Hudson makes catch, KO'ed

[briancurtin]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Catch or No catch? [Archive] - Forums

This was a thread from another site, probably with many of the same guys who post here that had no problem congenially discussing "my point". There were many who felt that a ball was still "in flight" even though it was firmly in the glove of an unconscious player and that the catch is only completed once the ball has been taken out of the glove by another fielder (who does not drop it while doing so).

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

Sometimes common sense is available for use.

[briancurtin]

This should have been my first post in the thread, but anyway...
I actually had this situation on my first series of the year. I'm in a deep B, short pop up behind the mound, F5 and F4 both running all out for it. F5 dives, catches the ball and catches F4's knee right between the eyes. That's a catch, out, time, bring the trainers out. Two ambulances later, game on.

U3 happened to see F5's eyes roll back in his head so it got scary for a minute.

Just call the out.

[Larry1953]

Game 7 of the World Series, bottom of the ninth, R2, no outs, game tied. The Hudson play occurs. R2 tags up to go to third. Seeing that everyone is distracted by the unconscious player, R2 takes a wide turn at 3B. F3 becomes alert that he had best do something or the WS is over. He reaches into F4's glove but his first try muffs the ball to the ground. He finally picks the ball up and throws to F2 but it gets past the catcher and R2 scores the winning run. Common sense would dictate the VT manager to argue that it was "no catch" which would make it just a foul ball with R2 being sent back to 2B.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Game 7 of the World Series, bottom of the ninth, R2, no outs, game tied. The Hudson play occurs. R2 tags up to go to third. Seeing that everyone is distracted by the unconscious player, R2 takes a wide turn at 3B. F3 becomes alert that he had best do something or the WS is over. He reaches into F4's glove but his first try muffs the ball to the ground. He finally picks the ball up and throws to F2 but it gets past the catcher and R2 scores the winning run. Common sense would dictate the VT manager to argue that it was "no catch" which would make it just a foul ball with R2 being sent back to 2B.

Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant!!

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant!!

Thanks (rolls eyes), I thought it was too.

[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.

[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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

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.

Policy? You act like there's a policy for everything.

I worked a HS game last season. Small schools. Ball took a bad hop and hit F3 in the forehead and went to the fence. Partner got stuck in A and I came out from behind the plate and took the BR to second while F4/F9 retrieved the baseball. THEN I called time. The 5 seconds I "wasted" meant nothing and the kid stayed in the game.

I'm not too worked up with someone who would call time immediately, but I saw no need as we had a ball against a fence and a BR who had no intention of stopping at first.

When I work LL, I'll follow their advice. It's not like all organizations have written this advice, though.

[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.