Detached Equipment

[IRISHMAFIA]

Gotta share this one from the Softball Umpires facebook page:

Catch or No Catch? B1 hits a high line drive, knocking the glove off F5’s hand with the ball in it. Prior to the glove hitting the ground F5 catches the glove/ball. F6 starts to celebrate his catch. Catch or No Catch?

I am assuming that F6 actually grabbed the glove before hitting the ground, but it is irrelevant.

There is obviously not enough info, so the assumption is the second defender eventually took possession of the ball.

However, the argument being made is that this is a no catch based on detached equipment. Though not a given, much of the debate is based on USA rules

Thoughts?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Gotta share this one from the Softball Umpires facebook page:

Catch or No Catch? B1 hits a high line drive, knocking the glove off F5’s hand with the ball in it. Prior to the glove hitting the ground F5 catches the glove/ball. F6 starts to celebrate his catch. Catch or No Catch?

I am assuming that F6 actually grabbed the glove before hitting the ground, but it is irrelevant.

There is obviously not enough info, so the assumption is the second defender eventually took possession of the ball.

However, the argument being made is that this is a no catch based on detached equipment. Though not a given, much of the debate is based on USA rules

Thoughts?

If the ball was in the F5 glove before it came off, and F5 caught/controlled the glove with ball; good catch.

If F6 caught the glove, that is detached equipment.
Why is that irrelevant?

[Tru_in_Blu]

USA rules states: 8.5.F

"When a fielder intentionally contacts or catches...

I have a legal catch, regardless if F5 or F6 managed to snag the glove before it hit the ground. Much like a batted ball in the air that deflects off one fielder and another catches the ball.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

If the ball was in the F5 glove before it came off, and F5 caught/controlled the glove with ball; good catch.

If F6 caught the glove, that is detached equipment.
Why is that irrelevant?

Because it does not meet the definition of detached equipment as it refers to making a play with the ball

[Manny A]

The debate involves the USA Definition of No Catch under Rule 1. It says it is not a catch:

3. When the fielder catches a batted or thrown ball with anything other than the hand(s) or glove / mitt in its proper place.

The issue here is that the ball knocked the glove off the fielder's hand before he/she demonstrates control of it. Once he/she prevents the glove from falling on the ground with the ball in it, does that make it a catch or not? Since the glove is not in its proper place at that moment, does the fielder still need to reach into the glove to secure the ball in his/her hand to finally validate the catch? Or is it sufficient to simply hold onto the glove with the ball in it?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

The debate involves the USA Definition of No Catch under Rule 1. It says it is not a catch:



The issue here is that the ball knocked the glove off the fielder's hand before he/she demonstrates control of it. Once he/she prevents the glove from falling on the ground with the ball in it, does that make it a catch or not? Since the glove is not in its proper place at that moment, does the fielder still need to reach into the glove to secure the ball in his/her hand to finally validate the catch? Or is it sufficient to simply hold onto the glove with the ball in it?

The detached equipment rule has no relevance in the play since it was not intentional. Besides, the glove WAS in it's "proper place" when contact with the ball was made and the ball and/or glove never touched anything other than a defender.

[josephrt1]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The detached equipment rule has no relevance in the play since it was not intentional. Besides, the glove WAS in it's "proper place" when contact with the ball was made and the ball and/or glove never touched anything other than a defender.

Irish, I'd like to ask a very specific question related to this original post.

First, I understand and agree with you that this is not detached equipment for the reasons you say.

Second, I think the original post has a typo because the writer says the glove came off F5 and F5 caught the glove. Then the writer says F6 celebrates. Let's assume F6 has nothing to do with this play because F5 is the one who caught the glove.

So if F5 caught the glove which contains the ball, but she does not but the glove on her hand, do we need to wait to make the out call until she either 1) puts the glove on her hand properly with the ball in it, or 2) takes the ball out with her bare hand. Otherwise is this like a fielder trapping the ball against her chest and we don't have an out unless she controls the ball with the hand or glove?

Thanks

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by josephrt1

Irish, I'd like to ask a very specific question related to this original post.

First, I understand and agree with you that this is not detached equipment for the reasons you say.

Second, I think the original post has a typo because the writer says the glove came off F5 and F5 caught the glove. Then the writer says F6 celebrates. Let's assume F6 has nothing to do with this play because F5 is the one who caught the glove.

So if F5 caught the glove which contains the ball, but she does not but the glove on her hand, do we need to wait to make the out call until she either 1) puts the glove on her hand properly with the ball in it, or 2) takes the ball out with her bare hand. Otherwise is this like a fielder trapping the ball against her chest and we don't have an out unless she controls the ball with the hand or glove?

Thanks

Your last point is how I said it should be handled. The fact that the glove was on the fielder's hand at the time the ball entered into it is irrelevant to me because the fielder never controlled the ball at any moment. When she finally "caught" the glove with the ball in it, preventing it from hitting the ground, it's still not a catch because she's a ball in the glove that is not on the fielder's hand is not possession. We already know that from the interpretation that a pitcher in the circle who takes her glove off with the ball in it, and puts the glove between her legs to fix her hair does not possess the ball, so the LBR is off.

All I have when the fielder holds onto the glove with the ball in it is a ball that hasn't been controlled yet. Once she reaches into the glove to secure the ball in her hand (or puts the glove on without dropping the ball), then we have a catch.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by josephrt1

Irish, I'd like to ask a very specific question related to this original post.

First, I understand and agree with you that this is not detached equipment for the reasons you say.

Second, I think the original post has a typo because the writer says the glove came off F5 and F5 caught the glove. Then the writer says F6 celebrates. Let's assume F6 has nothing to do with this play because F5 is the one who caught the glove.

So if F5 caught the glove which contains the ball, but she does not but the glove on her hand, do we need to wait to make the out call until she either 1) puts the glove on her hand properly with the ball in it, or 2) takes the ball out with her bare hand. Otherwise is this like a fielder trapping the ball against her chest and we don't have an out unless she controls the ball with the hand or glove?

Thanks

Yes, as I noted, the fielder, any fielder, must take possession of the ball. That means holding and showing control of the ball (not the glove), prior to the ball touching the ground, wall, fence, offensive player, umpire, pigeon, etc. This would clearly meet the definition of a catch. And if it is a catch, in this case, it is an out.

[josephrt1]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Yes, as I noted, the fielder, any fielder, must take possession of the ball. That means holding and showing control of the ball (not the glove), prior to the ball touching the ground, wall, fence, offensive player, umpire, pigeon, etc. This would clearly meet the definition of a catch. And if it is a catch, in this case, it is an out.

Thanks, very clear.

[BretMan]

There is (or used to be) an ASA case play where two fielders collide trying to catch a fly ball, the ball is in the glove of one fielder, it comes off in the collision, then the other fielder grabs the glove with ball before it hits the ground. That is ruled a catch.

If your glove can fly off with the ball in it and another player can make the catch, then I'm sure you can catch your own glove in the same fashion.

I think that the confusion with the USA "catch" definition is that it seems to allude to the detached equipment rule, but it really doesn't just due to the way that it's worded. There's nothing there about the equipment becoming detached unintentionally. It only mentions "properly worn" equipment and makes no mention of intent.

Combined with that case play, I would have to say that the "catch" definition is referring to the actual detached equipment rule and that you do have to consider the fielder's intent.