Left Early on a Caught Fly

[johnnyg08]

So let me ask this:

I guarantee you hardly any if any at all FED coaches in my area would know this intricate piece of the rule for an appeal. So, from a mechanics standpoint, let's say the team is executing the proper appeal and R1 who passed 2B, retreats back to 1B, and beats the throw back to 1B.

How do we call this from a mechanics standpoint? Do we simply call R1 out because even though he's retreating back to 1B to retouch and gets back before the throw, he can't do so because he's already advanced past 2b?

[NFump]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

johnny,

Good find. I'm embarrassed you beat me to it.


To me, though counterintuitive, this is really pretty simple.

From Rule 2, we have the defintion of "catch":



From the MLBUM we have a definition of a "play", as the word is used in the context of 7.05(g):



Since, by definition, a play can only be made by a fielder who already has possession of the ball, and a catch can only be made by someone who doesn't have possession of the ball, a catch cannot, by definition, be a 7.05(g) play.

JM

First, the play johnny posted proved nothing, first play doesn't even come into it. Award was same TOP or TOT.

It's pretty obvious you need possession before the legitimate effort, just as you have to have possession before you have a catch, thus a catch can only be made by a player WITH possession. The sticking point is the effort part. Is there a legitimate effort being made by the fielder in catching a fly ball to retire a runner? Legitimate meaning legal, effort meaning action.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

So let me ask this:

I guarantee you hardly any if any at all FED coaches in my area would know this intricate piece of the rule for an appeal. So, from a mechanics standpoint, let's say the team is executing the proper appeal and R1 who passed 2B, retreats back to 1B, and beats the throw back to 1B.

How do we call this from a mechanics standpoint? Do we simply call R1 out because even though he's retreating back to 1B to retouch and gets back before the throw, he can't do so because he's already advanced past 2b?

Yes. Even if he tries to retreat to 1B to correct his error, his error is uncorrectable and he is out upon a proper appeal.

If you really wanted to tweak the nose of the coach, call him out for running the bases in reverse to confuse the opponents.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by NFump

First, the play johnny posted proved nothing, first play doesn't even come into it. Award was same TOP or TOT.

It's pretty obvious you need possession before the legitimate effort, just as you have to have possession before you have a catch, thus a catch can only be made by a player WITH possession. The sticking point is the effort part. Is there a legitimate effort being made by the fielder in catching a fly ball to retire a runner? Legitimate meaning legal, effort meaning action.

I don't think the sticking point is the "effort" at all...how doesn't that play wrap up mbcrowder's question on the proper base award.

It not about me being right or wrong all I did was copy it from MLBUM...but now I think you're starting to make up things that aren't there.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by NFump

First, the play johnny posted proved nothing, first play doesn't even come into it. Award was same TOP or TOT.

I disagree. The ruling specifically says the throw is the first play by the infielder.

It's pretty obvious you need possession before the legitimate effort, just as you have to have possession before you have a catch, thus a catch can only be made by a player WITH possession. The sticking point is the effort part. Is there a legitimate effort being made by the fielder in catching a fly ball to retire a runner? Legitimate meaning legal, effort meaning action.

A catch is defined as securing possession. You don't have possession until you have caught the ball. A player who already has possession, by definition, cannot catch the ball.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by NFump

First, the play johnny posted proved nothing, first play doesn't even come into it. Award was same TOP or TOT.

It's pretty obvious you need possession before the legitimate effort, just as you have to have possession before you have a catch, thus a catch can only be made by a player WITH possession. The sticking point is the effort part. Is there a legitimate effort being made by the fielder in catching a fly ball to retire a runner? Legitimate meaning legal, effort meaning action.

NFump,

You didn't actually read the play johnny posted, did you?

If you were to read it, you would see that it unequivocally states that:

1. The throw was the first play by an infielder, even though he had just made a catch (it actually says that twice).

2. Whether the runner was between 1st & 2nd when the throw was released or 2nd & 3rd, the proper award is 3B (this was the "b" ruling - perhaps you didn't get that far).

3. Because a first play throw that goes out of play is a TOP award.

I mean, I don't kow what to say.

Do you think johnny just "made up" what he posted? He didn't. It's in my copy of the MLBUM too.

Perhaps you think the authors of the MLBUM were being imprecise or sloppy with their language.

Sorry, you're wrong.

JM

[NFump]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I don't think the sticking point is the "effort" at all...how doesn't that play wrap up mbcrowder's question on the proper base award.

It not about me being right or wrong all I did was copy it from MLBUM...but now I think you're starting to make up things that aren't there.

Does the fielder after catching the ball have possession? Yes, then the possession part is not in question, it's the effort part, did he make a legitimate effort to retire the runner, with possession? Although your play addresses the award part of the play it doesn't address whether the play was a first play. The rule didn't come into effect. The only comes into play when the runner obtains his advance base before the throw, thus the necessity to distinguish between time of pitch and time of throw. In your play the runner was "just short of second when throw was made". I didn't make up your play, just pointed out what was wrong with it in relation to whether a catch was a play or not.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by NFump

it doesn't address whether the play was a first play.

Yes, it did address it. It came right out and said "The throw is the first play." Go and read the entire ruling again and you'll find it.

[NFump]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I disagree. The ruling specifically says the throw is the first play by the infielder.



