Left Early on a Caught Fly

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Eastshire,
You clearly don't know what you are talking about

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Are you blind? Anybody can see that they're there.

These are personal attacks.

Read the MLBUM cite I posted earlier. What it says is that:

1. In order for there to be a "play" as defined for Rule 7.05(g)...

2. Some fielder must have possession of the ball

AND

3. Once he has possession of the ball, must perform some other act which the umpire judges to be a legitimate attempt (even if ultimately unsuccessful or aborted) to retire a runner.

Therefore, making a legal catch of an in-flight batted ball cannot be a "first play" in the context of 7.05(g) because it does not meet the defined requirements in the official interpretation.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

What you've demonstrated is that the rules don't cover it. The only coverage is in the MLBUM. Sure, sure it's official. I got it. The bottom line is you still don't have anything to point to in the rulebook when you're in front of the protest committee.

Do you have a cite for all catching is fielding? Preferably for Fed, but I'll take an OBR cite as well.

Also...

What on earth were you trying to convey with this statement?

JM

In the second situation, the UIC said the award was 2nd (the two bases to be awarded being the return to first and then second). This is clearly wrong.


I don't understand at all the lack of willingness of the board in general to cite rules instead of just blasting the person who asks questions.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

These are personal attacks.



What you've demonstrated is that the rules don't cover it. The only coverage is in the MLBUM. Sure, sure it's official. I got it. The bottom line is you still don't have anything to point to in the rulebook when you're in front of the protest committee.

Do you have a cite for all catching is fielding? Preferably for Fed, but I'll take an OBR cite as well.



In the second situation, the UIC said the award was 2nd (the two bases to be awarded being the return to first and then second). This is clearly wrong.


I don't understand at all the lack of willingness of the board in general to cite rules instead of just blasting the person who asks questions.

You don't know what a personal attack is. You don't know that the MLBUM is authoritative. You don't know that the rulebook fails to provide an answer to every question an umpire might ask.

You've been given the correct answer using the correct sources. The correct response is: "Thanks guys, that's a great help! Now I know more than I did before."

The path you're on leads to a place like the one occupied by the UIC in Mike's original post.

[UmpJM]

Eastshire,

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Oddly enough, I'm not a MLB umpire so I don't have to take it as gospel. Show me a rule in a book that they are even basing the ruling from.
....
I'm a Fed umpire and the MLBUM doesn't apply to my games at all. I'm not convinced that fielding and catching are equivalent.

I find the breadth of your ignorance magnificent. And it complements your, "you have to show me a RULE..." arrogance quite nicely.

Fielding and catching are NOT equivalent. I thought I already explained that.

...[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

These are personal attacks.

Again, I resent your libelous and baseless accusation.

The first was a simple statement of fact, and the second was a response to your lie that I had not posted "any reference". Anybody can see them and you said I hadn't posted them. I was just calling you on your misrepresentation. If you don't like that, don't lie.

What you've demonstrated is that the rules don't cover it.

I believe this is the most insightful comment you've made on the question. Because that's exactly the point. The text of the rules does NOT "cover it". Because there is no definition of "play or attempted play" in the text of the rules. Although it's used a number of times. Kind of like "in the act of fielding" - both important, and somewhat complicated, concepts to understand in order to properly rule on certain plays.

That's why there are "interpretation manuals". The MLBUM is "official" for OBR based games. What it says IS what the rule means, whether you've always thought of it that way or not. The BRD has an official interpretation from FED that says it's the same. That's the rule.

The only coverage is in the MLBUM. Sure, sure it's official. I got it. The bottom line is you still don't have anything to point to in the rulebook when you're in front of the protest committee.

No the bottom line is that YOU don't have anything in a rule book, OR anything in a credible interpretation manual, OR support for your position from any credible poster on this forum - it's because you're wrong.

Show me a rule - or ANYTHING for that matter - that suggests your position is correct.

I'll await with 'bated breath.

JM

[Eastshire]

JM,

I don't have a position, other than what I gave as my ruling before anyone else chimed in. When the different ruling was put forward, I said I wasn't yet convinced. Rather than trying to convince me, I've been called any number of things, sworn at and in general treated in a manner that I generally don't associate with convincing someone.

In fact quite the opposite, the posters here have generally acted in the manner of those who don't have support for their position than those who do have support for their position.

