Left Early on a Caught Fly
 

Runner on 3rd, creeping up the line on the pitch, which is lined to F5 who catches, lands on the bag, rolls, sees R1 scrambling to get back and dives to tag the bag or the player, as R1 beats F5 back to the bag.

What do you have?

Safe. It'a an appeal so it has to be deliberate. Falling on the bag wasn't it. At least in OBR. Does FED have accidental appeals?

FED does not have accidental appeals.

I agree with no out.

No they do not. And have fun 'splainin' this one to the coach. "It's not an appeal blue, he just got doubled up!"

"caught fly"
 

Your OP, isn't a typical "retouch" scenario...nor is your OP about a fly ball, but seemingly a diving line drive.

He catches the line drive, F5 also knows that he's going to double off R3 at least at the levels I work. I've got an out on the "appeal" as well as the catch of the line drive.

Where is the "unmistakable" portion of the appeal? He just happened to fall on the base on purpose - or was he just there because that's where he had to be to catch the ball?

I understand where you're coming from Rich. And I agree with part II of your above post. He was where he had to be which happened to be on the base while doubling R3 off of the base.

To answer your question:

In this case one and the same...he's not going to be on the base mid-dive yelling "appeal, appeal, appeal"


IMO, the action of catch and appeal would be nearly simultaneous...in this play, we need to call what is expected, not necessarily the black and white of the rule. To me, that would be the proper call to make in interpreting spirit of the appeal rule.

We know the defensive dugout is certainly going to expect R3 to be out...and IMO, the offense would expect him to be out as well. To call R3 safe using the unmistakable portion of the rule would be improper interpretation and picking up the dirty end of the stick.

It certainly would be a neat play to see on video...because I can see some things playing out in my head that would lead me toward your line of thinking too.

OK. I admit I significantly dumbed down the situation to get at the heart of the matter. (And Johnny, you're wrong - an appeal must be AN APPEAL. This was not - the touch was accidental, AND the fielder tried to go get the runner out after contact with the bag ... even more blatantly so in the REAL situation below).

Here's the actual situation that happened on Sunday.

Runner on first, stealing. Looping liner/low fly ball to F3. R1 keeps going past 2nd as F3 makes a shoestring catch, stumbles - hitting the bag on the way - then fires to third to get the out, throwing it over the fence.

I award home, DC requests time and comes out to argue that there was an appeal at 1st. I get with BU, he confirms we have the same thing - no appeal, contact with the bag was accidental. He continues to have a fit and eventually ejects himself.

UIC, who was there, tells me we blew the call three times - once on the touch of first (His words: "it's not an appeal, it's a force"), 2nd - the award should have been 2nd base, since "the runner legally had to return... and his two bases were 1st and 2nd; and 3rd for not calling the out on the appeal during the argument (DC never says, "runner left early" or any words I could stretch into a dead ball appeal - just "my fielder touched the bag", etc.)

I promised UIC I would post this here, and that I would post in this way - first as "what I was calling an accidental appeal", then with the full sitch. He promised he'd check here to see the "verdict". This was my first time working for this UIC.

And with no worry of offense, honestly ... my last. (Sorry sir ... I can't work in an area where the UIC's rules knowledge is this far off.)

No one said he needed to yell anything.


If he makes some action like swatting at the base with his glove, or sticking out his leg to touch the base, or ... then that meets the "umistakeable" spirit of the rule. Just stumbling over the base because of gravity, doesn't. Heck, if F5 thought he had made an appeal, he wouldn't have dived back at the base.

I agree with you...seeing the entire situation allows me to "see" the scenario better as I stated in the last sentence of my previous post.

The issue with some of these scenarios is that at least for me, I picture it a certain way and you picture it another way, neither of us were wrong in ruling based on what we thought we saw by reading his initial post.

Since mbcrowder completely rewrote the post with the whole story, I know the rule, and I would agree with bob, mbcrowder, and rich, but I will defend my post based upon what I thought I "saw" in the original post. "accidental" was your judgment based on what you saw...I saw something different. I don't want to split hairs here guys, this is a good discussion and in mbcrowder's new and improved post, I would've called it the same way...and probably told the UIC something similar too. Funny that they didn't protest the game before he got dumped though...(yes, he would've lost the protest)

johnny,

No, that would be properly ruling on the play - your "spirit" interpretation is incorrect. Both the letter and spirit of the rule require an unmistakeable act that indicates the fielder is appealing the infraction.

