Catch question- Bizzaro world play
 

Probably will never happen but wanted to ask about it.

Runner(s) somewhere. Ball hit to F7/8/9 to where the runners would tag and attempt advance. Outfielder thinking that the offensive team might not know the rules and to trick them, tries to "bobble" the ball all the way into the infield to hold the runner. All the way in, he truly controls the ball, never struggles to keep it in flight, just tapping in on the outside of his glove. As he gets to the infield, to throw to a teammate he drops the ball as he goes to grab it with his throwing hand.


Catch or no catch?


This is the NCAA definition of a catch, OBR and FED fairly similar, with the general premise the same.

Catch
SECTION 15. The act of a fielder in getting secure possession in the hand or
glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it, providing the fielder does not use
the cap, protector, pocket or any other part of the uniform in getting possession.
In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall demonstrate complete
control of the ball and that the release of the ball is voluntary and intentional.

Just a question for discussion. I have some thoughts regarding it because, in my judgement, the fielder would satisfy some of the definintion regarding the validity but no firm and secure possession.

I dunno, just a topic for discussion.

This is why the runners only have to tag after the fielder "touches" the ball, not "catch" the ball.

A runner must retouch his base after the ball is first TOUCHED by the fielder (assuming the ball is eventually caught). Bobbling the ball will delay the catch/no-catch decision, but it will not affect when the runner can tag and head for the next base.

I understand that the runners don't need to wait for a "catch" only first touching. As it says in the play, the defense is trying to trick the offensive runner(s) hoping they don't know the rules thinking they have to wait for a catch.

My question is simply catch or no catch. Does he show complete control and voluntary release even though there is no firm and secure possesion.

When did the fielder secure possession?

Unless he had secure possession, no catch. Not rewarding an idiot.

Let's give a simple answer to a simple question.

If the fielder is bobbling the ball all the way to the infield, he has not caught the ball. He has not shown secure possession of the ball if he is bobbling it.

A voluntary release is prima facie evidence of a catch.

He had control, but the release was involuntary. No catch. Pretty simple way to punish the stupid.

Okay then: Same sneaky outfielder, but bases loaded with less than two outs this time. Outfielder "bobbles" the ball all the way into the infield, then drops it. Going to let the defensive team get the double or triple play?

kylejt,

He never had secure possession in his hand or glove - no catch.

JM

I'm gonna say yes. Offense should have known they could run as soon as he touched it. And, if it is close enough to the infield for an infielder to catch, the IFR should be called and there is no chance for a DP or TP. Offense should push the defense into making a play and see what happens.

10-1-c - no double or triple play. You guys are assuming the ball was DEEP... what if it was outfield, but shallow enough that R3 would be foolish to try to score... crafty OF brings it all the way to the infield and drops it. Giving them a triple play is contrary to the spirit of the rules.

Intentional Drop.

N/A to an outfielder.

Right. And if R3 is trying to score, I'm not going to protect him for being too stupid to run on first touching of the ball.

Good points guys...thanks

Even if OF is close enough that he would have been stupider to try to score? Close enough that if OF sees him take off, he can go ahead and catch the ball and nail him at either home or 3rd?

Fact is, R3 will tag up and if outfielder keeps juggling the ball around he will score.

His run won't count when R2 and R1 are doubled up.

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?

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

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......

No reason to kill the ball.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

So. . .it's unreasonable to expect runners to know that they can leave base after the caught fly ball is first touched???


It may be intentional, but it doesn't circumvent the intent of the rules because they've been specifically written to prevent exactly this. This is only an unfair advantage if you also consider unequal rules knowledge among the players to be an unfair advantage.

Leave the ball live, and rule on whatever plays transpire. There is no need to kill it and/or place runners.

celebur, you must be envisioning something different than we are. So I'll spell it out.

Imagine a medium to shallow fly to left. Bases loaded, 1 out. If LF catches this and R1 takes off, he's dead meat. So he stays. LF then begins this intentional juggle thing - not catching it, but maintaining control. If R1 takes off after the touch, LF can simply catch and nail this guy at home. So he stays. LF get the ball all the way to shortstop, drops it, and gets an easy DP. Further, all your concentration seems to be on R1 - say R1 does scamper home, but R2 and R3 would be morons to try to advance on the touch. LF gets the ball all the way to shortstop and drops it - DPing R2 and R3. R1's run doesn't count now anyway.

THIS is the scenario we're discussing and saying we'd (by various methods depending on who is posting) find a way to prevent the INTENT of the rules from being circumvented. And this has nothing to do with rules knowledge by the players or coaches... assume that all players involved know ALL the rules...

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.

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.

OK. If the defense can pull it off, good for them. You're not saying it's right to kill this play, are you Bob?

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.

If it were easy, we'd see it all the time. TWP.