I did, however, find what has convinced me that you are correct for Fed. The baserunning award chart given in rule 8 lists

5. First throw by infielder . . . Pitch
6. For any subsequent play by an infielder . . . Throw

I hope I will find you more cordial in the future.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

JM,

I don't have a position, other than what I gave as my ruling before anyone else chimed in. When the different ruling was put forward, I said I wasn't yet convinced. Rather than trying to convince me, I've been called any number of things, sworn at and in general treated in a manner that I generally don't associate with convincing someone.

So, let me get this straight.

1. You're a skeptic, just waiting to be convinced.
2. The authoritative sources cited so far don't convince you.
3. You're a sensitive soul upset by being told he's an idiot for not being convinced by authoritative sources.

Lah me.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

So, let me get this straight.

1. You're a skeptic, just waiting to be convinced.
2. The authoritative sources cited so far don't convince you.
3. You're a sensitive soul upset by being told he's an idiot for not being convinced by authoritative sources.

Lah me.

1. Yes, I was a skeptic. Then I was convinced that JM et al were wrong based on their vitriol. Then I actually found a rule that convinced me they were right despite their vitriol.

2. I'd never heard of the MLBUM before this thread. I'd heard of the PBUM which I suppose this is the successor to. Regardless, I've never worked a game where either of these have been adopted as authorities.

3. I'm pointing out it does no one any good to argue the person rather than the rule. The information you are trying to give is discounted when it comes with an attack. For example, you calling me an idiot does what exactly aside from making you feel superior to me?

[txump81]

I will be honest. Upon reading the OP, I had 2 outs until F5 tries to retire R3(using normal designations, not the stupid FED confusion). Once F5 or F3 in the "real" situation makes the throw or dive to retire the runner, he didn't appeal. If the fielder had just stopped on the base, or held up his glove and pointed to the base, almost anything other than what he did, double play.

Good discussion and I tend to think that to have an out, I have a play, but have been convinced that an initial catch is not a play per MLBUM.

Thanks guys, that's a great help! Now I know more than I did before."

[UmpJM]

Eastshire,

Originally Posted by Eastshire

1. Yes, I was a skeptic. Then I was convinced that JM et al were wrong based on their vitriol. Then I actually found a rule that convinced me they were right despite their vitriol.

1. Once again, this is pure, unadulterated bull$hit, as any one who can read will easily see. I presume you were using this definition of vitriol:

2. vitriol - abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will

What I actually said was that you were mistaken (which, even you now understand was simply a statement of fact).

When you persisted in defending your incorrect position, even after I had given you cites from the MLBUM, the OBR rule book, and the FED rule book - and then suggested I hadn't provided "any references" - I suggested "you clearly don't know what you are talking about". Again, a simple statement of fact. I also questioned your eyesight because you apparently couldn't "see" the references I had plainly posted.

Now, if you find that "abusive or venomous", you must have led a very sheltered existnce up to this point, and you really ought to cowboy up and grow a thicker skin.

2. I'd never heard of the MLBUM before this thread. I'd heard of the PBUM which I suppose this is the successor to. Regardless, I've never worked a game where either of these have been adopted as authorities.

2. This does not surprise me. Have you ever heard of the J/R or BRD? How about the JEA? How do you know you've never worked a game where the MLBUM/PBUC Manual has been adopted as authoritative. The fact of the matter is that there are numerous "points not covered" in the FED rules where the MLBUM or PBUC interp IS the "official" FED interpretation. Others where it is not. So, once again, you are mistaken. (In case it's not clear, that is NOT a personal attack. It's a simple statement of fact.)

3. I'm pointing out it does no one any good to argue the person rather than the rule. The information you are trying to give is discounted when it comes with an attack. For example, you calling me an idiot does what exactly aside from making you feel superior to me?

3. I'm still trying to figure out who, other than you, made any kind of ad hominem argument or personal attack on you. I certainly didn't. And, if you read what he actually wrote, mbyron did NOT call you an idiot. (Neither did anyone else, as far as I can see.)

Listen, all I did was try to help you understand a technical point about the rules (which, I'll grant, is NOT intuitively obvious) which you misunderstood. I provided you with the appropriate cites to back my point, along with an explanation of how they applied to the sitch in question.

You provided nothing in the way of anything to back up your mistaken position, falsely accused me (and others) of attacking you, and claimed I hadn't posted references when I had.

Anyway, you're welcome; I'm glad I was able to assist you in clearing up the misunderstanding you had about this rule. I look forward to our next discussion.

