The act of fielding a batted ball, whether caught or not, is not to be considered a "play" for the purposes of base awards.

I see what you are saying, but it seems that one could also read this saying that at the moment the BR was retired, the fielder has possession (if he didn't, it's not a catch). I'm on the fence here.

R1 less than 2 out. R1 off on the pitch on an apparent hit and run. B1 hits a slow blooper that F6 dives and catches. F6 fires to first to double up R1 but the ball goes out of play. At the time of the throw R1 was past second base. Ruling: R1 is awarded 3rd base due to first play by an infielder went out of play. Of course R1 must retouch prior to obtaining third.

UmpTTS43, where did you get that example?

I made it up to demonstrate the correct application of the rule in question.

:ding: A "catch" is not a "play."

This is, indeed, the interpretation. A catch is not considered a play or attempted play.

I'm in a meeting so have little time or access to materials, but I'll add to this later if I get a moment. It may be tomorrow.

mbcrowder,

There is also this pretty unequivocal statement from the FED rule book (this principle is the same in OBR, NCAA, and FED) under the discussion of the starting point for base awards:

JM

For what it's worth, the coach of that team is still a turd, I mean idiot.

The fact that he was stealing on the "pitch" and simply kept going is where your flaw is in awarding home. At the time of the pitch the R1 only had legally obtained 1B. At the time of the pitch, he had not legally obtained 2B. When F3 caught the ball, the first play by him (since we all agree that the "appeal" was accidental) was his overthrow in attempt to retire R1 at 3B.

On the first play by an infielder, the runner is awarded two bases TOP.

As others have said, JM and TT are correct...or I at least agree with them.

As for my earlier posts, I would've gotten this play correct on the diamond. I had a hard time visualizing the accidental portion until I read further into the thread and as I stated in the other post, I can see the play developing as you describe it as well. As another posted, it really is a HTBT type situation...(for me anyway)

Just for clarification. On the above post, I may have quoted it, but it did not orginate from me.

They are correct.

Award runner 3B.

You are not tipping off the defense or offense.

Runner should know he must retreat and touch 2B and 1B.

Defense should know to appeal if runner doesn't do so.

I'm still not convinced that you can have an out and not have a play. I've always taken "the act of fielding" to refer to fielding a ground ball, not catching a fly ball.

I still maintain that to have an out there must have been a play.

At either rate, the UIC's ruling of award 2nd is still right out.

What will it take to convince you? How about you attend proschool and report back?

How about a quote from a rule book that refers to catching? Or failing that a logical explanation of how we ended up with an out when no one made a play on the batter-runner.

Eastshire,

You are mistaken.

As I understand your argument, it is that "Well, gosh, that doesn't seem right to ME. That's not how I always thought of it."

It's not very persuasive. You clearly don't know what you are talking about, EVEN after you have been shown the unequivocal language from THE authoritative reference. Which is consistent with the treatment of the question in all of the respected interpretation manuals.

I mean, if I see an infielder make a diving catch on a low line drive, I might say something like, "That was a great play by that shortstop" - it's just not a "play" within the narrow context of the rule. Because that's not what they wanted the rule to be.

The rule is designed to encourage aggressive, even "risky", defensive play after the defense has initially gained control of a batted ball. That's why it's written that way.

JM