Blew the call, nobody knows...

[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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by 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.

Is that the same as post #4?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Is that the same as post #4?

Yup, sounds like it.

Here's a case play from NFHS:

2.9.2 SITUATION B:

B1 hits to F5. The throw to F3 is wide so that it is necessary for F3 to stretch for the catch. The ball arrives in time but as F3 attempts to regain balance she loses possession of the ball. Is the runner out?

RULING: The time element has some influence, but in case of doubt, the umpire will rule the runner safe. Attempts to regain balance after receiving the ball are usually considered a part of the act of catching, and if the fielder does not come up with possession of the ball, it is not considered a catch. In all such cases, there is a judgment factor. If the ball is clearly in possession, and if some other new movement not related to the catch is then made and if the ball is fumbled during such new movement, the umpire will usually declare it a catch followed by a fumble.

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.