Left Early on a Caught Fly

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

Here's another source. From J/R, chap. 2, section F:

"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."

Notice that every action included as a "play" involves a throw, a tag, or tag try, with the (technical) exception of a balk. Fielding or catching a batted ball does not involve a throw, a tag, or a tag try, and is thus not a play for the purpose of the relevant rules.

Here's another way to think of it: a play under this definition always presupposes possession of the ball. You can't tag a runner or balk or throw the ball unless you have the ball. But fielding or catching the ball presupposes NOT possessing the ball, and thus cannot be a play in the relevant sense.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Here's another source. From J/R, chap. 2, section F:

"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."

Notice that every action included as a "play" involves a throw, a tag, or tag try, with the (technical) exception of a balk. Fielding or catching a batted ball does not involve a throw, a tag, or a tag try, and is thus not a play for the purpose of the relevant rules.

Here's another way to think of it: a play under this definition always presupposes possession of the ball. You can't tag a runner or balk or throw the ball unless you have the ball. But fielding or catching the ball presupposes NOT possessing the ball, and thus cannot be a play in the relevant sense.

I still think it's bizarre that you can have an out without a play, but that looks solid to me.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I still think it's bizarre that you can have an out without a play, but that looks solid to me.

Is is possible that you're using the wrong meaning of the word "play" for the purpose of this this interpretation?

I think somebody else stated that "hey nice play" is not the same "play" that we're discussing.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Is is possible that you're using the wrong meaning of the word "play" for the purpose of this this interpretation?

I think somebody else stated that "hey nice play" is not the same "play" that we're discussing.

No, I've got that. I just think that an out-producing action by a fielder would have been a play since it produced an out. Not all plays produces outs and, apparently, not all outs are produced by plays. (Although the more I think about this it occurs to me that strike outs also aren't the result of plays.)

The thing I'm going to take away here is that plays can only start with a player already in possession of the ball.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Here's another source. From J/R, chap. 2, section F:

"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."

Notice that every action included as a "play" involves a throw, a tag, or tag try, with the (technical) exception of a balk. Fielding or catching a batted ball does not involve a throw, a tag, or a tag try, and is thus not a play for the purpose of the relevant rules.

Here's another way to think of it: a play under this definition always presupposes possession of the ball. You can't tag a runner or balk or throw the ball unless you have the ball. But fielding or catching the ball presupposes NOT possessing the ball, and thus cannot be a play in the relevant sense.

I definitely understand the logic, and again I want to stress that I'm not just being argumentative for argument's sake. However, while the rulebook is often messy, it's usually good at using words like only, always, etc when that's what they meant. Ditto J/R and MLBUM. All of these are plays. I wish this quote said "It is only a play if...". As standing, it says these are plays, but doesn't definitively tell us these are the ONLY plays. OTOH - one point in this statement's favor is that other than the question at hand, I can think of no other "plays" that are not listed here - indicating that this MAY have been an attempt to list them all, despite missing the word "only".