If the fielder didn't think he appealed, neither do I.

JM

In both plays, the fielder's attempt to retire the runner after the touch of the bag shows that he wasn't trying to appeal with the touch.

Fed's oft-mentioned "accidental appeal" was actually an accidental force out that was commonly interpreted as an appeal. It derived from the unique, now-discarded Fed ruling that a runner who beat the throw at 1B (even by several steps) but missed the bag was to be called out when F3 gloved the ball on the bag, with no appeal necessary. Fed extended this "logic" to all bases. For example, R1 missed 2B on a hit to RF, beat F9's throw to 3B, and F5 then tagged him. R1 was out, no appeal, for missing 2B. Same if an infielder with the ball kicked dirt off a missed base to which a runner was forced.

The OP is a HTBT, but F5's subsequent attempted tag would indicate to me that his falling on the bag was not an appeal. Conversely, if F5 merely got up and immediately proceeded toward his dugout, I might give the out on appeal.

First of all, in the first situation F5 had and oppurtunity to make it look like an appeal by stopping all action after landing on the bag. The fact that he chased the runner killed that idea.

Secondly Mike, I think you UIC needs to rethink his ruling because, well its just wrong.

OK, Mr. UIC has seen the responses and believes me on the appeal sitch. He doesn't believe me on the base award of home. Can someone please elucidate?

Runners are assumed to have successfully reached all bases they are pass for the purposes of all base awards. The throw by F3 is a subsequent play by an infielder (the catch being the first play by the infielder). The award is 2 bases from the time of throw for a thrown ball out of play by an infielder other than his first play.

Since the runner was past second at the time of the throw, the base awarded is home.

MLBUM (I think they're for sale at Evans' site. They were at umpire,org for a while (got mine there). In the PBUC manual it's in section 6.11 Play 2. Buy it at the same place.


5.10 AWARD MADE FROM ORIGINAL BASE AFTER CATCH

A runner who is forced to return to a base after a catch must retouch his original base even though he may have been awarded additional bases on the play. The runner may retouch while the ball is dead (provided the runner does so before reaching the next base-see Section 5.11), and the award is then made from his original base. (See Casebook Comments following Official Baseball Rule 7.05(i).)

Play: Runner on first, one out. Batter flies out to right field for second out. However, runner on first thought there were two out and is between second and third when the ball is caught. Right fielder's throw to first is wild and goes into the dugout. Runner is between second and third when the wild throw is made.

Ruling: Runner is initially awarded home (two bases from his position at the time of the throw). However, while the ball is dead, the runner must return to and retouch first base. Furthermore, because the runner was between second and third when the ball went out of play, he must return to first before reaching and touching third (his next base). If the runner touches third, he may not return to first; and if the defensive team appeals, the runner is out at first. However, if the runner properly returns and retouches first before reaching third, the award then becomes third base (two bases from his original base).

Thanks guys.

mike,

Since the wild throw was the first play by an infielder (Eastshire, the catch of the line drive does NOT qualify as a play in the context of this rule), it is a 2 base award for all viable runners from their position at the TOP.

The proper award for the R1 is 3B - not home & not 2B.

Edited to add: Rich's MLBUM cite does not pertain to your sitch becuase it involves a wild throw from an outfielder - which is always a TOT award.

JM

wrong.

This sitch is only valid if the base runner attempts to return to retouch 1st base after the ball is thrown into DBT. you would not "automaticly" award 3rd beacuse your award should not tip the offense or defense that a possible infraction has been made. It is up to the offensive team to correct the base running mistake. The initial ruling should be an award of home, then if the base runner returns to retouch 1st, then you stop the runner @ 3rd hand have fun explaining to coaches what just happened :-)

Mike,

Would you care to bet on that? :rolleyes:

As you described it, the wild throw is absolutely the "first play by an infielder" and, since all runners, including the BR, had not reached an advance base at the time the wild throw was released, this is a 2-base award, TOP.

Yes, I'm sure. Do I need to provide you with cites, or can you look it up yourself?

JM

Coach is an absolute idiot. Just make a proper appeal when the ball is put back into play. You get the out, take the run off the board and you get to stay in the game.

