Hudson makes catch, KO'ed

[rbmartin]

I completely agree.
While the referenced Hudson play probably did not meet the "letter of the law", he obviously gained and maintained control of the ball throughout the play. Never even a hint of bobbling or juggling. I think common sense has to be applied, especially when player injuries are involved.

[jicecone]

I agree that I am calling and out and "Time" in these situations. Now what is everyone doing with runners that may be on base and are eligible to advance after the catch?

[rbmartin]

Originally Posted by jicecone

I agree that I am calling and out and "Time" in these situations. Now what is everyone doing with runners that may be on base and are eligible to advance after the catch?

In this case there were already 2 outs so the point is moot. If there were less than 2 outs and runners on base (we had R2 & R3 in this case) I would hold off on calling time until runners have had their chance to tag-up and advance, unless there was a players life was in immediate or imminent danger. In this case, a 5 second delay would have added no real risk to the player.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

In this case there were already 2 outs so the point is moot. If there were less than 2 outs and runners on base (we had R2 & R3 in this case) I would hold off on calling time until runners have had their chance to tag-up and advance, unless there was a players life was in immediate or imminent danger. In this case, a 5 second delay would have added no real risk to the player.

Two solutions. First, Jim Evans advise to change AND to OR between the control and voluntary release parts of the catch definition would solve a lot of problems. Secondly, I would not like to be in the umpire's shoes who allowed a 5-10 second delay for completion of a play when a player was on the ground unconscious - seconds could matter with airway obstruction, cardiac arrythmia, etc. What if a bat shattered while the ball was hit fair and a piece impaled the pitcher or the on deck hitter in the neck - seconds matter in that case. If common sense judgment requires time to be called, do so. Handle runner placement as you would on delayed obstruction

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Two solutions. First, Jim Evans advise to change AND to OR between the control and voluntary release parts of the catch definition would solve a lot of problems. Secondly, I would not like to be in the umpire's shoes who allowed a 5-10 second delay for completion of a play when a player was on the ground unconscious - seconds could matter with airway obstruction, cardiac arrythmia, etc. What if a bat shattered while the ball was hit fair and a piece impaled the pitcher or the on deck hitter in the neck - seconds matter in that case. If common sense judgment requires time to be called, do so. Handle runner placement as you would on delayed obstruction

My God.... enough is enough!

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Two solutions. First, Jim Evans advise to change AND to OR between the control and voluntary release parts of the catch definition would solve a lot of problems. Secondly, I would not like to be in the umpire's shoes who allowed a 5-10 second delay for completion of a play when a player was on the ground unconscious - seconds could matter with airway obstruction, cardiac arrythmia, etc. What if a bat shattered while the ball was hit fair and a piece impaled the pitcher or the on deck hitter in the neck - seconds matter in that case. If common sense judgment requires time to be called, do so. Handle runner placement as you would on delayed obstruction

For some reason I keep getting the image of John Astin on the TV show "Night Court saying", "but I'm feeling much better now".....

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

My God.... enough is enough!

Whatever, Ozzy. Your curmudgeon schtick is approaching the annoyance level of even my BS.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Two solutions. First, Jim Evans advise to change AND to OR between the control and voluntary release parts of the catch definition would solve a lot of problems. Secondly, I would not like to be in the umpire's shoes who allowed a 5-10 second delay for completion of a play when a player was on the ground unconscious - seconds could matter with airway obstruction, cardiac arrythmia, etc. What if a bat shattered while the ball was hit fair and a piece impaled the pitcher or the on deck hitter in the neck - seconds matter in that case. If common sense judgment requires time to be called, do so. Handle runner placement as you would on delayed obstruction

Bravo!!! What insight!

We haven't had this level of intellect on this board since FitUmp and Uninterested Ump enthralled us with their captivating commentary.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

Come on guys. Quit insulting and tormenting each other and discuss the question at hand.

After reviewing the provided replay, did the fielder meet the following criteria specified in Rule 2.00 (Catch) "In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional."? Keep in mind the Rule 2.00 (Catch) Comment: A catch is legal if the ball is finally held by any fielder, even though juggled, or held by another fielder before it touches the ground.

