Ball lodged in glove: FED interpretation

[Carl Childress]

Over on the paid site (http://www.officiating.com) you can read Tim Stevens' explanation of the FED ruling on why a ball lodged in a fielder's glove is to be ruled immediately dead.

BTW: Here's the definition of "lodged" from the Jaksa/Roder manual:

A lodged ball is one that remains on the playing field but has become wedged, stuck, lost, or unreachable If a ball impacts something, stops abruptly and does not fall or roll immediately, it has lodged. (p. 32)

It appears the FED has followed that definition.

[Been Dare]

Hey Pop,
Either provide the rule, or don't. That's your business. But, don't try to snooker anybody, with your sound bites. There's no need for the self-serving advertisements here. If someone's interested in yourt paid site, they know it's there, since you remind them often enough. Quit trying to pass out candy to the kids, like the dirty old perv in the park.

[Rich Ives]

Originally posted by Been Dare
Hey Pop,
Either provide the rule, or don't. That's your business. But, don't try to snooker anybody, with your sound bites. There's no need for the self-serving advertisements here. If someone's interested in yourt paid site, they know it's there, since you remind them often enough. Quit trying to pass out candy to the kids, like the dirty old perv in the park.

He DID!

Just what part of:

"the FED ruling on why a ball lodged in a fielder's glove is to be ruled immediately dead."

is so hard to understand?

[WindyCityBlue]

That's not a ruling. Rules usually have the exact words and the corresponding number or page to find them.

For someone who has been around so long, you should no better than to say that was a ruling. How many posts have you seen that said, "I don't need the exact rule, just paraphrase it for me."?

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
...a ball lodged in a fielder's glove is to be ruled immediately dead.

BTW: Here's the definition of "lodged" from the Jaksa/Roder manual:

A lodged ball is one that remains on the playing field but has become wedged, stuck, lost, or unreachable If a ball impacts something, stops abruptly and does not fall or roll immediately, it has lodged. (p. 32)

It appears the FED has followed that definition.

Carl,

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?

[mcrowder]

I love this board.

However, I think it sucks that we spent a lot of time discussing this on the public section of the board, asking the powers that be for interpretations, and are now being told to pay money to find out the answer. Screw that.

[LilLeaguer]

The article itself is really a process piece about how the ruling was made. The ruling will apparently be published on the FED site (http://www.nfhs.org) sometime in the future.

According to Stevens, the committee that advised the rules editor particulary studied an infield ground ball situation. At the risk of overstepping the rights of "fair use," I'll quote one sentence: "If the ball is lodged in such a way that the defense has to throw the glove, the ball should be killed at once with bases awarded accordingly."

There is no indication that they ruled on the interaction of the "lodged" rule with the definition of a "catch" or worried about very late detection by the umpire of a lodged ball.

I'm new to this forum (and also as a subscriber to the paid site), but I will say that I'm a little disappointed that the article focused on an old ruling (made weeks at least before this discussion) and ignored some of the subtler points that were made in this forum.

LL

[WindyCityBlue]

LL,
An example of a play that addresses this very issue was sent to Hopkins by at least three different Illinois boys. I specifically addressed 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. Oh, sh*t!

The third base coach goes crazy - pleading that it is a lodged ball and demands that his runners be moved. What do you do?

Now, what I should have written - 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. The third base coach sees this and knows what the rule implies. Oh, sh*t! What do you do, now? I fired this one off this afternoon. Do you think that we'll hear a logical answer?

Baseball rules are all about improbable scenarios and "what ifs". This sounds like a pretty good case of the "Fed doesn't remember that this is a game".

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by mcrowder
I love this board.

However, I think it sucks that we spent a lot of time discussing this on the public section of the board, asking the powers that be for interpretations, and are now being told to pay money to find out the answer. Screw that.

mcrowder: Let me make several points, please.

First, I posted in the original thread the FED interpretation of what constitutes a "lodged" ball. I announced that it would be one of the first plays when the FED puts up their 2005 interpretations. You didn't have to go to the paid site for that information. Tim's article explains something of how the FED works and the reasons behind the thinking of the committee. BTW: In response to another poster, let me say I read every message in the original thread several times. The "main idea" was not what the umpire should do if he called "Out!" and then discovered the ball was lodged. I'm at a loss to understand why a FED umpire -- now -- would call an out when he saw the fielder's glove careening across the infield.

Second, I will never understand the hatred some few brother officials have for Offiicating.com. We spend thousands and thousands of dollars to support the seven boards that make up the Forum and to search for knowledgeable officials who are willing to share their expertise with others. We perform the same services as Referee magazine -- only we do it in a timely fashion.

I would think that everyone in the officiating community would want us to continue to grow. We provide accurate, informative, educational, and entertaining articles, all of them designed to improve the quality of officiating around the world.