Mr. UIC, if you read this, please note. If you are going to be the "UIC", umpire in charge, please know the rules. If you don't know the rules, don't have such a position. As UIC, many times at a tournament, you are the final arbiter and interpreter of the rules. By not knowing the rules, even the simplest ones, you do a disservice to all officials and undermine their credibility when you demonstrate your ingorance of said rules. If you were to come up to me with such dribble, I would tell you to read the rule book, pound sand, get your gear and work the rest of the games in my spot.

Yeah ... that's exactly what he said. Award home, change if/when runner retouches.

Sure ... cites would be great. How are you saying all runners had not reached an advance base? BR is NOT a runner at the time the wild throw was released. BR is a retired runner - whose position can NOT be relevant any longer. And R1 had most assuredly advanced.

And how can the catch not be a play? If BR interfered with such a fielder, BR would be guilty of interfering with A PLAY...

Mike,

From the MLBUM:

The point is, to make a "play" - as the word is used in 7.05(g) - the fielder must already HAVE possession of the ball. Gaining possession of the ball is NEVER a "play" for the purpose of the rule.

Again, as the rule clearly states, a throw by an infielder which is his first play results in a TOP award, not a TOT award.

JM

Glossed over that point in the OP. JM is correct.

Here is another example.

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.

Ok correct me if I'm wrong....

But the key to 7.05(g)) is...... A play or attempted play is interpreted as a legitimate effort by a defensive player who has possession of the ball to actually retire a runner. In the origional sitch...The catch of the low line drive retires the batter runner... which is the first play by an infielder. The subsequent throw into DBT is the 2nd play, so the award is TOT not TOP.

Honestly, I've never heard anyone ever try to interpret this way. Nevermind that the only runner on the field has, in fact, advanceds a base... this "catching is not a play" is new. Looking forward to the guys who've been here a while to chime in. I admit the wording seems to lead that way ... but you'd think that at least ONCE in all this time, I'd have heard of this interpretation of that rule if that's what we're supposed to call, and I haven't.

Fittske,

I'd be happy to correct you, becuase you are wrong.

At the risk of repeating myself, the MLBUM passage I cited before says the fileder must have possession of the ball in order to make a "play" as the word is used in 7.05(g).

The point is, to make a "play" - as the word is used in 7.05(g) - the fielder must already HAVE possession of the ball. Gaining possession of the ball is NEVER a "play" for the purpose of the rule, even if the act of gaining possession results in an out.

JM

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

I'm not sure why why you're attacking me personally here. You haven't provided any reference let alone reference from the rule book beyond the one that deals with fielding (not catching) the ball.

You want to try again with an actual rules reference rather than personal attacks?

He posted the MLBUM definition of a play. That's where the answer is.

Do you understand what the MLBUM is? It's the OFFICIAL from the owners of OBR interpretations of the rules. It is gospel. Opinions to the contrary are invalid.

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 not saying they are wrong; I'm saying waiving that book around doesn't substitute for an actual rule on the matter.

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.

Why don't you try to actual use the rules to change my mine instead of just yelling at me? I've got an open mind but stamping your foot just makes me think you're wrong.

Well, let's see, you've been given the answer according to the Major League Umpire Manual, an official publication of MLB, and apparently that isn't enough.

If ignorance is bliss, you've gotta be one happy guy.

Dude!!! WTF are you talking about?!?!? If I had called you a moron, or your argument "retarded", THAT would have been attacking you personally.

I am deeply offended by your scurrilous, slanderous, and baseless accusation! (Sheesh, talk about getting personal.)

I just stated the fact that you were mistaken and paraphrased the "argument" you presented to support your erroneous position. Rather concisely and objectively, I thought.

WTF are you talking about?!?!? I provided you TWO references - one from the MLBUM and one from the OBR rules. Are you blind? Anybody can see that they're there. And all catching is fielding, though not all fielding is catching, so I have no idea what point you're trying to make with that part.

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.

Also...

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

JM

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.

Eastshire,

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

My mistake, I forgot to edit that part. I'll fix it.

;) You darn tootin better. :D

I didn't think anybody would notice. I was wrong.

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?

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."

+1. This should have settled things nicely.

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

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

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?

