Detached Equip - Ball foul

BJ Moose · #1 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 22, 2003, 02:23pm

ON the Fed test was a question about the catcher touching a bunted ball, rolling in foul territory but headed toward the line (and fair territory) with this MASK in hand.

I understand this is a 3 base award and the FED rule book specifically address this. Thus same award of a batted ball in fair territory being touched by detached equip.

BUT -> like my previous post. I wonder how to rule properly on this play under OBR. Because all the 3 base award, or other award sections talk only of detached equipment touching a FAIR BALL. In the example, the catcher is whacking a ball that is definitely in FOUL territory, on the ground. (Although may roll into fair territory if untouched).

Certainly he could have just touched it with his hand or foot to make it foul. I feel the need to "punish" touching the ball with the mask.. but would like to have some support by rule.

Any suggestions?

Bfair · #2 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 22, 2003, 05:10pm

From NAPBL 3.9:

Freix

somecallmeblue · #3 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 22, 2003, 08:01pm

Don't be misguided by misguided information. This is a FOUL BALL and nothing else. When the ball is bunted and is rolling in foul territory, makes no difference which direction and is touched by a player in foul territory, it is foul. The catcher touching it with is mask is of no conseguence.

GarthB · #4 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 22, 2003, 10:46pm

Dear "somecallmeblue":

Do you mean to say that the NAPBL, now the PBUC provides "misguided information?"

On what basis do you suggest this?

Oh, and what do the others call you?

Rita C · #5 (**permalink**) Sun Feb 23, 2003, 12:55am

A catcher has his mask in his right hand and a glove on his left (ususally). Why should it make a difference if he touches the foul ball with his glove or his mask? It isn't like it's a hat that has no reason for being off.

Rita

Roger Greene · #6 (**permalink**) Sun Feb 23, 2003, 07:31am

Rita,
Because it is a violation of the rules!!!!! There is a proscribed penalty that all first year umpires should be aware of.

BTW, all of the catchers I've seen wear their mask on their face, not their hand.

Roger Greene

BJ Moose · #7 (**permalink**) Sun Feb 23, 2003, 12:46pm

Thanks Steve. Dang.. I have the NAPBL and just missed that. Me=Doofus.

OH, and somecallme.... dude, you are headed down the road to eternal damnation and hell fire... "misguided"? Yikes.

Tim C · #8 (**permalink**) Sun Feb 23, 2003, 02:12pm

somecallmeblue:

Steve was nice enough to list his reference for the ruling he gave.

Since you have selected to take another route (which appears at the surface to fly in the face of the rules of baseball) could you just reference your ruling to either OBR, FED or NCAA rules (even other rules if necessary)?

That would make us all feel that what you said is fact rather than opinion.

Pleasea advise.

Tee

Rita C · #9 (**permalink**) Sun Feb 23, 2003, 11:52pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Roger Greene
Rita,
Because it is a violation of the rules!!!!! There is a proscribed penalty that all first year umpires should be aware of.

BTW, all of the catchers I've seen wear their mask on their face, not their hand.

Roger Greene

I'm not a first year umpire. And I know it's the rules.

I'm just saying it's not like a hat that's been taken off. A catcher's mask is sometimes taken off as part of his job. I can see it as a natural movement for a catcher to reach out with his dominant hand that now has a mask, and stop a ball in foul territory.

I'll call it by the rules and I know it's the rules but it doesn't mean it's a stupid question to ask why.

Rita

Whowefoolin · #10 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 24, 2003, 12:29am

Rita,

Most catchers, when not using their masks on their face, often fling it off out of the way. Very seldom do you see one carrying it around with them as they chase down base runners, pop-ups, wild pitches, etc...

So it is not just like a hat. And when is a ball a foul ball? When it is properly touched (or comes to rest) over foul territory. So if ball is still rolling, and over foul territory, it is theoretically still a fair ball. So if the catcher, touches it with his hat...err...mask, then he is touching it in a manner that is illegal.

Bfair · #11 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 24, 2003, 12:48am

Quote:

Originally posted by Whowefoolin
Rita,

Most catchers, when not using their masks on their face, often fling it off out of the way. Very seldom do you see one carrying it around with them as they chase down base runners, pop-ups, wild pitches, etc...

Lower level catchers frequently "fling" their masks aside. Rita's statement is more appropriate for properly trained catchers. Many do carry their masks.

Properly trained catchers don't merely "fling" their masks aside (especially on pop ups). If the catcher doesn't know and purposely control his mask, it may later become an obstacle to him in his attempt to retire the offense.

Freix

Rita C · #12 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 24, 2003, 01:55am

Quote:

Originally posted by Whowefoolin

When it is properly touched (or comes to rest) over foul territory. So if ball is still rolling, and over foul territory, it is theoretically still a fair ball.

And what is "properly touched"? I have often seen players take their glove and whack the ball to keep it foul.

All I'm saying is that it may be correct by rule but it's a dumb rule.

Rita

Roger Greene · #13 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 24, 2003, 06:43am

Rita,
The mask illegally extends the catcher's reach with his throwing hand 12 to 14 inches. That extra reach could allow him to touch the ball before it becomes fair, or to stop the ball before it reaches DBT, when he would not have been able to do so otherwise.

Stupid rule. I don't think so. The size of the glove is regulated for much the same reason. Is that dumb also?

If F2 scoops up the pitch he blocked with his mask and no runners are attempting to advance is it called? No, but I'll ask for the ball, and as I give him another let F2 know that he committed a violation that could be peanalized.

I wasn't trying to call your question stupid. It was just that the tone of the thread, after Steve pointed out the proper ruling from NAPBL/PUBC, was that the ruling should be ignored.

Roger Greene

gsf23 · #14 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 24, 2003, 11:38am

This exact thing happened about 15 years ago during a pro game, but it was a wild pitch and not a foul ball so I don't know if it realates to this thread or not. The situation was a runner on first, and the pitch was thrown into the dirt, the ball got away from the catcher, probably about two feet away, the runner was not trying to advance on it. The catcher removed his mask as the pitch got away, then reached out and used his mask to pull the ball back to him. None of the umpires made a ruling, but the manager, I believe it was Sparky Anderson, came storming out of the dugout screaming that the catcher couldn't do that. The umps confered and then awarded the runner at first, home, using the detached equipment rule.

bob jenkins · #15 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 24, 2003, 11:49am

Quote:

Originally posted by gsf23
This exact thing happened about 15 years ago during a pro game, but it was a wild pitch and not a foul ball so I don't know if it realates to this thread or not. The situation was a runner on first, and the pitch was thrown into the dirt, the ball got away from the catcher, probably about two feet away, the runner was not trying to advance on it. The catcher removed his mask as the pitch got away, then reached out and used his mask to pull the ball back to him. None of the umpires made a ruling, but the manager, I believe it was Sparky Anderson, came storming out of the dugout screaming that the catcher couldn't do that. The umps confered and then awarded the runner at first, home, using the detached equipment rule.

1) On a pitch, the award is one base (NAPBL interp), so the runner wouldn't have been awarded home.

2) In a similar situation (runner not advancing; "no chance" to advance), as the PU I'm calling "time" before F2 touches the ball.