young ump, that's the irony of the whole thing... had I called it correctly, there would have been much uproar from the uneducated... I tanked it, & not a peep.

The real tragedy is, had a truly knowledgable DC come out and challenge my call, I would've had to justify it by saying I felt F3 never had control (which is a lie). That's the part that has me beating myself up...

Im still not seeing based on your description of the play how you consider this to be a catch. You may consider the glove hitting the ground a secondary action after the catch, but the definition of a catch requires the fielder to maintain control of the ball if during the attempt to gain control they collide with a fence, another play, the ground etc and lose possession of the ball.

I agree. Two things are happening on this play, the catch of the throw and the touch of the base. In order to legally touch a base to meet the tag requirement, the ball must be legally possessed at the time. So in the April 2010 case play, it was very obvious that F3 possessed the ball in her bare hand as she dove to touch the bag because it said, "F3 has control of the ball and is holding the ball securely while diving". In other words, she's not bobbling it or still trying to get a handle on it. She has it securely in her hand.

In the OP play, F3 has to demonstrate that she has clear possession of the ball in her glove during the tag of the base. Just because the ball was in the glove as the foot stayed in the bag was not enough evidence. She still has to meet the definition of Catch to demonstrate that possession, and the fact that she lost control of the ball when her glove hit the ground means she never had control of the ball to begin with. Just like when the fielder loses the ball after making a diving catch but then hitting the ground and the ball comes out of the glove doesn't constitute a Catch, F3's action of having the ball go into her glove but then losing it when the glove hits the ground also doesn't make this a Catch. She never legally possessed it.

So I think you got the call right.

I understand your point. However, in retrospect (my retrospect occurring as my hands were displaying the "SAFE" call), F3 had control of the ball before the runner reached the bag.

The case play bothers me, because in that scenario, the fielder loses control of the ball because of the contact with the base, not after it.

Your description of the play does not describe a catch. How long between the ball hitting the glove, the glove hit the ground and the ball coming out? If this was all in one short act then you have not satisfied the requirement of a catch so you cannot have f3 with control of the ball.

Is that the same as post #4?

Yup, sounds like it.

Here's a case play from NFHS:

So the fact that the ball was in the glove for a split second before the runner arrived is not enough. You have to see what happens afterwards that establishes the validity of the catch. In this case play, F3 dropped the ball as she was trying to regain her balance. In your play, F3 dropped the ball as her glove hit the ground during the continuous movement to catch the ball. I don't see where there was any new movement not related to the catch in your play. So she never really had true possession of the ball.

Now, if she had it in her glove, hesitated, and then put her glove down on the ground to help push her back up into a full stance, and the ball fell out then, yeah that is a new movement. That's not what I envision happened in your play.

You should know by now that is not a condition of a catch. The OP clearly states that in his judgment, the ball was caught.

Mike, how do you arrive at that conclusion? It's right there in the USA definition; page 19.

(Ignoring for the sake of discussion the OP's judgment that it *was* a catch)

Point out where is states a release MUST be voluntary

Rule 1 Catch/No Catch Section A-1?

I already posted the line verbatim in this thread....something is going wooosh over my head here on this line of thought.

I think we are talking about whether "and/or" necessarily means "and". :rolleyes:

Fair enough. I'm a bit of a "strict constructionist" when I play Rulebook Lawyer, so I sometimes read the book differently than others. When one rule is not perfectly clear, sometimes another rule builds on it to make it more clear to me. I prefer to use other book rules vs. coming up with something based on logic to clarify....that's the job of rules interpreters/the national office.

My assertion/interp of the Catch definition for USA is A-1 is (paraphrased) "the fielder must hold the ball long enough to prove control, and if the ball is released before control is evident, then that release must be voluntary." (i.e., on the transfer to a throw).

Section B-1 goes into this further, stating it is not a catch if, while gaining control, drops the ball as a result of falling to the ground. Now, I'm not going into dangerous NFL territory on "complete the catch thru the process of going to the ground"...but if B-1 says your catch process has to survive the ground, then IMO a ball popping out of a glove that hits the ground during the process of the catch....is no catch, absent some secondary playing action by the fielder.

My 0.02c, and I'm happy to be wrong if there's rule support, rather than debating the possible intended purpose of "and/or" as "and must" or something completely different.

This reminds me of a play from several years ago where I almost had to toss the 1b coach.

R1 on first. B2 hits a ground ball to short where F6 bobbles the ball. F6 gains possession and dives towards 2nd base while in possession. Her knee is touching the base when she attempts to tag R1. During the tag attempt, which occurred after F6 touched the base with her knee in possession of the ball, the ball came out. I have an out call on the force. 1b coach is not happy and refuses to listen to the explanation he is seeking. Finally I had to walk away and I heard my PU telling him that if he hears anything else, he is gone. Never heard a peep the rest of the day from him.