Catch/No Catch

[charliej47]

I was doing a game last summer and I was the BU. there were two outs and the batter hits a hard grounder to F1. F1 bobbles the ball and traps it against his chest and steps on 1st base. The B/R stops running and heads for the dugout. As soon as he stepped in the dugout I announce 'runner out for abandoning his base'. My partner complained that I should not have made the statement and just call the runner out. I stated that for the age group (U12), I was informing the coach and the score keeper the reason for the out. My partner stated let them come to me and ask the question if they needed information. I said for older kids I do but for younger ones they sometimes needed explanations so as not to do it again.

[UmpJM]

charlie,

The situation you present has nothing to do with "catch/no catch".

Also, technically, the abandonment rule does not apply to a BR before he reaches 1B; but that's really a technicality.

I probably would have just announced the out when I judged the BR out without giving the reason, but I doubt I would "complain" if my partner did as you did. But then, I tend not to hold "rules clinics" while I am officiating a game.

JM

[bobbybanaduck]

the pitcher hadn't secured the ball by the time he got from the mound over to the bag? weird.

[UmpJM]

bobby,

Just "going with my gut" here, but I would be willing to lay even money that by "F1", charlie actually meant the 1st baseman.

Apparently, the F1 (whoever he was) did not gain secure possession until after he stopped touching 1B as well.

JM

[SanDiegoSteve]

I read it as the "F1" (really F3), having actually securely trapped the ball against his chest while he stepped on the base. What is the problem? Call the runner out! A fielder may certainly trap the ball against his body and still be considered in possession. I don't get the question.

[UmpJM]

Steve,

You might want to re-read the part of the rule(s) that says, "...hand or glove...".

JM

[Bob Bainter]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I read it as the "F1" (really F3), having actually securely trapped the ball against his chest while he stepped on the base. What is the problem? Call the runner out! A fielder may certainly trap the ball against his body and still be considered in possession. I don't get the question.

I agree with UmpJM, Steve-o...unless somebody changed the rule since 2004

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I read it as the "F1" (really F3), having actually securely trapped the ball against his chest while he stepped on the base. What is the problem? Call the runner out! A fielder may certainly trap the ball against his body and still be considered in possession. I don't get the question.

Perhaps you are confusing a catch of a batted ball with this play?

[UmpJM]

MrUmpire,

While I would gladly stipulate that a batted ball might still very well be (oddly) "in flight" in the sitch posed (i.e. while "trapped" against a fielder's chest), I would argue that that same pesky "hand or glove" requirement must ultimately be met in the case of a "catch" as well.

JM

[Bob Bainter]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

MrUmpire,

While I would gladly stipulate that a batted ball might still very well be (oddly) "in flight" in the sitch posed (i.e. while "trapped" against a fielder's chest), I would argue that that same pesky "hand or glove" requirement must ultimately be met in the case of a "catch" as well.

JM

Of course you must have the ball in hand or glove to make a catch.

[bossman72]

Steve - hand or glove needed for a catch

Charlie - Did you loudly call "safe" so the runner could hear it? I assume he went to the dugout after crossing first because didn't hear your safe call...

[Bob Bainter]

Originally Posted by SAump

Saying too much will get you into trouble. Someone will not like the explanation you give. Not calling attention to one's self should matter. It would be wiser and less trouble to remain silent and ride the bus with everyone else.

SAump is on the money...very good advice...besides...an out is an out, is an out, and so on, and so on

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

MrUmpire,

While I would gladly stipulate that a batted ball might still very well be (oddly) "in flight" in the sitch posed (i.e. while "trapped" against a fielder's chest), I would argue that that same pesky "hand or glove" requirement must ultimately be met in the case of a "catch" as well.

JM

What I was referring to with my comment of a batted ball, was a bobbled catch trapped with the arm against the body, without the ball hitting the ground first, THEN being grabbed with the opposite hand.

I'm sorry if I misled you with my less than compete comment.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Perhaps you are confusing a catch of a batted ball with this play?

No, what I meant was trapped against his body with his hand. He was bobbling the ball, then trapped it against his chest. He never stated what he trapped the ball against his chest with. I just naturally figured (not assumed) that he was bobbling the ball, then at the last second trapped it between his glove or hand and his body. Which would be an out.

Perhaps we need the complete story. It seems like we are missing information.

[bobbybanaduck]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

No, what I meant was trapped against his body with his hand. He was bobbling the ball, then trapped it against his chest. He never stated what he trapped the ball against his chest with. I just naturally figured (not assumed) that he was bobbling the ball, then at the last second trapped it between his glove or hand and his body. Which would be an out.

Perhaps we need the complete story. It seems like we are missing information.

you're not going to win this argument, sir.