Babe Ruth Unreported substitute

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by PABlue

Rich I should have been more clear in my first post,I forgot to add that I needed what penalty if any is there. I had found the rule just not if there was a penalty. I didn't want to make a mistake by saying it's not in the book ( that I could find) so there must not be a penalty. Thanks

3.08(b) (b) Any play made by, or on, any of the above mentioned unannounced substitutes shall be legal.

3.03 A player, or players, may be substituted during a game at any time the ball is dead.


Why would anyone think there should be a penalty?

[PABlue]

Because the umpire is old and senile today! Also he doesn't seem to be reading to clearly or else he would have seen the above ruling . Lets blame it on lack of sleep and stupidty of this week.Here is a list of things I have heard or seen this week.
1. Unreported substitute called out when lady keeping the book tried to tell the home team the batter was a new player. ( Bases were loaded with 2 outs)
2. Ball falls out of fielders glove on pop fly when he hits the ground.( He held that long enough.)
3. Coaches not knowing when IFF was in effect.
4. Other coaches not wanting runners to be able to advance on a dropped IFF.
5. Hands are part of the bat.( Again)
6. Fielders standing on bag without the ball( That's obstuction coach.What's that?)
7. Runner out for not sliding even if play not being made.
8. OK to run over catcher if he's in the baseline.( Cal Ripken Ball)
9. Runner has to return to the base before picher has the ball.(CRB)
10. Coach wants a tag to be made on runner who left early on a fly ball when he is trying to return instead of just touching the base.
That has been my week so the stupidness must be catching up with me to. Sorry guys I'll get it together.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by PABlue

2. Ball falls out of fielders glove on pop fly when he hits the ground.( He held that long enough.)

What did the umpire call? The correct call would be "No Catch." It doesn't matter "long enough." Long enough for what? 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."

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

What did the umpire call? The correct call would be "No Catch." It doesn't matter "long enough." Long enough for what? 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."

Sounds like he called it a catch.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

What did the umpire call? The correct call would be "No Catch." It doesn't matter "long enough." Long enough for what? 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."

That's the stupidest thing I've heard all week... and cdump was pretty active, so that's saying a lot.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

That's the stupidest thing I've heard all week... and cdump was pretty active, so that's saying a lot.

And what is so stupid about it? If a player catches the ball, and then runs into the wall, collides with a player, or falls down, and drops the ball, it's NO CATCH. There is no such thing as "held it long enough" without a voluntary release. You show me in the book where it says "held it long enough" without the voluntary release.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

And what is so stupid about it? If a player catches the ball, and then runs into the wall, collides with a player, or falls down, and drops the ball, it's NO CATCH. There is no such thing as "held it long enough" without a voluntary release. You show me in the book where it says "held it long enough" without the voluntary release.

If you had said any of that, it would not have been stupid, or even incorrect. What you ACTUALLY said, however, wins the prize. "If the player ran 20 feet with the ball, tripped and fell, and the ball falls out of his glove, it's "No Catch." That's complete nonsense.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

If you had said any of that, it would not have been stupid, or even incorrect. What you ACTUALLY said, however, wins the prize. "If the player ran 20 feet with the ball, tripped and fell, and the ball falls out of his glove, it's "No Catch." That's complete nonsense.

Not really. A player covers 20 feet of ground in about 5 or 6 strides, which takes only a few short seconds. If he is running with the ball, and falls down, and drops the ball involuntarily, it ain't a catch. This is considered "immediately following his contact with the ball." I think my original answer is totally backed up by rule 2.00 A CATCH.

[DG]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

And what is so stupid about it? If a player catches the ball, and then runs into the wall, collides with a player, or falls down, and drops the ball, it's NO CATCH. There is no such thing as "held it long enough" without a voluntary release. You show me in the book where it says "held it long enough" without the voluntary release.

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?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by DG

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?

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

What did the umpire call? The correct call would be "No Catch." It doesn't matter "long enough." Long enough for what? 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."

Sorry didn't read all the posts.
edit