Catch question- Bizzaro world play

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Intentional Drop.

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

N/A to an outfielder.

Perhaps you could justify considering the juggling outfielder as now an infielder, get him for an intentional drop thereby preventing a cheap DP.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by bluehair

Perhaps you could justify considering the juggling outfielder as now an infielder, get him for an intentional drop thereby preventing a cheap DP.

And, please tell, how would you justify it?

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by yawetag

And, please tell, how would you justify it?

If he was juggling the ball while moving towards the infield, he could be considered "a fielder who occupies a position in the infield" (the definition of an infielder). Actually I like Dash's remedy better. Either way we're taking slight liberties with the rules to prevent cheating.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by bluehair

If he was juggling the ball while moving towards the infield, he could be considered "a fielder who occupies a position in the infield" (the definition of an infielder).

When he throws to a base and throws it out of play, how many bases are you awarding?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by yawetag

When he throws to a base and throws it out of play, how many bases are you awarding?

Two. All throws from infielders or outfielders that go out of play are two base awards. Only throws (or any other cause of the ball to go into DBT) that originate from a pitcher on his plate are one base awards.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by yawetag

When he throws to a base and throws it out of play, how many bases are you awarding?

Originally we were discussing an outfielder juggling a flyball to confuse a tag-up. This is no problem since tag-up goes by first touch.

Then we were discussing what if an outfielder juggles a ball on purpose in order to get a cheap DP. I wouldn't allow it and suggested a method to prevent it. You want to play a game of "damned if you do/damned if you don't" with me. OK, I'll play. You tell me how you'd handle it, rulemeister.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bluehair

Then we were discussing what if an outfielder juggles a ball on purpose in order to get a cheap DP. I wouldn't allow it and suggested a method to prevent it. You want to play a game of "damned if you do/damned if you don't" with me. OK, I'll play. You tell me how you'd handle it, rulemeister.

I don't see how you prevent a DP here. The runners will either tag up or not.

1. If the runners tag up, they can leave after the fielder first touches the ball. No second out is possible whether or not he catches it.

2. If the runners don't tag up, then they're going halfway or returning to the base. If the fielder juggles the ball, he'll end by catching it or dropping it.

(a) If he catches it, the BR is out and the other runner goes back to his base;
(b) if he drops it, the BR will be on first and the other runner liable to be forced out. Either way, no second out is possible.

Of course, there's always the possibility of stupidity by the offense, but the rules do not permit you to call time to prevent stupidity. I think the juggling bit is stupidity by the defense, since they could end up with no outs on the play. But I'm not calling time to prevent that, either.

If the defense wanted to do it and they fooled the offense somehow, it would be legal trickery, like a properly executed hidden ball trick. You simply have no rationale, either in the rules or the "spirit of the game," for your proposed method of handling this play.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I don't see how you prevent a DP here. The runners will either tag up or not.

1. If the runners tag up, they can leave after the fielder first touches the ball. No second out is possible whether or not he catches it.

2. If the runners don't tag up, then they're going halfway or returning to the base. If the fielder juggles the ball, he'll end by catching it or dropping it.

(a) If he catches it, the BR is out and the other runner goes back to his base;
(b) if he drops it, the BR will be on first and the other runner liable to be forced out. Either way, no second out is possible.

There's more than one forced runner in the play being discussed. These runners (and not the BR) are the ones who would be involved in any DP.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

(a) If he catches it, the BR is out and the other runner goes back to his base;
(b) if he drops it, the BR will be on first and the other runner liable to be forced out. Either way, no second out is possible.

If you are assuming 1 runner on base, yes --- there's no issue. That's not what we're discussing. With Runners on 1st and 2nd or bases loaded, you can DEFINITELY get 2 easy outs by juggling it in and dropping it. THAT is what we're discussing.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by bluehair

Perhaps you could justify considering the juggling outfielder as now an infielder, get him for an intentional drop thereby preventing a cheap DP.

Don't need to. An intentional juggle would constitute a voluntary release - substantive proof of a catch..

[asdf]

How about we use a little common sense and understand that this would be nothing more than an attempt to (contrary to why rules are created) put one team at an unreasonable disadvantage.

If I am working this game, the ball is dead and I am placing runners where they need to be placed...

R3 scores, R1 & R2 stay put, BR is out.

Let 'em protest......

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by asdf

If I am working this game, the ball is dead...

No reason to kill the ball.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by asdf

How about we use a little common sense...

In my experience, what follows this expression is some umpire's idea of how to resolve a situation when he doesn't know the rules.

Your post is consistent with my experience.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by mbyron

In my experience, what follows this expression is some umpire's idea of how to resolve a situation when he doesn't know the rules.

Your post is consistent with my experience.

My experience tells me that this is an intentional act that circumvents the intent of the rules by creating an unfair advantage to one team.

I don't need this printed in black and white to understand this.

No protest board worth their salt would uphold this.

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

No reason to kill the ball.

While killing the ball may prevent a ball being subsequently thrown out of play and basees being awarded, it also prevents the double or triple play previously mentioned.

Instead of sending runners back or taking runs/outs off the board, you take control this situation before anything else goofy can take ocurr.

[umpduck11]

Originally Posted by mbyron

In my experience, what follows this expression is some umpire's idea of how to resolve a situation when he doesn't know the rules.

Your post is consistent with my experience.

Something involving invoking 9:01C, usually....