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 <i>immediately</i>, it has lodged. (p. 32)

It appears the FED has followed that definition.

Yet another gratuitous advertisement
 

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.

Re: Yet another gratuitous advertisement
 

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?

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."?

Fine and Dandy
 

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?

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.

Synopsis
 

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

Once again, they just don't get it!
 

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".

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. <i>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.</i>

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 <i>Referee</i> magazine -- only we do it in a timely fashion.

<b>I would think that everyone in the officiating community would want us to continue to grow.</b> 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 <i>Referee</i>, 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 <i>Referee</i> 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 <i>that</i> bad?

I don't know a thing about the FED
 

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

Re: Synopsis
 

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.

Glad to meet you
 

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

Re: Glad to meet you
 

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).

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!"

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.

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.

Re: Re: Glad to meet you
 

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

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. :D

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

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

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.

Can Garth read it?
 

Carl;

Here is the relevant question:

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

Peter

Re: Can Garth read it?
 

Two both your questions: :D

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

Re: Once again, they just don't get it!
 

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?

Re: Re: Once again, they just don't get it!
 

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.

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.

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;

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. :D

Peter

I agree and.........
 

.....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. :D

Peter [/B][/QUOTE]

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?

<i>Most</i> rule books don't address <i>most</i> 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 <i>ruling</i>.

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:

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

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 <i>explain</i> 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.

Re: Glad to meet you
 

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

Re: Re: Glad to meet you
 

Because the glove and ball <i>might</i> 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.

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.

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.

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 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)

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

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

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 didnÂ’t, but thatÂ’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?

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.

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.

<i>Reductio ad absurdum</i> (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. <i>Nothing</i> more is needed. The published rationale (Tim Stevens' article on Officiating.com) for the interpretation says it all:
As I am wont to ask: What's hard about that?

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.

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.

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 <i>it's perfectly clear what they want an umpire to do.</i>

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, <i>that</i> 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:

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?

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:

<font color=blue>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. <b>Ruling 13:</b> 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.</font>

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.

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. :D

U7

I've seen the same ruling elsewhere, just can't recall where at the moment [I'm gonna look]. It doesn't seem logical, I agree; unless you are subtracting the base B1 WOULDN"T have had if the glove wasn't "ripped from F1's hand" from the award?:D

Dave:

Once again, Referee Magazine is wrong. If you look at the Bases Awarded chart in the FED rulebook, it clearly shows that BOTH the batter and the runner are awarded two bases on a lodged ball.

I was one of the original subscribers to Referee Magazine back when I was a pup. It didn't take me long to realize that their editing leaves a lot to be desired, particularly in the area of FED rules.

Their poor record on rules interpretations as well as their actions in a Wisconsin court have convinced me long ago not to send them any of my money. They had my support, and lost it with their poor performance.

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.

Bob:

This is basically what I suggested in my "interpretation" above. I realize mine is not the current rule, but what I think it should be. As long as the person that caught the ball is the one attempting further action (tagging a base, tagging a runner, etc) with the glove still in its proper place, play on. Kill the play when the fielder removes the glove to toss it to another player, to try to tag a runner with the glove while not wearing it, or removing it to try to dislodge the ball. At that point, we have a problem. Up until then, it's just a player with the ball in his glove. We should not care if it is "held" or "lodged", all we should care about is that it is in his possession (I was ging to say "possessed", but that takes us down a whole other line!).

From the fingertips of the Wizard:

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.

– – – – – –Â*-Â*-Â*-Â*– –Â*-Â*-Â*-Â*-Â*-Â*-Â*-Â*-Â*-Â*-Â*-Â*-Â*-Â*-Â*-Â*- - -

To which, I respond:

Who is this "we" you refer to in the last sentence?
Those of us in Illinois, know it happened in a State Championship game five years ago. Those in Colorado shared the same experience in their state championship a few years ago. That would be two times - in the biggest high school games of the season - and both of them were mentioned in that rag you've often maligned. Will this play happen again? The answer is very likely. The play I described (regarding a lodged ball, not discovered until the end of playing action) might be more unlikely. But we have rules that govern line drives that directly hit the pitching plate and rebound out of play and other rarities. Why shouldn't we have clarity to this issue, as well? The fact is that the Fed boofed this one. But, I'm beginning to understand why they do it this way. Next year they'll have a reason to do it again. It's kind of like going to the mechanic's and he only fixes one thing at a time. That way he can perpetuate his existence. This wasn't a bold move on their part or some radical discovery of an issue that needed refinement. They have once again decided that the NCAA and OBR are wrong and that they know better.

what if the glove is ripped off pitcher's hand, but infielder catches glove (with lodged ball) before it hits the ground?

