Detached glove?

[bsaucer]

I was thinking of the case where a fielder removes his glove just before the ball is batted to him.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by bsaucer

I was thinking of the case where a fielder removes his glove just before the ball is batted to him.

1) Nobody does that

2) It's still detatched

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

1) Nobody does that

2) It's still detatched

If by "detached" you mean "not worn with the fingers inserted inside the glove, but held in the hand", then it doesn't matter if its "detached". The rule violation is for "throwing" a glove (which touches a live ball) 7.05

I can visualize a player extending the length of the glove's reach by holding the base of the glove with his fingers that are not inserted inside the glove. An extra inch or two reach could easily make a difference. If the ball then landed in the glove and the player held the ball in the glove long enough to prove that he had complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball was voluntary and intentional, I'd call that a catch

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

I can visualize a player extending the length of the glove's reach by holding the base of the glove with his fingers that are not inserted inside the glove.

That's detached, and it's a violation. award 3 (or 2 or 1) bases.

[rbmartin]

If the sequence of events is as follows
1) Fielder attempts a catch with glove is in it's proper place
2) glove becomes detached during the attempt
3) the ball remains in the glove
4) glove is secured by fielder without hitting the ground
5) fielder removes ball from glove with bare hand and displays posession

I rule catch and/or out only after step 5.

If the sequence of events is as follows
1) Fielder attempts a catch with glove is in it's proper place
2) glove becomes detached during the attempt
3) the ball remains in the glove
4) glove is secured by fielder without hitting the ground
5) fielder fails to secure ball in his bare hand or reattach glove

I rule no catch

If the sequence of events is as follows
1) Fielder attempts a catch or field with glove detached from it's proper place
2) the ball remains in the glove
3) glove is secured by fielder without hitting the ground
4) fielder removes ball from glove with hand and displays posession

I rule no catch and assign penalties prescribed in 7.05 (b) or (d)

[rbmartin]

Originally Posted by bsaucer

I was thinking of the case where a fielder removes his glove just before the ball is batted to him.

So to answer your question bsaucer, in the scenario you describe, I rule no catch and assign penalties prescribed in 7.05 (b) or (d).

Just my opinion.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

If by "detached" you mean "not worn with the fingers inserted inside the glove, but held in the hand", then it doesn't matter if its "detached". The rule violation is for "throwing" a glove (which touches a live ball) 7.05

I can visualize a player extending the length of the glove's reach by holding the base of the glove with his fingers that are not inserted inside the glove. An extra inch or two reach could easily make a difference. If the ball then landed in the glove and the player held the ball in the glove long enough to prove that he had complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball was voluntary and intentional, I'd call that a catch

You have the BS part right.

It's not going to happen. Don't lose any sleep over it.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

You have the BS part right.

It's not going to happen. Don't lose any sleep over it.

Well, if your name is Richard you have the Dick part right.

Now can we go back to a legitimate discussion without the 2nd grade name-calling. Sheesh

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

1) Nobody does that

2) It's still detatched

I'm thinking there's been a time where a fielder took his glove off to tie his shoe (or whatever) and the pitcher pitches without knowing it. The fielder picks up his glove but doesn't have time to put it back on his hand and the ball's hit to him. He uses the detached glove to make a play.

Obviously, this is a lower-level situation.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

Well, if your name is Richard you have the Dick part right.

Now can we go back to a legitimate discussion without the 2nd grade name-calling. Sheesh

How can you have a legitimate discussion about a "ain't gonna happen" scenario?

in any case, your question has been answered by several folks. The discussiuon is over. Sorry you don't like the answer.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

How can you have a legitimate discussion about a "ain't gonna happen" scenario?

Ok - I'll leave it at that.

But to quote Yogi: "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."