Blew the call, nobody knows...
 

... and I'm still beating myself up over it.

Typical play at 1B, F3 has to stretch and controls the catch, then the glove slams to the ground and the ball pops out. BU (me) uses good timing mechanics, then, Safe! Nobody says boo.

B/R was out the split second the catch was controlled.

Based on your description im not sure that qualifies as control. Remember, to have a catch you must have the fielder demonstrate control of the ball long enough to prove they caught it and/or voluntary release. If the fielder catches the ball, falls to the ground or collides with something and loses control it is not a catch.

I don't think you kicked this. Speaking USA:

As you describe it, I don't see voluntary release.

It is not clear that the "glove slams to the ground" was part of the catching motion. If it was, then probably not voluntary.
If F3 was then doing another "softball move" ;); might have been control.

Either way, glad you are human.

Gott dang robot umps are taking over everywhere! :D

This string talks a bit about a catch and control. Judgment calls that could be debated.

A while back, I came across a case play somewhere that reminds me of "the split second" concept.

F3 fields a ground ball on a diving play towards first base. She retrieves the ball in her bare hand and has control of it. She dives for the base and with the ball in her hand manages to touch first base. But her momentum causes the ball to pop out of her hand after which the BR crosses the base.

The ruling I recall on this play was that the BR was out "the split second" that the ball touched the base. I brought this up as a question at a NUS and we had differing opinions.

I'll look, but I'm not sure I'll be able to find that play in my files.

Comments from this forum?

Ah, found it. The "high intensity data retrieval system" hard at work.

This is actually from April 2010 Plays and Clarifications...

Play: B2 slaps the pitch toward the right side of the infield and F3 fields the ball with their bare hand and dives for 1B. In the base umpire’s opinion, F3 has control of the ball and is holding the ball securely while diving on 1B and touching it with the ball. As soon as F3 touches 1B with the ball, the ball rolls loose into foul ground.

Ruling: This is a judgment call by the umpire in regards to F3 having control of the ball when touching 1B. The runner should be ruled out if the umpire judged the fielder had possession of the ball at the time of touching the base, regardless of the ball coming loose after touching the base. The issue is control for that split second that the ball touches the base. If control is established when the fielder touches the base B2 would be out.

So, a judgment call, not much of a clarification, like many others. :rolleyes:

It would be a very hard sell to claim that F3 had control "for that split second that the ball touches the base". I have to believe the reason the ball came loose was because it was jarred out of F3's hand the moment she contacted the base with the ball.

Thanks for the feedback guys.

Based my thoughts on the play where F6 catches the throw at 2B for a force out, a split-second later gets bumped by the runner coming into 2B and dislodges the ball. If your judgement has that catch controlled for that split second, the runner was out at that moment.

In my OP, I had control, the slam of the glove on the ground was a separate act. Shouldve been an out.

Your scenario reminds me of the bases-loaded, 2-out bunt that settles to a stop on the plate. F2 picks up the ball. Is R1 on 3B called out in the infinitesimal moment of picking the ball up (when it was still in contact with the plate)?

If I recall, that thread was debated for several pages :)

If the force of making the tag caused the ball to be dropped then the fielder didn't have control and the ball wasn't held firmly.

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.

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 :D?

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.

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.