JM

[jicecone]

Mike , so you are implying that "catching" a ball and "fielding a ball" are two different things ?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Eastshire,
When you persisted in defending your incorrect position, even after I had given you cites from the MLBUM, the OBR rule book, and the FED rule book - and then suggested I hadn't provided "any references"

You said you provided a reference to THE authoritative book, by which you apparently meant the MLBUM, but I took to mean OBR. You didn't (and can't) provide a reference to OBR that says a catch is not a play because it doesn't say that, the MLBUM (probably) says that.

2. This does not surprise me. Have you ever heard of the J/R or BRD? How about the JEA? How do you know you've never worked a game where the MLBUM/PBUC Manual has been adopted as authoritative. The fact of the matter is that there are numerous "points not covered" in the FED rules where the MLBUM or PBUC interp IS the "official" FED interpretation. Others where it is not. So, once again, you are mistaken. (In case it's not clear, that is NOT a personal attack. It's a simple statement of fact.)

I know of BRD, but it isn't much use to me as I only work Fed so the differences aren't that important to me. Can you provide a reference from the NFHS that says that the MLBUM and PBUC is the official Fed interpretation? I very much doubt this is true as I've never heard it suggested in any rules meeting I've attended.

3. I'm still trying to figure out who, other than you, made any kind of ad hominem argument or personal attack on you. I certainly didn't. And, if you read what he actually wrote, mbyron did NOT call you an idiot. (Neither did anyone else, as far as I can see.)

Then you should reread your posts. Or to save time just find my post were I quoted you arguing my competence rather than discussing the rule/

Listen, all I did was try to help you understand a technical point about the rules (which, I'll grant, is NOT intuitively obvious) which you misunderstood. I provided you with the appropriate cites to back my point, along with an explanation of how they applied to the sitch in question.

You provided nothing in the way of anything to back up your mistaken position, falsely accused me (and others) of attacking you, and claimed I hadn't posted references when I had.

Anyway, you're welcome; I'm glad I was able to assist you in clearing up the misunderstanding you had about this rule. I look forward to our next discussion.

JM

I can't say that I do.

[jicecone]

Eastshire, for your viewing pleasure,

BRD 2009 pg 30. It don't get no easier:

29 AWARDS TO: RUNNER: FIRST PLAY BY INFIELDER:

FAKED OR FEINTED THROW

FED: Point not covered.

OFF INTERP 35-T-29: HOPKINS: A fielder with the ball walking a
few steps toward a runner constitutes a play. (Website, 2003, #7) A
pitcher steps off the pitcher's plate and turns "abruptly" toward an
occupied base. That is a play. (Website, 2003, #11) A faked or feinted
throw also constitutes a play. (Website, 2003, #10)

EXCEPT: A feint is not considered a throw. (8.3.5h)

NCAA: Same as OBR OFF INTERP 36-29, this section. (8-30-3 AR 2)

OBR: Point not covered.

OFF INTERP 36-T-29: PBUC MANUAL: "A PLAY OR ATTEMPTED PLAY
... [original emphasis] shall be interpreted as a legitimate effort by a
defensive player who has possession of the ball to actually retire a
runner. This may include an actual attempt to tag a runner, a fielder
running toward a base with the ball in an attempt to force or tag a
runner, or actually throwing to another defensive player in an attempt to
retire a runner. A fake or a feint to throw shall not be deemed a play or
an attempted play. (The fact that the runner is not out is not relevant.)"

I r3.11

AO 4-29: J/R: "It is a play if there is a (1) tag or tag try of a
runner, (2) tag or tag try of a base, (3) throw to another fielder in a
try to put out a runner, (4) rundown, or (5) balk. [original emphasis]
(29:F) {See § 3D.}

21. ALSO: OFF INTERP 37-29: SI: J/R: "It is not a play if there is
only: (1) an appeal; (2) a fake or feint of a throw; (3) an interruption of a
throw; (4) a step or several steps toward a base or runner that do not
result in an actual tag attempt; or (5) a dropped line drive or pop fly."
Ir301

• Play 32-29: R2: Bl slaps a grounder to the shortstop, who runs a few
steps toward second as R2 retreats. F6 then overthrows first. At TOT, Bl
had already touched first. Ruling: In FED, R2 scores, and Bl goes to third
(second play). In NCAA and OBR, Bl stops at second: The throw by F6
was the first play by an infielder.

