There are three plays dealing with the lodged ball (5-1-1-g) in the 2005 casebook:

5.1.1q: A line drive rips the glove from the pitcher's hand. The pitcher retrieves the glove, which contains the ball, and throws the glove and ball to the first baseman. RULING: Illegal. A fair-batted ball is dead immediately when it becomes lodged in player equipment.
=======
Note: The play ends there, but the award is two bases (8-3-3c)

=========
5.1.1r: On a sharply hit ground ball that is snagged by F1, the player's initial attempts to withdraw the ball from the glove and throw the ball to F3 are not successful. In an attempt to retire the batter-runner, F1 tosses his glove with the lodged ball to F3. RULING: U1 will declare the ball dead and award the batter-runner second base. When F1 tosses his fielding glove to F3 to put out the batter-runner, it became apparent that the ball was lodged and the ball becomes dead and the award is made.
===========
5.1.1s: With a runner on first base, on a bounding ball F6 lays out and catches the ball in his glove. After several attempts to remove the ball from his glove, he is finally successful after the batter-runner acquires first base. RULING: There is no base awarded; the play stands. The ball was temporarily stuck, not lodged, in F6's glove.

=======
The FED position is thus very clear: If the fielder believes he must toss the ball/glove combo to another fielder, that is PROOF the ball is lodged: dead ball, two bases.

Naturally, putting these plays into the casebook rather than posting them on the Website proves the rules committee was discussing this play long before someone called me to task about my BRD play, which is CB 5.1.1r.

I am saddened that FED, against the advice of several of its interpreters, chose again to further distance itself from OBR rather than take the opportunity to close the gap as it had done with balks.

I believe two interpreters were mentioned in the Forum. What we don't know is: How many state interpreters agreed with the rules committee?

Suppose 40 liked the ruling in 5.1.1r while two wanted to follow the OBR. (There was no response from eight. - grin)You could still be sad that the FED stayed on its own course, but others would be happy that the committee followed the overwhelming preponderance of opinion.

BTW: I'm not sure the FED moved closer to the OBR. Here's another new play:

6.1.1j: With R1 on first base, F1, from the set position and prior to bringing his hands together while in contact with the pitcher's plate, (a) abruptly and quickly turns his shoulders toward first base in an attempt to drive back the runner; or (b) casually turns his shoulders to observe the runner at first base. RULING: Legal in both (a) and (b).

Have I been teaching this wrong all these years?

The pitcher can feint without arm motion. Right? In our area OBR pitchers always step off as they whirl their shoulders toward first. MLB pitchers do the same thing, don't they?

Wouldn't I call a balk if a play such as 6.1.1j -(a) happened in an MSBL game?

WOW!
Typically, I guess, for the FED's, they have tossed the babby out w/ the bath. Play (b) is clearly about the rule change where we no longer balk any turn of the shoulder. But (a) has been a balk under every code for exactly the reason CC notes; it's a fake to 1st.
This should make for some interesting discussions at the annual meetings with the state interpreters.

Carter

<b>"I believe two interpreters were mentioned in the Forum. "</b>

And others were mentioned elsewhere. Those in the know report a near 50-50 split.

Alas and alack, an opportunity missed.

It looks to be significantly worse than missed... more like blatantly ignored.

Defense does their job. Stops the ball. But for some unpredictable, anomalous reason the ball becomes stuck/"lodged" in the defender's glove. This means the offense has done a tremendous job of hitting and instead of a sure out (even with an underhand toss of glove and "lodged" ball) the batter-runner is awarded two bases.

And a dynamic, sudden turn of the pitcher's shoulders, is acceptable!! That's not a balk.

I thought new rules basically came from coaches. It seems unconceivable that these coaches would have such a paucity of game understanding. Unbelievable.

One of our past main points of discussion was when exactly does the "lodged" ball become dead. 5.1.1q ("dead immediately when it becomes lodged") and 5.1.1r ("When F1 tosses his fielding glove... it became apparent that the ball was lodged and the ball becomes dead and the award is made.") seems to still leave this question unanswered. So is the ball dead when it becomes lodged or is it dead when the umpire recognises that the ball is lodged; much can go on between when the ball enters a glove and the second and a half later when the glove is removed and tossed.

I'm thinking they may have created some nightmares for us.

