Left Early on a Caught Fly

[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."

[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 jicecone

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

I disagree - none of this answers the question. None of it.

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

First let me state that I'm not trying to be difficult, belligerent, or obtuse. I WANT to understand how this interpretation fits. And for the record, I think East is also trying to find out how you guys are getting to the interpretation, but is having to fight through an awful lot of unnecessary nonsense.

Here's the question in a nutshell.

Is a catch a play, WRT base awards

The ONLY evidence in favor that I've read, (other than "a catch is not a play - you must be an idiot") is the offhand MLBUM statement that alludes to a fielder with possession of the ball trying to retire someone. I submit that this alone is not enough - a fielder catching a ball gains possession while trying to retire someone. I grant that one can definitely read what you guys are reading into this rule ... but I also state that I can read the opposite... it's not clear.

The stuff quoted above doesn't cover this at all - no where does it say or even imply that a catch is not a play. In fact, "it is not a play if there is only a dropped fly ball or line drive" leads me to believe the opposite. If the rules makers were trying to say a catch was not a play, then this part of the rule would not need to say anything about it being dropped. It's like they are specifically separating a dropped ball from a caught ball by specifying that a DROPPED ball is not a play. If a caught ball is also not a play, why say Dropped at all?

Again - I'm not trying to be belligerent, negative, trollish, argumentative, or stupid. I'm trying to UNDERSTAND. None of the posted caseplays apply to THIS question. All the MLBUM statements refer back to the above, which don't define it either.

As an aside, I've emailed several local so-called rules authorities and honestly the response to the nutshell question has been mixed. No help there for me.

[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?

[NFump]

So J/R specifically mentions that a "dropped" line drive/fly ball is not a play. I noticed the MLBUM gives an example using a dropped fly also, another distinction between a dropped fly/line drive and a caught one.

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by 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?

No, obviously not.

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.

Yes - and I believe this ALSO applies to the OP and revised OP plays. All runners have reached their advance base at the TOT.

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

Not ... or at least not yet. That's the discussion at hand that I'm trying to be convinced of.

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?"

I'm contending that that is how I've always ruled it and am asking to be convinced. (The main difference between a caught fly ball and the ground ball is that there is an OUT on the caught fly ball... To my mind ... so far... THAT is the play).

[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.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by jicecone

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

There has to be a case play out there on this somewhere...I find it hard to believe that this question hasn't come up before...unless of course it's been answered correctly in here and some of the people on here aren't trusting that to be the correct interpretation. (Not that there's anything wrong with that)

[NFump]

Originally Posted by jicecone

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

In one of JM's "simple statements of fact" he "implied" this also. I believe he said "Fielding and catching are NOT equivalent" I think the bold is my emphasis.

[jicecone]

Not quite sure myself, especially after reading OBR's definition of a "catch", which only discusses a ball in flight.

Don't have all my books here at work?????

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by NFump

In one of JM's "simple statements of fact" he "implied" this also. I believe he said "Fielding and catching are NOT equivalent" I think the bold is my emphasis.

JM's statement, iirc, was that all catching is fielding but not all fielding is catching. Obviously, a catch puts the batter-runner out, where fielding a ground ball does not. But is catching fielding a fly ball? That's the crux of the question.

If the answer is yes, then the catch falls under the Fed rule saying that fielding the ball doesn't count as a play by the infielder. Case closed. If the answer is no, fielding only refers to possessing a ground ball then we have to look elsewhere for our answer.