Babe Ruth Unreported substitute

[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.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

If you had reason to believe he didn't have the ball or was stumbling over the entirety of the 20 foot 5-6 stride distance, I could conceive of your ruling coming into play - but not as a rule. Voluntary release is one of the things we can use to determine a catch ... but it is not the ONLY thing, and is not REQUIRED. Let me ask... F9 catches a routine fly, runs toward his dugout, ball still in glove, and trips over the pitcher's mound, dropping the ball upon impact. You putting everyone back on bases now? Of course not. You stated, "There is no such thing as "held it long enough" ", would the CF in my sitch not have held it long enough to be considered a catch.

Again, voluntary release proves possession ... but possession does not require voluntary release - especially when the event causing the involuntary release is not related to the catch attempt at all.

I have a game to work. I'll let the rest of the piranha chew you up on this one. Anyone else out there feel like he's right, please chew me up and explain why. I'll check in tomorrow.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

If you had reason to believe he didn't have the ball or was stumbling over the entirety of the 20 foot 5-6 stride distance, I could conceive of your ruling coming into play - but not as a rule. Voluntary release is one of the things we can use to determine a catch ... but it is not the ONLY thing, and is not REQUIRED. Let me ask... F9 catches a routine fly, runs toward his dugout, ball still in glove, and trips over the pitcher's mound, dropping the ball upon impact. You putting everyone back on bases now? Of course not. You stated, "There is no such thing as "held it long enough" ", would the CF in my sitch not have held it long enough to be considered a catch.

Well, if the fielder is still in the process of gaining control over his body after contacting the ball (and why else would he be running with the ball?), then the play is still going on, I'm sorry to have to correct you, but a voluntary release is required. A voluntary release is one of the things we do use, not can use to determine a catch.

You're absurd analogy of F9 tripping over the pitcher's mound is the stupidest thing I've heard all week. I was speaking of the continuous nature of the play (as in immediately following contact with the ball), not a fielder running in 200 feet after the inning is over and the teams are changing sides. That would be ridiculous. Oh, and BTW, F9 is the RF, not the CF.

You tell me what is the difference between running 20 ft. with the ball, and hitting a wall and dropping the ball, and running 20 ft., falling down and dropping the ball. Both are during continuous action of the play, and both require (that's right require) a voluntary release, as well as a judgment that the fielder had the ball long enough. One without the other is not how the rule works.

Here is the exact wording of the rule:

In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Well, if the fielder is still in the process of gaining control over his body after contacting the ball (and why else would he be running with the ball?), then the play is still going on, I'm sorry to have to correct you, but a voluntary release is required. A voluntary release is one of the things we do use, not can use to determine a catch.

You're absurd analogy of F9 tripping over the pitcher's mound is the stupidest thing I've heard all week. I was speaking of the continuous nature of the play (as in immediately following contact with the ball), not a fielder running in 200 feet after the inning is over and the teams are changing sides. That would be ridiculous. Oh, and BTW, F9 is the RF, not the CF.

You tell me what is the difference between running 20 ft. with the ball, and hitting a wall and dropping the ball, and running 20 ft., falling down and dropping the ball. Both are during continuous action of the play, and both require (that's right require) a voluntary release, as well as a judgment that the fielder had the ball long enough. One without the other is not how the rule works.

Here is the exact wording of the rule:

In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional.

So then tripping over the mound DOES invalidate the catch because it dodn't meet the "and" portion.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

So then tripping over the mound DOES invalidate the catch because it dodn't meet the "and" portion.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

I'll let the rest of the piranha chew you up on this one. Anyone else out there feel like he's right, please chew me up and explain why. I'll check in tomorrow.

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'.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

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

Now I'm being condescending!

[LMan]

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

[3appleshigh]

Oh no here we go again!

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

There are smart people that sometimes say something not-so-smart... I think most of us (self included) land in this category.

Canadacoach6 has invented his own category. I apologize for comparing the two of you in any way!