Tiger's Red Sox game.
 

Sounds like some interesting plays and umpiring decisions in the Tiger's Sox game today.

One play I saw was a R1 on 1b, B2 hits a soft line drive to F4, who muffs the catch. Thinking the ball would be caught R1 stays on 1b. B2 thinking the ball would be caught is just jogging to 1b. When the ball drops the Tigers have an issue. R1 stays put and B2 still jogs towards first, which finally draws a throw from F4 to F3, who is standing on 1b when he catchers the ball. The umpire rules B2 out, and R1 safe at first. The broadcasters (and Boston's coach) were confused over this, but the rule is simple. Once f3 caught the throw with his foot on the base, the batter-runner is out and thus the force is removed on R1, who was still standing on the base. When the tag was applied to R1, he wasn't forced, and thus he was safe.

The other play, was a not caught ball that Boston, and even Detroit's radio announcers thought was a catch. This lead to an ejection for Boston managers. Apparently it was ruled that the release was not voluntary and intentional, and thus no catch had been made. This lead to a Detroit run or 2 later in the inning, and eventually a Detroit win.

I have not seen this play, but the crew chief apparently explained the call to the media post-game and said the umpire was correct in his decision.

Personally thought the right fielder made a clean catch and lost the bal when pulling it out with his bare hand......

Are you sure the first one wasn't an intentionally dropped ball? (didn't see it, just based on the description you gave)

I saw the replay. What's the rule?

A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of
a ball in flight and firmly holding it; providing he does not use his cap, protector, pocket or
any other part of his uniform in getting possession. It is not a catch, however, if simultaneously
or immediately following his contact with the ball, he collides with a player, or with
a wall, or if he falls down, and as a result of such collision or falling, drops the ball. It is
not a catch if a fielder touches a fly ball which then hits a member of the offensive team or
an umpire and then is caught by another defensive player. 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. If the fielder has
made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch,
the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught.
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. Runners may leave their bases
the instant the first fielder touches the ball. A fielder may reach over a fence, railing, rope or other line
of demarcation to make a catch. He may jump on top of a railing, or canvas that may be in foul ground.
No interference should be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing, rope or into a stand to
catch a ball. He does so at his own risk.
If a fielder, attempting a catch at the edge of the dugout, is “held up” and kept from an apparent
fall by a player or players of either team and the catch is made, it shall be allowed.

Looked to me like an incorrect call (same call in 2 different games yesterday, by the way). OF made the catch and clearly lost the ball while transferring it to his throwing hand. If this was an infielder - easy call... catch. Unfortunately, since these were outfielders, there was no umpire with any sort of angle to see that it was caught before the transfer to the throwing hand.

Agree. I was watching the game and in "real time", it looked like a no catch. After several replays, I still had doubts until I saw a head on close-up from NESN after the game. Then it was apparent that the call was wrong - it was a transfer. I'd say, making that call from 20-40 feet away, the umpires believed they made the right call.

I agree 100%

And with nobody on base, quite frankly, it was the right call to make.

What's the hurry to transfer when there's nobody on base?

Comments
 

Problem was, while explaining the call for the media, the crew chief Ted Barrett said he "flipped" the ball from his glove to his hand. To me, that means he had voluntary release. I don't think you can have a flip without having voluntary release, even if it is dropped. On a side note, I haven't seen the play, only read about it.

Umpires defend call in 8th inning - Extra Bases - Red Sox blog

Didn't seem to be. Confirmed by the fact that once he dropped it, 2B seemed quite confused about how to get the double play. He could have done it two different ways -- throw to second for a routine double play or immediately thrown to first for tag and then step on the base (although I don't know if 1B knew the rule, since he was standing on the base).

On the fly ball ruled not a catch, I think I saw some longer explanations by Barrett quoted where he reiterated his view that because the fielder never got possession of the ball in his throwing hand, the release couldn't have been voluntary and intentional. I've never heard of that before. Many fielders release, flip and catch with throwing hand instead of putting the throwing hand into the glove to retrieve the ball. Why an outfielder would do this with nobody on base, though, is a good question. But, clearly, the suggestion that a ball must go into the throwing hand in order for a release to be voluntary and intentional seems wrong.

I only saw one clip of this play (from almost straight-on), and I thought it was a good call. The ball hit the glove & was almost immediately on the ground.

As Rich said, what's the hurry with bases empty? Early date?

Hot dogging it, is more like it.

Also explains the basket catch.