Hudson makes catch, KO'ed
 

Padres F4 Orlando Hudson made a sensational diving catch of a foul pop today (7/21). He immediately slid head first into the wall and knocked himself completely unconscious. Jim Evans says he has a problem with the definition of a catch because it says a fielder must have [control of his body] AND voluntary /intentional release. Evans said it would be better to rewrite the rule with OR instead. I think there was a case like this in Knotty Problems of Baseball(?) where in the olden days a teammate would take the ball out of the KO'ed player's glove to get around the voluntary release part. In today's game U1 signalled out without any hesitation and then motioned for assistance. Thank goodness Hudson is OK after his KO with no neck injury.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here, but here's a link to the video of the catch. Hudson was reported to have movement of his arms and speaking to teammates before being carted off the field.

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | SD@FLA: Hudson carted off field after a great play - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

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).

There was another thread about a fielder knocking himself out making a catch? Or was it just a discussion about when a runner could leave a base if a fly ball was touched by one fielder and caught by another?

I remember a Cubs infielder getting knocked cold on a pop-up a few years back and the ball was still in his glove when the ambulance left the park. You saying that wasn't a catch?

Are you such a nut case on the strict interpretaton of things in non-baseball matters? Have you ever rolled through a stop sign, for example? Driven a "couple" of MPHs over the limit? When making cookies how much time do you spend making sure all the ingredient measurements are perfect? Is your oven temperature exactly 350 degrees F? How tall are you to the nearest millimeter?

Rich, the link I provided was from 2008 and you had several posts in the thread. Reading through that thread several members seemed to acknowledge that Jim Evans taught at his school that the ball was still "in flight" when it was in an unconscious fielder's glove and the catch was only completed when the ball was taken out of the glove by a teammate. Now, it may not be as much fun as making gratuitous slaps at me, but discussing that "point" is probably within the scope of this forum.

Slightly off-topic, but FYI it was Hee Seop Choi and he collided with Kerry Wood.

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

Sometimes common sense is available for use.

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.

Of course it is, and your opinion is the correct one. Some posters just haven't realized the flaws in their thought process yet.

Please, post some more old threads and situations, accompanied, of course, with your thoughtful analysis.

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!!

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

Well, come to think of it, I bought a digital BBQ thermometer for grilling steaks this summer. I stick the probe in and when it gets to 145' it comes out just about perfect. 140', a little too rare. 150', too well done.

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.

I had a player knocked out in a Legion game over the fourth of July.

Two outfielders collided. Bases empty, I was the plate umpire and I busted out to get a good look at the catch. The fielder that was knocked out had the ball in his glove. At that point, I called the batter out and called for the coach to get out to his player. The other outfielder retrieved the ball from the other fielder's glove, but by then the coach was already near the outfielder and the out long recorded.

I know the rules/guidelines for a catch as well as anyone, but there's an old saying about picking up the wrong side of the stick, too.

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.

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.

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!

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".....

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

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.

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.

Arrogance!
 

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.

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.

It's a joke, son
 

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.

Just so there's no confusion
 

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.

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.