Blew the call, nobody knows...

[jmkupka]

Nope, it's not the force of the tag that cause the ball to come out (it's not a tag play), in the OP it's the impact of the glove hitting the ground after the out was made on the force play.

On a tag, the ball has to be controlled throughout the tagging process (including after the tag)...

On a force, the ball has to be controlled before the runner touches the base. What happens after doesnt affect the out.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

On a tag, the ball has to be controlled throughout the tagging process (including after the tag)...

Not strictly true but it's not bad shorthand. I've posted this before, but since this thread is current I'll say it again. Per the book, you only need control for the moment of the tag or the force out. But on a real ball field where you have to make a judgment about control, if the ball came loose as a result of the tagging action, it's generally good judgment to judge that she didn't have control before the tag.

Similarly it's possible from reading the book alone that the outfielder had full control and then voluntarily opened her glove to let the ball hit the grass. On a field call it no catch.

As to your OP, if you judged control and then a subsequent action caused loss of control, you had the ruling wrong. If you had judged that the inability to control the ball through the ground indicated she never actually fully had it, then your ruling would be right. You seem convinced of your (second guessing) judgment here. Honestly, the reason I think you got no grief is that everyone else thought you got the call right. How were they supposed to know you only got it right because your bad judgment was balanced by kicking the rule ?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Nope, it's not the force of the tag that cause the ball to come out (it's not a tag play), in the OP it's the impact of the glove hitting the ground after the out was made on the force play.

On a tag, the ball has to be controlled throughout the tagging process (including after the tag)...

On a force, the ball has to be controlled before the runner touches the base. What happens after doesnt affect the out.

It IS a tag play. You are tagging the base, not the runner, but it is a tag play. Unless softball is different, the tag has to be made while the ball is held securely and firmly in the hand or glove. Popped out - wasn't. No tag.

[jmkupka]

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...

[RKBUmp]

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

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.

[jmkupka]

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.

[RKBUmp]

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.