcoming in January.

Stand by, this could get really interesting.

[umpyre007]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
It strikes me that the FED could eliminate much of the confusion, and "safety" red herrings if they'd remove the "lodged in a glove" rule and use the "displaced equipment" rule instead. Once the player removes the glove with the ball in it during playing action, the thrown ball is touched by displaced equipment -- award two bases.

All the outs in WCB's plays stand, because the glove wasn't displaced.

C'mon BJ... you're better than that. There is no way the FEDs will go this way. Surely you haven't forgotten about Jim Abbott already? If your suggestion was made the FED rule then Abbott would have been guilty each and every time he "displaced" his glove to the opposite hand, pulled the ball out of the "displaced" glove and then threw it to a base for a play after fielding the batted ball with his "undisplaced" glove. He DID have a HS, college and MLB career and no one remotely suggested that he was doing anything wrong. And, this is NOT third world.

U7

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by umpyre007
Surely you haven't forgotten about Jim Abbott already?

Actually, I had forgotten about that. Thanks for the reminder.

Still, the rules can't cover every situation. They're supposed to be written by gentlemen for gentlemen, not by lawyers for lawyers.

Heck, even the rule as written now would make Abbott's plays illegal. A case play interp on this rule would make the intent clear (punish the "lodged ball thrown glove", not the "switch hands to throw" play).

[umpyre007]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

A case play interp on this rule would make the intent clear (punish the "lodged ball thrown glove", not the "switch hands to throw" play).

That I can heartily agree with. Since FED seems to be basing their thoughts soley on safety issues then punish ONLY the "stuck-ball-thrown-glove" portion of the situation. Let the defense keep any other outs recorded without (and prior to) the aid of the SBTG violation.

The thing that really gets me would be a two base award, which in my mind is a little too drastic for this unintentional rules violation. Why not make it similar to umpire interference? If a fielder is guilty of a SBTG violation award the batter first base and any other runners forced to advance would do so. Compromise and tweaking suggestions can now be entertained.

U7

[umpyre007]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bob jenkins

Still, the rules can't cover every situation. They're supposed to be written by gentlemen for gentlemen, not by lawyers for lawyers.

I forgot this when I replied earlier to you. Rather than edit my original response I'll make this a new post. Don't want to be accused of editing out something by some on this list.

If rules still adhered to this old adage ("by gentlemen for gentlemen") the game would be much better off. However, with the advent of powerful owners, agents, players and their respective union, rules must have their I's dotted and T's crossed properly. After all, the changing of an existing rule or the introduction of a new rule could adversely affect the wage-earning capability of a player or someone else. Now I know this thread is addressing a FED rule but even the potential wage earning capability of HS players has been taken to court.

U7

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by GarthB
I know that officiating.com is supposed to scoop everyone, but a few days ago, on a private email list I saw the contents of a conversation between a southern state Fed clinician and Elliot HOpkins that took place after Tim Steven's article and which appears to be saying two things:

1. The majority opinon of the FED national rules committee is that a ball cannot be "lodged" in a fielder's glove.

2. The issue has yet to be completely decided, despite Elliot's earlier comments. A final interpretation, and an explanation of what "lodged" means will be forthcoming in January.

Stand by, this could get really interesting.

Is there some sanity entering into this discussion? I really cannot fathom this SAFETY issue. A thrown glove with a lodged baseball is dangerous? WHAT! What a pile of garbage. A thrown baseball by itself is much more dangerous. A ball with a pound of leather padding around it is very difficult to throw very far but I think it is quite a stretch to consider it dangerous.

I feel the real issue of a lodged/trapped ball is that it is not available to be used. The defensive player is digging the ball out of a catcher's chest protector, or out of equipment left lying on the field, or out of someone's shirt ... I can't make a play with a ball that I can't get my hand around.

Perhaps we will get some SANE clarification.

I've got my fingers crossed.

[umpyre007]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown

Perhaps we will get some SANE clarification.

I've got my fingers crossed.

You might want to uncross them. Keeping them crossed too long may make them turn blue from lack of oxygenated blood and then they'll fall off. There seems to be a trend in most baseball organizations to NOT think things through thoroughly. Loopholes are left in and sometimes it takes a couple of years to correct them. It's usually a "we meant this, but wrote this" kind of situation.

I too have already addressed the "safety aspect" of the issue in an earlier post and agree with you. Based on other things the FEDeralies allow via the rules I also fail to see the relevance of this being a safety issue. By everyone's own admission this situation rarely occurs but the FEDs want to treat it like a real safety issue? C'mon dudes, get real.

U7