Note 26: NCAAIOBR: If F6 had tagged R2, or attempted a tag, that would
have been his "first play, " and BI would be awarded third. Observe that the
runner at second did not advance on the play, so NCAA 8-30 AR 1 and the
Approved Ruling at OBR 7.05g AR do not apply.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Eastshire, for your viewing pleasure,

BRD 2009 pg 30. It don't get no easier:

29 AWARDS TO: RUNNER: FIRST PLAY BY INFIELDER:

FAKED OR FEINTED THROW

FED: Point not covered.

OFF INTERP 35-T-29: HOPKINS: A fielder with the ball walking a
few steps toward a runner constitutes a play. (Website, 2003, #7) A
pitcher steps off the pitcher's plate and turns "abruptly" toward an
occupied base. That is a play. (Website, 2003, #11) A faked or feinted
throw also constitutes a play. (Website, 2003, #10)

EXCEPT: A feint is not considered a throw. (8.3.5h)

NCAA: Same as OBR OFF INTERP 36-29, this section. (8-30-3 AR 2)

OBR: Point not covered.

OFF INTERP 36-T-29: PBUC MANUAL: "A PLAY OR ATTEMPTED PLAY
... [original emphasis] shall be interpreted as a legitimate effort by a
defensive player who has possession of the ball to actually retire a
runner. This may include an actual attempt to tag a runner, a fielder
running toward a base with the ball in an attempt to force or tag a
runner, or actually throwing to another defensive player in an attempt to
retire a runner. A fake or a feint to throw shall not be deemed a play or
an attempted play. (The fact that the runner is not out is not relevant.)"

I r3.11

AO 4-29: J/R: "It is a play if there is a (1) tag or tag try of a
runner, (2) tag or tag try of a base, (3) throw to another fielder in a
try to put out a runner, (4) rundown, or (5) balk. [original emphasis]
(29:F) {See § 3D.}

21. ALSO: OFF INTERP 37-29: SI: J/R: "It is not a play if there is
only: (1) an appeal; (2) a fake or feint of a throw; (3) an interruption of a
throw; (4) a step or several steps toward a base or runner that do not
result in an actual tag attempt; or (5) a dropped line drive or pop fly."
Ir301

• Play 32-29: R2: Bl slaps a grounder to the shortstop, who runs a few
steps toward second as R2 retreats. F6 then overthrows first. At TOT, Bl
had already touched first. Ruling: In FED, R2 scores, and Bl goes to third
(second play). In NCAA and OBR, Bl stops at second: The throw by F6
was the first play by an infielder.

Note 26: NCAAIOBR: If F6 had tagged R2, or attempted a tag, that would
have been his "first play, " and BI would be awarded third. Observe that the
runner at second did not advance on the play, so NCAA 8-30 AR 1 and the
Approved Ruling at OBR 7.05g AR do not apply.

+1. This should have settled things nicely.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by JJ

+1. This should have settled things nicely.

How ... which part? 99% of that post is irrelevant.

[MD Longhorn]

I have a question regarding your interp of the rule and the way you're reading the MLBUM statement..

R1 on 1st. Pop fly to shallow center. F4 and F6 chase, F6 makes a diving catch. R1 tags legally, sees 2nd unoccupied and runs. F6 is slow to get up so R1 keeps going past 2nd. F6 throws to third to retire the runner and the ball goes out of play. Where do you place the runner?

[johnnyg08]

For the purpose of a the discussion, would you characterize the successful fielding of a ground ball by an infielder to be a play?

Let's say that F6 fields a routine ground ball and wings into DBT in an attempt to throw B/R out at 1B. Where would you place the batter/runner? Yes, 2B. Because on the first play by and infielder, the award is two bases time of pitch.

What about a soft ground ball to F6 who bobbles the ball with R1 stealing on the pitch and slides into 2B as B/R also touches and runs through 1B. F6, trying to be a hero, still makes an off balance throw to F3 and zings it into DBT. Now we have both R1 and BR having reached their advance base before the throw by F6. Now place the runners. I think we'd agree that we'd score R2 and put R1 on 3b because even though is was still the first play by an infielder, both the runner and b/r reached their advance base at the TOT.

Is that right? And can we apply the fielding of a ground ball not as a play, just as we would judge that catching a fly ball is not considered a "play" for the purpose of base awards?

I agree with others that the catch is not the first play. Do we agree on that or not?

Are you contending that a fly ball that is caught is a "play" and one that is fielded on the ground is not a "play?"

Just asking, not trying to argue or be confrontational. If I'm wrong on the above, certainly I'm open to learning just like most everybody else on here.