[/B][/QUOTE]
So is the ball dead when it becomes lodged or is it dead when the umpire recognises that the ball is lodged; much can go on between when the ball enters a glove and the second and a half later when the glove is removed and tossed.
[/B][/QUOTE]


I think Carl answered this question earlier - "The FED position is thus very clear: If the fielder believes he must toss the ball/glove combo to another fielder, that is PROOF the ball is lodged: dead ball, two bases."

This will be easy to administer in FED games, if it happens at all.

So is the ball dead when it becomes lodged or is it dead when the umpire recognises that the ball is lodged; much can go on between when the ball enters a glove and the second and a half later when the glove is removed and tossed.
[/QUOTE]


I think Carl answered this question earlier - "The FED position is thus very clear: If the fielder believes he must toss the ball/glove combo to another fielder, that is PROOF the ball is lodged: dead ball, two bases."

This will be easy to administer in FED games, if it happens at all.

[/QUOTE]

Yes but:

Two outs. Batter hits hard bouncer to F1 who cannot dislodge ball from glove. F1 beats B/R to first in a foot race. Three outs.

F1 takes glove and lodged ball to dugout. Because he did not attempt to throw his glove to F3, the lodged ball is deemed not lodged.


Seems FED has stepped through the looking glass.

I just happened to think of an interesting scenario to this unique situation. If doing FED ball and F1 snags a hotshot by him and unable to get the ball from the glove and tosses glove and ball to F3 and while in flight ball comes out and F3 catches ball before the runner gets there. What do we have? Carl if you are there I really would like a response. Thanks

According to FED the decision to throw the glove creates the deadball situation and award for lodged ball. Once the glove is thrown, it matters not what happens to the ball. The play is over.

Garth thanks, I understand that according to the rule as soon as glove is tossed the play becomes dead, but on that rare occasion that you get a coach that knows the rules he is going to berate and intimidate and probably end up being restricted or ejected because the ball came out of the glove and it was caught not the glove. I understand the rule and in 19years of umpiring I have never seen either happen, not to say that it won't but it hasn't yet. Seems like FED has tied it's hands on this one again. Steve

I agree that this play will be, at best, rare. None-the-less, I believe that FED should be moving towards OBR, not away.

I have always defended the FED modifications that truly affect safety and increased participation, but, even though FED has implied, with a straight face, no less, that this is a safety issue, it's clearly more a case of yielding to those who choose to be different simply because they can.

<b>end up being restricted or ejected</b>

You say that like it's a <i>bad</i> thing.

Not always a bad thing, unless the assistant is even denser. I like you wish that they would get together and find a common thread between each level and stick to those rules. I also agree with the FED safety rules but this is one that seems to me that if the thrown glove was to hit the baserunner it would hurt a lot less with all that cowhide wrapped around it, instead of some big kid that just let loose with a 90+ to the shoulder blade, just my way of thinking. Steve

Relatively speaking, throwing a glove with ball inside is safer than throwing a ball. Many of the Fed rules differences have nothing to do with safety. For example, Fed wants a strike called if batter steps out of the box, when he is not supposed to. What's that got to do with safety? Fed just wants to be different and I wish they would stick to safety differences, like malicious contact, force play slide rule, etc.

You have seen those highlight tapes where a MLB player tosses the glove for the out.

You know that "everyone" has seen it.

You know there's going to be a riot at the field if you award a dead ball and two bases.

Is this a case for "the expected call" - rules be damned?

<b>For example, Fed wants a strike called if batter steps out of the box, when he is not supposed to. What's that got to do with safety? </b>


FED modifications usually come under one of three headings: Safety, increased particiation and speed-up. The one you've mentioned, called infrequently, comes under the speed-up heading.

Some that seem purely gratuitious would include the balk differences, the new intepretation on a lodged ball that began this thread and obstruction. In my opinon, there would seem to be no justification for the differences in those areas.

It's possible you don't know this. The NCAA created the "stay-in-the-box" rule in 1994. I suppose they just wanted to be different. But the FED said, "Not through the iron duke!" They adopted that rule in 1995. I suppose they just did <i>not</i> want to be different.

For 2004, the NCAA (gratuitously?) adopted the major element of the FED obstruction rule. They left OBR Obstruction Type (a) and Type (b) in the dirt, which is where Jim Evans would leave them.