You "voluntary release" police fail to realize the rule assumes there IS a release of the ball. Perhaps we could all live a little easier and not have to read inanities like those posted here if they had written "Is Not Involuntary" instead. We all know when a catch is made. Picking this nit is just stupid. There are a LOT more poorly written rules in the book than this, and the rulebook is just that - a RULE book, not a law journal.

Heard one of the "voluntary release" idiots going on and on at the umpire tree about this one: Pop fly apparently caught by an infielder for the 3rd out, who then runs to the dugout, keeping the ball. This moron (and by your standards, you as well) wanted to say that since the infielder did not show a voluntary release, and the ball went out of play before he had a catch, he now does not have a catch, even if the player voluntarily releases the ball in the dugout.

In the OP, the fielder didn't lose control of the ball - did not "involuntarily release the ball" if you will. Out.

[LilLeaguer]

Originally Posted by briancurtin

Call that a no-catch and watch both teams tear your head off.

Sometimes common sense is available for use.

Oh, no, another "expected call" justifying ignoring the rule book. Tell me, where in the rule book does it say we are to be concerned with player safety? Well, 4.14 tells us to light the field when conditions are hazardous, but that just points out that other cases are not our responsibility.

I'll be posing this question tonight at our LL State Tournament game. I work with some very fine umpires there, and we hold ourselves to higher standards than "the safety of the kids," "what our evaluators want," or "what everybody expects." I guess we're still waiting for that self-righteousness to filter down to MLB and beyond.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by LilLeaguer

Oh, no, another "expected call" justifying ignoring the rule book. Tell me, where in the rule book does it say we are to be concerned with player safety? Well, 4.14 tells us to light the field when conditions are hazardous, but that just points out that other cases are not our responsibility.

I'll be posing this question tonight at our LL State Tournament game. I work with some very fine umpires there, and we hold ourselves to higher standards than "the safety of the kids," "what our evaluators want," or "what everybody expects." I guess we're still waiting for that self-righteousness to filter down to MLB and beyond.

I really hope that the unanimous reply from the LL directors is that the safety of the kids comes first. If a LL player was on the ground unconscious, everything should be done to stop play immediately and render assistance.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by LilLeaguer

Oh, no, another "expected call" justifying ignoring the rule book. Tell me, where in the rule book does it say we are to be concerned with player safety? Well, 4.14 tells us to light the field when conditions are hazardous, but that just points out that other cases are not our responsibility.

I'll be posing this question tonight at our LL State Tournament game. I work with some very fine umpires there, and we hold ourselves to higher standards than "the safety of the kids," "what our evaluators want," or "what everybody expects." I guess we're still waiting for that self-righteousness to filter down to MLB and beyond.

You might want to discuss this with your higher ups at LL. While at most levels I agree with you, LL specifically addresses players injured during the game.

And since when do things filter DOWN to MLB... it's the other way around, sir.

[LilLeaguer]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

You might want to discuss this with your higher ups at LL. While at most levels I agree with you, LL specifically addresses players injured during the game.

And since when do things filter DOWN to MLB... it's the other way around, sir.

I think, almost by definition, that self-righteousness always filters DOWN. At least in the eyes of the self-righteous.

As for the rest, consider it a failed attempt at satire. Even with the internal clues, crossing threads might just be too confusing. Good satire requires clear context.

I wouldn't exhort umpires to go strictly by the rule book in the face of the expectations of the players, coaches, fans, and my own evaluators. But some folks might. And they would be sure to call me arrogant.

[LilLeaguer]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

I really hope that the unanimous reply from the LL directors is that the safety of the kids comes first. If a LL player was on the ground unconscious, everything should be done to stop play immediately and render assistance.

To be clear, of course it should. LL instruction is to call time, get assistance, then play god and put runners/award outs as would have occurred without the interruption:

If the umpire does call “Time” while a play is in progress, when he/she resumes play he/she must make the determination what would have occurred had he/she not suspended play? This may involve calling a runner out or advancing runners.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by LilLeaguer

To be clear, of course it should. LL instruction is to call time, get assistance, then play god and put runners/award outs as would have occurred without the interruption:

I suspected you were trying to make a point with sarcasm, considering how much emphasis LL places on safety. Hopefully this is the policy at all levels of amateur ball.