I see by the smileys that you are joking here, but really. . .as I said, we are talking about continuous action on the play, immediately following contact with the ball. The mound analogy is patently absurd.:rolleyes:

Okay -- he's right. Of course, so are you. the problem is that he's talking about a different play than you are, and either is possible from the post.

Instead of just taking the pot-shot at him, you could have replied with, "you're correct if ..." or "that's not a true statement unless ...." or something.

I agree that there's no "magic distance" that a fielder must run. If he's demonstrated control, then it's a catch if he runs 1 foot. If he hasn't, then it isn't a catch even if he runs 300'.

:eek: Just so you guys know the comment he held that long enough was from the coach.I called no catch.

Per Evans, "Keys for determining a catch: secure possession, firmly holding, dropped while in the act a making throw, held long enough, complete control, and voluntary and intentional release."

You are saying that if an outfielder makes an easy catch, runs 20 feet with ball securely held in his glove, trips on his own feet and falls down and the ball rolls out you are going to rule NO CATCH?

God help me, but I might agree with SDS (somewhat) on a portion of this debate.

There is "running 20 feet" and there is "running 20 feet." Circumstances, as I believe Bob suggested, may make a difference in the call.

Picture this:

F9 is running in at full gallop, snags a fly below his waist and his momentum carries him another 20 feet, about 5 full strides, he falls and when he hits the ground, fully stretched out, the ball pops out of his glove.

Now this:

F9 jogging casually toward the infield makes a fairly routine catch on a high pop up for out 3. He continues his leisurely jog toward his dugout 20', about 6-7 steps, trips, falls and the ball rolls out.

Any difference in calls?

This is the scenario I was describing, not someone jogging casually with the ball long after the catch was made. Sorry I didn't draw a friggin diagram to indicate this, so the slower people could keep up. I thought it was self-explanatory. I should know better on this forum, where every i must be dotted and every t crossed.

You have agreed with me on many things before. I agree with most of what you write. Not as different as you think.

Why would I mean anything other than a continuous action during a play? It is just disturbing that anyone would think differently.

If any of us could read minds we wouldn't have time to spend on this forum for raking in the cash with other endeavors. Your example was poorly worded because you did not say what you meant. Your example: "If the player ran 20 feet with the ball, tripped and fell, and the ball falls out of his glove, it's "No Catch." He must show a voluntary release to be counted as a "Catch.". What are we supposed to think you meant? Your position was clear.

Garth presents one example of running 20 feet that I think most of us would rule NO CATCH, and the other I think most would rule CATCH because he had control of his body, until he tripped on his own feet, which had nothing to do with the catch, and he held it LONG ENOUGH.

It's appropriate for you to be rude and condescending, but it's unbecoming when the same tone is used on you ?

Do as I say, not as I do, I guess ?!?

Didn't think I was being either rude or condescending. Sorry.

I just can't believe that grown men couldn't tell what I meant by my statement.

Even the 98 year old granny in the top row knows that if the play is well overwith, that dropping the ball does not negate a catch. I did not feel that I had to spell that out.

Did anyone catch this post? Should have cleared up my original meaning immediately.

Now I'm being condescending!:)

If I need an out, then it's a catch.

Oh no here we go again!

The original statement was, "2. Ball falls out of fielders glove on pop fly when he hits the ground.( He held that long enough.)", to which you immediately replied that there was no such thing as "long enough". Since my (probably over-attacking) early responses, you've clarified, and I think we're on the same page. But it was your early assertion that there is "no such thing as long enough", when obviously there is (and you have stated you also believe that there is), that drew my disagreement.

It was not "obvious what you meant", if what you meant was that "there's no such thing as long enough" really means ... "if he's still not in control of his body, it's not long enough". We don't have any clue whether this fielder was in control of himself when he tripped.

I do apologize for being too much "on the attack" on that, but hopefully you now understand why I disagreed so vehemently.

Yes, I understand. I did oversimplify, and used a broad sweeping and hasty generalization as well. I can see how my statement could easily have mislead people as to what I was referring.

I just hate being compared to CUMP6!:) That is one category I don't want to lead in. I say enough stupid things, but I didn't think I had reached that "special" level yet.:eek:

Sorry didn't read all the posts.
edit