Catch? Out?

[mpklein]

Last night a batter hit a relatively hard line-drive to 2nd baseman, but the ball pops out of his glove and is deflected into the air. The ball does not touch the ground and the right fielder catches the ball. Catch? Out?

[UmpJM]

mpklein,

Yes, that's a legal catch and an out (assuming the F9 demonstrated voluntary & intentional release after gaining secure possession in his hand or glove). (See Rule 2.00, Catch & In Flight).

JM

[mpklein]

It turned out to be a triple play because the umpire called out both R1 and R2for leaving early on appeal. R1 left the bag early before the 2nd baseman touched the ball. However, R2 left the bag after the 2nd baseman touched the ball, but before the outfielder touched and caught the ball. Was the umpire correct calling R2 out?

[UmpJM]

mpklein,

As described, no the umpire was not correct. Any runner has met his retouch obligation as long as he was in contact with his TOP base as or after the first touch by the first fielder. Once again, Rule 2.00, Catch (in the Comment,towards the end).

JM

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by PWL

If a similar play were to happen in foul territory, the runners can only leave the base at the time of the catch. Take for instance, foul ball down the right field line. Second baseman and first baseman give chase. The first baseman reaches out, dives and the ball flips out of his glove. It pops up into the air without touching the ground and the second baseman dives to catch it. At this time, the runners are allowed to tag and advance at their own risk.

mpklein,

I would encourage you to completely disregard PWL's remarks, because he has entered a JACKASS in this race.

JM

P.S. Where do you get this B.S. PWL?

[lmathews19]

I guess it makes a big difference if one were in fair or foul according to PWL

I hate to state the obvious, but that makes no sense. In fact, it's quite funny

[UmpJM]

PWL,

Originally Posted by PWL

Because it's just foul ball until it's caught. And we all know you cannot advance on a foul ball......... at least some of us do.

Actually, it ain't nothin' before it's caught. And, those of us who have actually read a rulebook know that a runner CAN advance on a caught foul ball. As long as said runner has met his retouch obligation. Which would be on the "first touch". Moron. (No offense intended towards the developmentally disabled.)

How long will it be before you delete your erroneous posts on THIS thread - as is your habit?

JM

[BigUmp56]

Lets go back and see who is twisting things. This was the initial post.

Originally Posted by mpklein

Last night a batter hit a relatively hard line-drive to 2nd baseman, but the ball pops out of his glove and is deflected into the air. The ball does not touch the ground and the right fielder catches the ball. Catch? Out?

This was your reply which was an obvious error.

Originally Posted by PWL

If a similar play were to happen in foul territory, the runners can only leave the base at the time of the catch. Take for instance, foul ball down the right field line. Second baseman and first baseman give chase. The first baseman reaches out, dives and the ball flips out of his glove. It pops up into the air without touching the ground and the second baseman dives to catch it. At this time, the runners are allowed to tag and advance at their own risk.

Then after coach JM admonished you for giving out false information, Boomer Sooner cited a clear and concise ruling that we all knew was correct.

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

MLB Rule 2.00 (Catch) Comment: A catch is legal if the ball is finally held by any fielder, even though juggled, or held by another fielder before it touches the ground. Runners may leave their bases the instant the first fielder touches the ball. A fielder may reach over a fence, railing, rope or other line of demarcation to make a catch. He may jump on top of a railing, or canvas that may be in foul ground. No interference should be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing, rope or into a stand to catch a ball. He does so at his own risk.

That's when you came back with this well thought out drivel.

Originally Posted by PWL

What don't you understand? Are you that big of a smug JACKASS you don't know what actually constitutes a foul ball? When the first fielder touched the ball in foul territory it became a foul ball. When the second fielder caught the ball in foul territory it became a catch. You can look at it any way you want, and this is the proper call.

Fair ground.....touch

Foul ground.....catch

Once again you find yourself all alone on the Island of Misfit Umpires. There to stay until there comes a time when you're willing to admitt that you are more often than not, wrong in your rulings. I'm expecting that a skating rink in hell will be built before that happens.



Tim.

[BigUmp56]

I forgot to ask you something, PWL. Did you actually talk to the real Jim Evans or your alter ego that's posting on Mcgriffs?



Tim.

[LakeErieUmp]

Hey Tim - Take it easy! He's been talking to the real Jim Evans - the brother of Bob Evans of the sausage restauants in Ohio! Oh - were you thinking he meant THAT "Jim Evans"?

[lmathews19]

So Mr. Evan's word is superior to that of the rulebook? That's like saying a pastor's (or priest's ) word is superior to the Bible. Even if he did say this, the rulebook, as everybody has tried to point out to you, completely goes against what you are saying. Can you please just admit it and we will move on?

[SanDiegoSteve]

uh-oh!........

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by lmathews19

So Mr. Evan's word is superior to that of the rulebook? That's like saying a pastor's (or priest's ) word is superior to the Bible. Even if he did say this, the rulebook, as everybody has tried to point out to you, completely goes against what you are saying. Can you please just admit it and we will move on?

No, he won't admitt it. From my experience with this person he's shown time and time again that he's not one to be reasoned with. He'll twist it around into a personal attack in an attempt to deflect the discussion away from his incompetency. He'll now try to rationalize what we know to be a irrational thought proccess.


Tim.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by PWL

Way to cut and paste to try and suit your needs. You only make your self look foolish when do this. Anyone with a pulse sees right through you. As long as you have your legion behind you, you feel safe in your assertion that your right. Believe me I have spoken to the esteemed Mr. Evans and he described that a fair ball only need to be touched and a foul ball should be caught. I've asked anyone to feel free to contact the man for his exact varification. Admit it the two rules do not jive together as written. I feel it is something to be look into for clarification.

I quoted your posts in the exact order they were presented as you responded. My "legion" is anyone with a firm understanding that you're not all that brushed up on the rules. That would include nearly every umpire on this site. Did you even discuss the situation where the ball is deflected and subsequently caught by another fielder over foul territory with Evans? You'd be lying if you said you did, if you're not already lying when you say you spoke to him in the first place.



Tim.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by PWL

Way to cut and paste to try and suit your needs. You only make your self look foolish when do this. Anyone with a pulse sees right through you. As long as you have your legion behind you, you feel safe in your assertion that your right. Believe me I have spoken to the esteemed Mr. Evans and he described that a fair ball only need to be touched and a foul ball should be caught. I've asked anyone to feel free to contact the man for his exact varification. Admit it the two rules do not jive together as written. I feel it is something to be look into for clarification.

PWL,

So you think the two fielders can just bat the ball back and forth to each other with their gloves, with nobody catching the fly ball over foul territory, all the way in towards the infield, in order to keep runners from advancing on a sacrifice fly after the ball was touched? If you say "yes, that's what I mean" then you is a fool, as they used to say on my block.

Admit that your good friend Jim Evans meant that the runners could advance on a caught foul fly, but did not mean the runners had to wait until the ball was caught to start running. The very idea is ludicrous. Even Ludacris thinks it is ludicrous. I talked to him this afternoon.