Now, I am behind the plate, I see ball hit pitcher's glove, glove and ball go flying into the air, F5, dives and catches glove, I immediately see that the ball is a) lodged b) not lodged but sitting in the pocket of the glove.

A--dead ball, two base award?

B--live ball catch?

A - dead ball, 2 bases (and eject the HC when he explodes).
B - you have nothing. Ball has not touched the ground; ball is not yet secured by the fielder - this you could treat just like the ball is being bobbled.

I will award the out on the line drive and leave ball live. I will justify by saying that the ball may have been lodged, but the glove was not removed and tossed.

Continue with your scenario, what if R3 tags, sees ball is lodged in F3's glove and runs for home. F3 cannot retrieve ball from glove so a) he gets out of glove but run scores ahead of throw, or b)tosses glove to catcher in time for a tag at plate.

I see A as a run scored, live ball situation. Now, I see B as an immediate dead ball when glove is flying thru the air, with R3 awarded home, R2 awarded home and R1 awarded third.

At this point, unless told differently by the FED, if glove is tossed, two bases, if ball gets lodged, then dig it out--live ball.

scyguy:

What you said is logical, but by the current wording, it's not the rule. This is why the great debate, and those of us that want NFHS to clarify the rule, the ruling, and add a case play to illustrate.

I understand, but for now, I need a gameplan. If I do a game tomorrow and it happens, I must make a ruling. What are you going to do if it happens to you?

scyguy;

You understand perfectly. You are a practical umpire who does not get hung up on third world plays and other minutia that is the stomping grounds of rules nerds.

What is going on here is interesting for people who like to have intellectual discussions about rules. However, real umpires solve real problems with real world solutions that will keep them out of trouble. You have scored an A in that department. You are ready for the next level. You have figured out that it is often more important to convince others on a baseball field that you are right than to actually be right.

Common sense and fair play will generally carry the day. It is also important to know the real rule in order to finesse yourself through the minefields.

Peter

What are you going to do if it happens to you?

If you see what I suggested about two pages ago, you will see that my answer is basically the same as yours: the person that caught it can still do anything with it (tag runners, tag bases, etc.) as long as he has it in his glove. Just because I see it between the fingers of his glove doesn't mean it's "lodged". It isn't a problem until he takes off the glove to give it to someone else or to tries to tag a runner with the detached glove.

As HHH says, you have to sell it, and I'll add that you have to accept the fact that a well versed coach may protest your ruling. Great, let him protest. If I lose the protest, it will be my first in 35 years.

I'll take my chances.

Common sense from the FED? About as likely as you saying believing that LL umpires are real umpires :D That is that is the problem with the interpretation - it doesn't go far enough, it stops at the safety issue of equipment flying around the field.

Common sense would say, play ball until such time as the ball is determined to be lodged - at that time apply FED 8-3-3d: one base for a batted ball carried into dead ball territory unintentionally.

8-3-3d refers to a pitch or any throw by the pitcher from his pitching position becomes lodged. I read further (and this may be what you are refering to) "batter hits a fiar or foul ball which is caught by a fielder, who then leaves the field of play by stepping with both feet or fallig into a bench, dugout ..." Again, I assume you are addressing the scenario about the umpire not realizing that the ball was lodged in the glove until the player reached the dugout.

I think using 8-3-3d is a far reach. If I am umpiring a game when a ball is lodged in the glove of an infielder who steps on a bag for a force out or tags a runner, we will have an out--not a two base or one base award.

Dave:

I posed your question to Tim Stevens, who posed the same question to Elliot Hopkins, who said: "That's wrong. The interpretation language won't be finalized until January." Elliot affirmed the ruling Tim published at Officiating.com: Everybody gets two bases if the ball is <i>actually</i> lodged. The umpire is to kill the ball when: (1) the fielder simply throws up his hands in horror; or (2) he tosses (starts to toss) the glove to another fielder for a tag/force out. (email to me, 5 Oct)

<i>Referee</i> jumped the gun, relying on second-hand information from the summer rules committee meeting. There will, no doubt, be a correction and apology in the December issue.

I wouldn't want to be the person responsible when Barry finds out about the mistake.

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.

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.

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

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).

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. :p

U7

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bob jenkins

Quote:

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. :p

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. :D

U7

Sanity???
 

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. :D

I've got my fingers crossed.

Re: Sanity???
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown

Quote:

Perhaps we will get some SANE clarification. :D 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. :p

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. :D

U7