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.:confused:

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.

No, obviously not.

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

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

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).

Eastshire,

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:

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. 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 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

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

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.

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.

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/

I can't say that I do.

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)

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.

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?????

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.

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.

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.

J/R also says what's not a play:

It is not a play if there is only

(1) an appeal (although a play can occur during an attempt to appeal)
(2) a fake or feint of a throw, or an interruption of a throw,
(3) a step or several steps toward a base or runner that do not result in an actual tag attempt,
(4) a dropped line drive or pop fly.

No mention in either section of what is a play or what is not a play about a caught line drive or pop fly.

So I think you have to read the base award case plays since that's what's going to determine what is or is not a play. Would that be right...when it's not in the rules, we have to go do authoritative opinion on how certain plays are interpreted.

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".

Yes, except the case plays seem to cover anything you could think of EXCEPT a catch. None answers the simple question of "Is a catch a play". Before this thread was born, I have always assumed "of course it is".

Which is probably why it's not covered.

From MLBUM:

5.6 Awarding bases on wild throws

In making such awards, keep the following points in mind:

1. If the throw is the first play by an infielder and the batter-runner has not reached first base when the throw was made, award all runners from time of pitch

2. If the throw is the first play by an infielder and all runners including the batter-runner have advanced a base when the throw was made, award all runners from their position at the time of the throw

3. If the throw is not the first play by an infielder or the throw is made by an outfielder, award all runners from their position at the time of the throw

My thoughts:

Interps 1 and 2 deal with the first play by an infielder and uses the word "throw" as being the first play. It does not mention catch or fielding an in-play batted ball. We have to assume that a catch or fielding a ball can't be the first play because the base award interps all use the word "throw" and the runner and B/R's position at the time of the throw or the time of pitch

From MLBUM:
The approved ruling of OBR 7.05g provides that when the first throw is by an infielder after runners AND batter have advanced one base, then runners are awarded to bases from their position when the throw was made. (See item 2 above) This can happen on a high fly ball that an infielder goes back to catch but drops, during the time the batter and runners have clearly advanced one bas; then, in attempt to put out the batter-runner, who has already passed first base, the fielder throws the ball into the stands. While it is the first throw by an infielder, the runners, including the batter-runner, had advanced one base before the throw and accordingly are awarded two bases from the base they last touched when the throw was made. Before awarding two bases from the base last touched by the runners, the umpire must judge that all runners -including the batter-runner - have definitely advanced to the next base before the throw was made.

My thoughts:

In the above example of the dropped fly ball by an infielder, this would have to occur with two outs, because with <2 outs R1 would be retreating back to 1B with less than 2 outs and it would not be likely that both R1 and BR would reach their next base on the dropped fly ball by an infielder. Likely, R1 would be forced out at 2B. With two outs, both R1 and B/R would be "running it out" and would be able to reach the next base without a problem. Then we'd have a TOT award instead of a TOP award.

If I recall correctly, your example involves a runner who is stealing on the play with < 2 outs. The ball is caught and in an attempt to double the runner off of 1B, the ball is thrown into DBT. The award based on the MLBUM interp is two bases from the time of pitch because the throw was the first play by an infielder. (it said nothing about the catch)...we have a couple of inferences to make regarding the above example, but it seems pretty clear to me on the appropriate base award.

Did I clear anything up? I'm going to post this now, then go back and read the OP again...because I've typed too much to lose all of this. My apologies if I missed anything of relevance in the OP

It doesn't necessarily follow from just what you posted that a catch isn't a play.

"If the throw is the first play" doesn't mean that only throws are plays. For example, if F4 tries to tag R1 and then wings it into the first base stands, the throw is the second play. It could be possible that a catch would be like a tag.

We still haven't found explicit proof one way or the other. It's not listed as a play but it's not listed as not a play either.

Okay, here's some more from MLBUM regarding a play or attempted play:

5.1 Play or attempted play

The following interpretation of "play or attempted play" applies to both awarding of bases and appeal plays 7.05g and 7.10 respectively.

A play or attempted play is 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 the runner, or actually throwing to another defensive player in an attempt to retire a runner. (The fact that the runner is not out is not relevant) A fake or feint to throw shall not be deemed a play or an attempted play.