A catch is defined as securing possession. You don't have possession until you have caught the ball. A player who already has possession, by definition, cannot catch the ball.

The ruling or johnny?. That play in my MLBUM (2002) has nothing about the ball hitting the pitcher first, just a line drive to the shortstop, who catches it, then, in an attempt to double the runner up, throws the ball into the stands. The runner is quite obviously stated to be short of second base(in both mine and johnny's play). As for the award it is the same TOT or TOP and whether the catch was or was not a play did not factor in.

Which came first the chicken or the egg? You can't catch the ball without possessing it.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by NFump

Does the fielder after catching the ball have possession? Yes, then the possession part is not in question, it's the effort part, did he make a legitimate effort to retire the runner, with possession? Although your play addresses the award part of the play it doesn't address whether the play was a first play. The rule didn't come into effect. The only comes into play when the runner obtains his advance base before the throw, thus the necessity to distinguish between time of pitch and time of throw. In your play the runner was "just short of second when throw was made". I didn't make up your play, just pointed out what was wrong with it in relation to whether a catch was a play or not.

NFump,

Do you always disregard plain and simple facts when they don't agree with your world view? Can you read? Let's try this again.

Here is the case play, verbatim and in its entirety, from the MLBUM. (It is in the "Appeal Plays: Approved Rulings" section in the chapter on Appeals and Awards.)

(13) The following play occurred in a Major League game and leads to a number of questions regarding appeal plays. The rulings below provide insight into various regulations concerning appeals and awards.

Play: R1, no outs, hit-and-run. Batter hits a line drive which strikes the pitcher in the back, flies into the air, and is caught in flight by F5 for an out. The runner on first is nearly to second base when the ball is caught. The third baseman throws to first, attempting to double the runner off first base; however, his throw is wild and goes into the stands. At the time of the throw, the runner had not quite reached second base. When the ball goes out of play, the runner from first has rounded second base (touching second as he rounded it) and is several steps towards shortstop.

a. What is the proper award? Ruling: Third base-two bases from the time of the pitch because this is the first play by an infielder.

b. What if the runner is beyond 2b at the time of the throw? Is the award then home? Ruling: No, the award is still third because the throw was the first play by an infielder. NOTE: See Section 5.11 for situations when a runner is initially awarded two bases from his position at the time of the throw, after which he is subsequently awarded two bases from his original base.

Would you care to try again, or can you really not read?

Because, it clearly and unequivocally states that the throw is the "first play" (again, twice), and that it is therefore a TOP award - even if the runner is between 2B and 3B at the TOT.

JM

P.S. This is from the 2009 MLBUM. It does not appear in the 2002 edition.

[NFump]

You can't read what isn't there nor can you disregard what isn't there. Even after reading my post stating my version was 2002 you still posted that smart *** reply rather than using tact and simply stating it was in another version. Then I could reply with "If that's what is says then a catch is not a play for the purposes of this rule. I don't have a problem with that." Now, I admit I should have asked johnny which version of the MLBUM he got that from, especially when he said the making things up part but I didn't. My apologies johnny.

[MD Longhorn]

So ... someone quotes a play, you pull out an 8 year old book and tell him it's not quoted right, you learn that his example is not, in fact, 8 years old.

And you're mad at US?

Whatever.

[johnnyg08]

No problem...I didn't know you were taking your information out of the 2002 version which I do not have. I didn't post which MLBUM I got mine from either...but trust my broken-in keyboard that I typed it right out of there using DBT as a sub sometimes for where ever they had the ball going, dugout, stands, where ever.

For the future (and maybe you've figured it out by now), JM is very thorough in his posts and does a nice job of citing even when he doesn't have to. Not very often will he be wrong w/ regard to rules. (I can't recall ever reading a mistake) Hopefully when it happens in one of your games you nail the heck out of the call.

You stuck to your guns for a long time on this one!

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by NFump

You can't read what isn't there nor can you disregard what isn't there.

Again, pure, unadulterated bull$hit. It's all "there", and has been "there", in what is currently post #88 on this thread. You just didn't bother to read it.

Apparently, instead, you went to your outdated version of the MLBUM, found a case play that was kinda', sorta' similar (but not really) and based your erroneous argument on that. Despite the fact that the case play you read is "6)" and the one johnny posted is "13)" - even AFTER I suggested you hadn't actually read johnny's case play.

Even after reading my post stating my version was 2002 you still posted that smart *** reply rather than using tact and simply stating it was in another version.

Sorry, pard, you're making an inaccurate assumption. I had not seen your post at the time I posted my reply. When I DID see your reply, I added the helpful "P.S." to my post to let you know that the case play was in the 2009 version but not in the 2002 version.

You're welcome. Glad I could help you correct your misunderstanding(s) in regard to the question.

And, if a person continues to make willfully ignorant posts, even AFTER having been presented with authoritative documentation which disproves his position - because he didn't even bother to READ IT, lah me - I will feel free to make whatever smart-a$$ remarks I think appropriate.

If you don't like that, there is a pretty simple remedy.

JM

[NFump]

Thanks Johnny. I know JM to be very thorough in his research but (for me) nothing he posted was definitive in light of the specific inclusions about dropped fly balls/line drives. Again, my apologies to you sir.