"Fanboy" question

Originally Posted by rulesmaven

Baseball's not my sport, so I'm strictly a fanboy on this one. Interesting play in high school game.

Routine ground ball, 1B drops ball and while the ball is in the dirt grasps it with non-glove hand just before batter/runner touches the bag. The ball is still touching the dirt when the BR touches the bag, but it's not moving withing the fielder's bare hand.

No immediate signal. Two umps talked about the play for some time before calling the runner out. It did not appear there was a dispute about what either of them saw, but instead what the rule was, which was surprising to me because I would assume this is a very common play/case. I thought I over heard some discussion whether the ball was touching the bag -- would it matter?

Just kind of curious.

Assuming F3 had his foot on base at time he grasped ball and before BR touches base, the question between the two of them was probably whether or not F3 had control of the ball. The fact that it's a bare hand vs glove is not the issue. The issue is control of the ball or whether F3 has merely pinned the ball to the dirt. Normally the umpire might shout "show me the ball" to indicate control. Neither apparently did so it becomes a judgment and hence the two umps got together. From the rule book 8-4-1f. I hope this helps

f. after a dropped third strike (see 8-4-1e) or a fair hit, if the ball held by any fielder touches the batter before the batter touches first base; or if any fielder, while holding the ball in his grasp, touches first base or touches first base with the ball before the batter-runner touches first base:

[rulesmaven]

Yes, sorry should have described the play better -- 3's foot was on the bag. He did not catch the original throw but knocked it down, kept his foot on the bag, bent at the waist and attempted to pick up the ball with his hand, but fumbled it, and then instead of trying again, just closed his hand on the ball, while it was still on the ground next to the bag, just before the runner touched the base. He stayed there just like that for a second or two getting his balance, then lifted the ball in the hand without dropping it.

Originally Posted by rulesmaven

Yes, sorry should have described the play better -- 3's foot was on the bag. He did not catch the original throw but knocked it down, kept his foot on the bag, bent at the waist and attempted to pick up the ball with his hand, but fumbled it, and then instead of trying again, just closed his hand on the ball, while it was still on the ground next to the bag, just before the runner touched the base. He stayed there just like that for a second or two getting his balance, then lifted the ball in the hand without dropping it.

If he tried to gain his balance a couple of seconds, I'd probably rule he didn't have control, but it's probably one you have to see in person. Could go either way.

[rulesmaven]

Given the rule you've given, I think they probably got it right. It's kind of hard to describe live action in words on a message board in a sport you're not familiar with. Sounds like the fact that the ball was touching the dirt while the player's hand was on it is not necessarily inconsistent with control, in which case I think that it was fair to say he had "control," even though he was kind of using the hand with the ball to keep his balance. It wasn't moving or anything.

Anyway, thanks.

[David B]

Originally Posted by rulesmaven

Yes, sorry should have described the play better -- 3's foot was on the bag. He did not catch the original throw but knocked it down, kept his foot on the bag, bent at the waist and attempted to pick up the ball with his hand, but fumbled it, and then instead of trying again, just closed his hand on the ball, while it was still on the ground next to the bag, just before the runner touched the base. He stayed there just like that for a second or two getting his balance, then lifted the ball in the hand without dropping it.

You said he picked the ball up with no problem so you could rule it a catch by rule. This is an umpires judgement call as to whether he secured possession before the runner hit the bag.

The rules do talk about having the ball in the glove and touching the ground being a catch, and it could also apply to the bare hand.

I edited to add that in Carl's BRD it confirms that J/R states " a ball is "gloved" when a fielder gains possession of the ball in his hand or glove."

Bottom line is the umpire has to decide did he have control or not and make the call. The rules seem to give a little latitude on this play.

Thanks
David