No Catch in Tigers/Twins Game

[SanDiegoSteve]

1. Good call. The fielder (Span) was not transferring the ball, he was flipping it out of his glove. If you are going to flip the ball as your transfer move, you had better not drop it. No catch. Paul Emmel nailed it.

2. Rick Sutcliffe is a Boob.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

1. Good call. The fielder (Span) was not transferring the ball, he was flipping it out of his glove. If you are going to flip the ball as your transfer move, you had better not drop it. No catch. Paul Emmel nailed it.

2. Rick Sutcliffe is a Boob.

A flip is deliberate - a voluntary release - thus a valid catch.

[SanDiegoSteve]

It really looked pretty involuntary to me. He was running and trying to stop and it sure looked more like a bobble than any kind of voluntary action on his part. Maybe slowed down like the replay was it could be construed that way, but in real time it would be tough to call it a voluntary release.

Rick Sutcliffe is still a Boob nonetheless. You can't blame what happened after that play on the umpire's call. Typical rat commentary.

It sure looked as though Emmel had enough of an angle to make the correct call, and getting farther out there wouldn't have changed anything. Sutcliffe is dwelling on that way too much.

[DG]

Emmel got one chance to make this call. I got several as I rewind and replay on DVR. Did not look voluntary to me. Did not look like a flip either. Looked like ball popped out as he reached for it. Good call on the one split second chance. And thus the no change...

When did Sutcliffe become a RAT? Retired players who become announcers are just that. They know less about the rules than the RATs.

[johnnyg08]

Had they reversed it, it would've been a bigger mess...either way, I think they had to eat the call right or wrong since there was a baserunner.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

It really looked pretty involuntary to me. He was running and trying to stop and it sure looked more like a bobble than any kind of voluntary action on his part. Maybe slowed down like the replay was it could be construed that way, but in real time it would be tough to call it a voluntary release.

.

Make up you mind. In the OP you said:

The fielder (Span) was not transferring the ball, he was flipping it out of his glove

non-sequitur

For anyone who has played the game, flipping the ball to your bare hand is definitely an on purpose transfer attempt and thus a voluntary release.

[BaBa Booey]

Originally Posted by DG

Emmel got one chance to make this call. I got several as I rewind and replay on DVR. Did not look voluntary to me. Did not look like a flip either. Looked like ball popped out as he reached for it. Good call on the one split second chance. And thus the no change...

When did Sutcliffe become a RAT? Retired players who become announcers are just that. They know less about the rules than the RATs.

I don't think it was a flip either. He was not in control of his body and as he went to reach in for the ball, it popped out of his glove (in other words, the ball didn't come out as a result of Span pulling it out, it came out before).

The comment at the end of the clip is particularly hilarious when the announcer counts the steps Span takes, as though that is relevant.

[TwoBits]

Just saw the replay on Sportscenter. The umpires got it right.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Make up you mind. In the OP you said:

The fielder (Span) was not transferring the ball, he was flipping it out of his glove

non-sequitur

For anyone who has played the game, flipping the ball to your bare hand is definitely an on purpose transfer attempt and thus a voluntary release.

First, the OP was written rather hastily, immediately after viewing the replay a couple of times. The "flip" I referred to was actually Span trying to get control of the ball as it was squirting out of his glove very involuntarily. I should have thought my words out more carefully knowing a cunning linguist and renown wordsmith like you would catch it.

Second, I have played and/or umpired this game my entire childhood and adult life, in thousands and thousands of games, and I pretty well know a voluntary release when I see one, and that was not one.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

A flip is deliberate - a voluntary release - thus a valid catch.

Maybe in LL it is, Rich, but in "big boy ball" if you flip it out to transfer it, you better control it! If you flip it and it falls to the ground, it is not a catch. That said, if an infielder makes a catch for the 3rd out and flips the ball out of his glove to the mound, that is still a catch.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Chris Young released a ball from his glove to his hand below after a catch last Friday night, and dropped it at his feet, after missing his hand. Jason Werth circled the bases while Upton messed around, thinking he had a catch.

Ruling: No catch.

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=7620299

[JJ]

Kevin, thanks for posting the video link. Personally, I think the call could have gone either way.
If this was a second baseman working the front end of a double play, would anyone call the runner safe at second?

JJ

[dash_riprock]

On the transfer. Jeez.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Maybe in LL it is, Rich, but in "big boy ball" if you flip it out to transfer it, you better control it! If you flip it and it falls to the ground, it is not a catch.

You are changing the rule from voluntary release to transfer with control.

[callstrikes]

Originally Posted by JJ

Kevin, thanks for posting the video link. Personally, I think the call could have gone either way.
If this was a second baseman working the front end of a double play, would anyone call the runner safe at second?

JJ

There is a big difference between a ball falling straight down, as opposed to coming out to the side on the front end of a double play. Dropping the ball indicates dropping the ball.......no control. I would certainly call the runner safe in your example. To the side, sure; on the transfer.