Example:

4. Runners on first and third, runner on first stealing as ground ball is hit to shortstop. The shortstop feints a throw home but does not throw-instead throw to first and into the stands; during this time the runner from first has rounded second base.

Ruling: The feint by the shortstop toward home is not considered a play or attempted play; thus the throw beyond first is the first play by an infielder and awards should be made from the time of the pitch.

Okay, here's one that might help as well...it doesn't exactly match the OP, but we might be able to fit a square peg into a round hole.

From MLBUM:

(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 it caught in flight by F5 for an out. The runner on first is nearly to 2B 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 DBT. At the time of the throw, the runner had not quite reached 2b. 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 My words: (notice the first play was not the catch)

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

This is perhaps the strongest thing we've seen. Two aspects to examine here as I see them is

1) What is the difference between a batter-runner and a runner?
2) What is the timing on possession of a catch related to the effort of the fielder in retiring the batter-runner by catching the ball?

On 1 I don't think there's a material difference for the purpose of this rule. If F2 fields a bunt and tries to tag the BR and then wings the ball into the stands trying to retire R2 at third I think the throw would be the second play. So a catch would be a legitimate effort to actually retire a runner.

What you don't have is possession of the ball until the end of the effort. This is still somewhat lacking as you do end up with a player having possession having made a legitimate effort to retire the runner.

So the key question from this is do you have to have possession at the start of the effort to have a play?

I think that's implied here, but it's not explicit.

I think this one seals it.

I agree - this is what I was looking for. Even HOPING for.

johnny,

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

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

5.11 since I'm having so much fun here today. Thank God my daughter is napping.

From MLBUM:

5.11 Award made from original base after catch

A runner who is forced to return to a base after a catch much retouch his original base even though he may have been awarded additional bases on the play. The runner may retouch while the ball is dead (provided the runner does so before reaching the next base - see section 5.12), and the award is then made from his original base. (see casebook comments following OBR 7.05i)

Play: Runner on first, one out. Batter flies out to right field for second out. However, runner on first thought there were two out and his between second and third when the ball is caught. Right fielder's throw to first is wild and goes into DBT. Runner is between second and third when the wild throw is made.

Ruling: Runner is initially awarded home (part of mbcrowder's OP) (two bases from his position at the time of the throw). However, while the ball is dead, the runner must return to and retouch the base. Furthermore, because the runner was between 2nd and 3rd when the ball went out of play, he must return to first before touching third (his next base). If the runner touches third, he may not return to first; and if the defensive team appeals, the runner is out at first. However, if the runner properly returns and retouches first before reaching third, the award then becomes third base (two bases from his original base)

There you go guys. I'm curious to see your thoughts.

Thanks for the discussion and making me dig to find this.

IMO, you're close. I believe that the tag attempt would be the first play. Then the second play would be the throw.

Gaining possession of the ball, from what I read and typed, is not a play.

Reread the part where is states that a play dictates what happens after a fielder gains possession.

Other thoughts on that? Open to feedback either way.

I think you're right. I think "who has possession" is referring to the start of the effort. So a player catching the ball does not yet have possession of the ball so his effort is not a play even though he has possession at the end of the effort.

johnny,

Rich Ives posted this on the second page of this thread.

As I said earlier, it does not apply to the OP because the OP involved a first play by an infielder which is a TOP award and the correct award is 3B, regardless.

And, of course, under FED rules, if the R1 is still between 2B and 3B when the ball goes out of play, he has lost the opportunity to correct his failure to retouch on the catch regardless of what he does.

JM

We can't let this die, even though we agree on the main sticky point, huh? :)

I thought the FED rule said NEXT base ... meaning if he was between 2nd and 3rd when the ball goes out of play, he can return to first as long as he doesn't touch THIRD.

No he gets third in this instance because he hadn't reached second at time of throw so in this case the award is the same TOT or TOP first play doesn't matter. In order for this to be an example of a catch not being a play the runner would have had to have reached second before the throw then the first play rule comes into effect.

Interestingly, for those that work both ... in softball, a catch is a play. And it's addressed DIRECTLY in the rules - what a novelty! :)

No, I think I mean that possession by itself does not equal a play.

His tag attempt, with possession is the play. F2 just having the ball in his glove is not a play...his tag attempt paired with possession of the ball is a play.