If the outfileder juggles the ball all the way to the infield, he just became an infielder and I'd apply the "infielder intentionally drops a fly ball" rule to the play.

That won't work because the ball hasn't been dropped (yet).

I have a catch with the first intentional juggle. It's a voluntary release.

Definitely TWP. R3 tags and scores if ball was hit deep enough, and if not there was no point to juggling. R3 was only runner in original post. More were introduced on post 10. With R1 and R2, they will advance 1/3 (R2) and 1/2 (R1) and at best you get one of them if R7 drops the ball and throw ahead of the runner, or maybe you get R3 at the plate if he hesitated. But I don't see 2 outs.

But let's go really TWP, as we already have, say ball is not hit deep enough for R3 to tag and score and F7 juggles the ball all the way to infield and bases loaded and no outs and he then let's it drop. Triple is possible now, we going to allow?

Nope.....

1) Never said it wasn't. It is however, unreasonable to expect the runners to watch a fielder intentionally juggle a ball for the sole purpose of getting a cheap double or triple play.

2) What rule specifically allows this action to take place?

You've got to be kidding. No rule specifically allows any action to take place. The rules prohibit certain defined actions (OBS, INT, illegal bats, etc.), and allow everything else.

I agree that is probably a TWP. But if it did happen early in a game and you allowed this cheap DP/TP. Then every pop-up with runners on would be turned into cheap DP attempt. What a mess that would be.

Interpretations, however, can allow for specific and prohibit specific actions.

If you think just because it's not specifically listed in the rule book, then an action is legal, you are wrong.

I think that the rules prohibit all illegal baseball actions. They fail to prohibit things like poisoning an opponent or digging a trench around 2B, but that is irrelevant to the case in point.

You still have no rules basis for your position.

I've always let that one go anyway.

You won't find anything in the rules about a runner advancing from 1st to second on a delayed double steal (runner on 3rd) by performing backward hand springs, yet I think you are savvy enough to see that this is an illegal act.

Uh... what?

Why is it illegal? And, don't use "unsporting act" because that's in the rules.

C'mon Bob...

You know that the definition of interference in all of the rule codes (OBR, NCAA, NFHS) includes the word "confuse(s)".

You also know that there is an acceptable way to "confuse" an opponent. (fake cut-off, fake catch of a throw to a base, third-to-first step and throwback, runner stops between 1st and 2nd in an attempt to get in a run-down so he can score the runner from third....etc)

All of these are a part of the game.

The intentional juggle and my example of backward handsprings are not (yes, they are unsporting) and should be dealt with immediately.

I see you make up all kinds of rules for yourself. Go for it. I'm done with you.

Great, while you are done with me, I will keep looking for that rule prohibiting digging a trench around 2nd base. You cannot have it both ways.

You know, a few years ago, the handspring situation cropped up in high school football. There was much discussion, similar to this. Those saying it was legal cited "nothing in the rule book", those saying it was illegal backed it up with the "not part of the game" angle.

The Asst. Commissioner, who happens to be in charge of the officials in Ohio, stated, that if someone let this action go unpenalized and he got wind of it, he was pulling their permit.

Wouldn't doing hand springs in a high school game be considered taunting?

OTOH, consider yourself lucky the mbyron is done with you. However the downside of that, you will now have to be responsible for your grammatical and spelling errors. You're on your own now, buddy.

Holy cow, are you kidding? You would stop someone from the handspring thing? Really? Which rule - unsporting or confusing - you seem to want both. Don't invent rules - we have enough as it is.

Actually, you're mistaken there. Football specifically includes antics used to show up an opponent inside it's USC rules. I would definitely penalize this in football. I'd have no backing to do that in baseball.

1) Combine both... interference and then eject......

2) Not inventing anything here.... for FED see 3-3-1 (g)(4)

A coach, player, substitute, attendant, or other bench personell shall not....

....commit any unsportsmanlike act to include, but not limited to;

....behavior in any manner not in accordance with the spirit of fair play


It all boils down to what the spirit of fair play is in our eyes.

If I am working the game, this activity stops here and now. I have folks unhappy with me for a while, but we get back to baseball.

If you are working said game, the activity turns into the "one-up 'em" mode and we have some sort of retaliation because of the chickenbleep activity by a team.

If called on the carpet, my defense of "this isn't what baseball is all about" carries a whole bunch more credibility than your "the rules don't prohibit this action" excuse.

Football didn't address this until after it happened. The handsprings ocurred not after a score, but as a player was going in motion, "legally" parallel to the line of scrimmage.

No different than "legally" doing handsprings in the baseline.

You're absolutely right. Thanks for spelling it out!

Hmmm... you're making a lot of assumptions there, considering I'm part of the crowd NOT allowing this. However, I'm not inventing rules or relying on sportsmanship or 9.01C type rules to stop it.

And I'm surely not ejecting the guy. This is not a sportsmanship issue at all.