The OBR, everyone knows, is the worst written of the three major books. And it will ALWAYS be out-of-step - and poorly written - because they never make changes. Player's union, you know.

Note: On obstruction: The two amateur books are not <i>exactly</i> the same, but they are <i>essentially</i> the same. The only difference remaining is that the NCAA umpire doesn't have to award an obstructed runner a base if the defense wasn't playing on him.

Hmmmm,
 

"FED modifications usually come under one of three headings: Safety, increased particiation and speed-up."

Garth:

I have always intoned that there are FOUR reasons why FED develops rules:

1) Additional Participation Opportunities

2) Safety

3) Speed-up rules or what could be consider "Anti-slow play rules", and

4) "Dumb Umpire Rules"

DURs are developed because at any one time FED cannot trust the quality of umpires in a game. Much like Little League there are just too many games to be covered by umpires with equal abilities.

During the 1960's FED started a few major rule views that simply atttempted to take certain "difficult" decisions out of the hands of umpires and place them into the rules.

Since the Federation system has, with out much doubt, the best OFFICIAL book for interpretations (The Case Book) it makes certain things easier to identify as Case Rules rather than judgement issues.

I, along with PapaC, relished in the "old" Federation Appeal rule . . . that change was not a great change for games umpired by lower level umpires.

I think this rule follows that spirit. It is now written clearly and should be called as Federation desires.

We are faced with the "common knowledge" arena in almost ever game. My best example of that is when a fan starts getting on the PU when a pitcher goes to his mouth (and wipes off) at the FED level -- I hear constant harping about umpires not knowing the rules because "everyone knows you can't got to your mouth shile on the mound".

Carl:

And I agree with the changes, Evans and you (if that matters to anyone). At the Federation level there should NEVER be an differnece between Type A or Type B obstruction.

It should be left in the dirt.

While that determination and ruling can be made by an experienced, well trained umpire at any level when we deal with the multitude of inexperienced and questionable abilities of some High School level umpires we should simplify things.

We'll make it through this -- trust me!

Tee





[Edited by Tim C on Dec 20th, 2004 at 06:49 PM]

<b>I think this rule follows that spirit. It is now written clearly and should be called as Federation desires.
</b>

Of course it will be called as FED desires. No problem there. Written cleanly? Nope. Got more holes than a sieve.

I've always agreed with anyone who so stated that FED's case book is the best in the rules biz. (There, that doesn't limit me to you and that other guy.) That's never been an issue. I just disagree to some extent as to which rules differences are really beneficial. Obviously you are closer in line with Carl and other giants in the industry than I am.

But what do I know? I'm just a little ol' barely qualified umpire from Spokane.

DUR
 

I think there is an element of the 'dumb umpire rules', for all the reasons already stated.

However, this 'ball lodged in glove' deal really has me troubled. I can't fathom why the FED would do this just for the sake of being different.

Re: DUR
 

Peruvian: The rest of that famous quote is: Catcher: "Ok, where was that pitch at, a$$hole?"

Now, now
 

Spo ... Kane ..., Worshington. I've seen the advertisements.

My, you are humble.

Just funning, Garth. From my view, yur a big city dude. :D

Don't make sense
 

this is crazy. If he does what is in (a) above its still going to be a balk or we're going to have lots of "splaining" to do and probably an ejection to follow.

I see the point of (b) but (a) makes no sense at all.

Thanks
David

Re: Don't make sense
 

I have to agree on this. The fast turning of the shoulders has always been looked at as being a feint and thus a balk at any level. It will lead to serious arguments on a ball field and probably ejections of coaches that are, in theory and history, right, but in reality or the new rule/interpetation are not.

The "if the fielder can pull it out, it's not lodged" ruling leads to a problem with the "pitched ball gets past the catcher and sticks in the backstop" play.

Is the pitch lodged as soon as it sticks? (That's the current ruling) Is it only lodged if the fielder (usually F2) can't pull the ball loose?

I have another what if as to what Jim asked. The ball gets past the catcher and it does stick in the backstop or pads as we have at most parks, and as the catcher is in the process of going to the backstop to retrieve the ball it drops, do you kill it as soon as you turn around or do you wait until you see that the catcher can't retrieve it without going into the pads or fence to get it. My opinion is you wait until you see that he has to pull the ball free, but I read it in FED that as soon as the umpire sees it lodged he is to kill the play.