8.3.2.k

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Yeah, it implies it, I agree. Since he said "possessing" instead of "catching", I did not assume, and left open the possibility that F3 had to go get it before possessing it.

I read that as saying F3 might have possessed it after it bounced, which would not be a catch in the proper sense of the term. Some folks call this "gloving" the ball.

But I can't deny that the case leaves open when exactly F3 possessed the ball. From the ruling, I'm assuming it was at approximately the same time as the collision.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I read that as saying F3 might have possessed it after it bounced, which would not be a catch in the proper sense of the term. Some folks call this "gloving" the ball.

Michael, J/R says that a thrown ball cannot be 'caught', it is 'gloved', while batted or pitched balls that remain airborn are considered 'caught'. In the example we are discussing, the word 'possessing' is used properly and implies control by the fielder through his hand or glove. The NFHS wordsmiths aren't trying to trick us. It was a Case Book play, not a test question. Look at it again:

"F6 fields a ground ball and throws to F3 in attempt to retire B1 at first. The ball is thrown wide. As F3 lunges toward the ball, F3 collides with B1, knocking him to the ground prior to possessing the ball (a) while the runner is short of first base or (b) after the runner has contacted first base.
RULING: (a) Obstruction; (b) legal"

The J/R reference is found on page 26 of last year's book.

In the 2011 NFHS Rule Book, page 17 - 2-9-1 Note states the same thing.

We received 8" of snow last night, so baseball is still just a shadow at the end of a long winter tunnel here. I hope your season starts soon and ends well. Best of luck.