Why is that bad?

Unfortunately, we are not wealthy individuals, so out of our own pockets we cannot sustain the cost of the services Officiating.com provides. Like Referee, we ask those who use those services to pay a nominal fee. We have been in this business for five years and one month; we have published nearly 4000 officiating articles in that time. We are extremely proud of the work our writers, located in 24 states and five countries, do.

Third, as an experiment write a letter to Bill Topp excoriating Referee because they charge for their services: "How dare you and Barry Mano want to take my money to defray the thousands of dollars it takes to produce your magazine each year. You should do it free." Your letter will never be published.

On the other hand, that is not the case at the Forum. If your post is within the bounds of decency and good taste, your complaint will remain for all to see. The old saying comes to mind: "You're biting the hand that feeds you" when you denigrate the site that is the reason this Forum exists.

Finally, many of you officials reading my post attend training camps; those are rarely free and -- unless they are in your association -- never free if the clinicians are nationally known. You pay dues to your local association and to your state association. Some of you live in states where you must pay dues to the National Federation. You purchase rule books and case books. You buy manuals, like J/R, the BRD, PBUC. You get DVDs and tapes and audio Cds, all of which provide training, all of which cost money to produce, all of which cost you money to own.

Officiating.com has nearly 100 of those items, all of them "authored" by successful, well-known officials, all of them designed to help you and me improve.

Why is that bad?

[LilLeaguer]

I'm just commenting on Stevens' article.

According to the article, the discussion that started here in September was totally irrelevant to the forthcoming interpretation, which was already decided. The official FED discussion began in May, and the ruling itself was decided in June.

I'll leave it to experience FED observers to comment more on the possible progress in that body.

LL

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by LilLeaguer
The article itself is really a process piece about how the ruling was made. The ruling will apparently be published on the FED site (http://www.nfhs.org) sometime in the future.

According to Stevens, the committee that advised the rules editor particulary studied an infield ground ball situation. At the risk of overstepping the rights of "fair use," I'll quote one sentence: "If the ball is lodged in such a way that the defense has to throw the glove, the ball should be killed at once with bases awarded accordingly."

There is no indication that they ruled on the interaction of the "lodged" rule with the definition of a "catch" or worried about very late detection by the umpire of a lodged ball.

I'm new to this forum (and also as a subscriber to the paid site), but I will say that I'm a little disappointed that the article focused on an old ruling (made weeks at least before this discussion) and ignored some of the subtler points that were made in this forum.

LL

LilLeaguer: The Forum thread was the driving force behind Tim Stevens asking for an interpretation. Because of that, we umpires know that the FED did not act overnight. Their committee discussed the play at length. (Apparently, a play exactly like the one I put in the BRD, beginning in 1994, happened in California.)

The point: The interpretation that will be posted in January at the FED rules site is not the work of one person, as it so often was in the days of Brad Rumble. Mr. Hopkins asks around before he jumps into the fray.

Anyway, it won't affect you: The FED ruling isn't applicable to Little League. For that interpretation you'll have to ask Andy Konyar.

[LilLeaguer]

Papa C:

Thanks for the reply. I am aware that FED does not have jurisdiction over Little League; I was reviewing the article for the benefit of Forum readers that have not subscribed. I may as well ask you if you approved of my synopsis, given your strong but understandable concerns about intellectual copyrights.

I may indeed push an interpretation request up Little League channels. I'd also like to see some clear statements about lodged balls in relation to unassisted put-outs (where detection, at least, is more difficult).

LL

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by LilLeaguer
Papa C:

Thanks for the reply. I am aware that FED does not have jurisdiction over Little League; I was reviewing the article for the benefit of Forum readers that have not subscribed. I may as well ask you if you approved of my synopsis, given your strong but understandable concerns about intellectual copyrights.

I may indeed push an interpretation request up Little League channels. I'd also like to see some clear statements about lodged balls in relation to unassisted put-outs (where detection, at least, is more difficult).

LL

LilLeaguer:

Your synopsis was accurate, and I have no quarrel with your posting it on this Board. As a subscriber you certainly have the right to do that.

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.

Finally, always feel free to contact me or anyone else at Officiating.com with your concerns, ideas, complaints, and encomia (as I was taught to say - grin).

[Rich Ives]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
That's not a ruling. Rules usually have the exact words and the corresponding number or page to find them.

For someone who has been around so long, you should no better than to say that was a ruling. How many posts have you seen that said, "I don't need the exact rule, just paraphrase it for me."?

Based on that attitude, I presume that when calling a banger play at first you yell "Play met the requirements of 6.05(j)" instead of "He's out!"

[scyguy]

you guys busted my bubble, I had thought that my post of the original question had led to this ruling. Well, I had my 15 minutes of fame.