ball lodges with defensive player

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Roger Greene
Yes Mike.

This play is Fed legend: (BASEBALL RULINGS ONLY)

Batter hits one hopper back to F1. The ball lodges in the webbing of F1's glove.

Fed ruling is the batted ball is dead, the batter is awarded 2nd base on a batted ball going out of play. (Don't tell me how unfair the ruling is, its the rule.)

OBR ruling is the ball is live and in play. F1 may tag 1st base or the runner and/or F1 may throw glove with lodged ball to F3, to record an out.

Same play, but ball goes inside the player's jersey. Fed ruling is the same, OBR as of last August states that the ball is dead, and the umpire places the runner(s) at the base he judges they would have reached. (no provisions for an out)

Roger Greene

Now, there's a switch. OBR falling closer to being inline with ASA than Fed.

[BigUmpJohn]

Hmmm... this is indeed a tough question, considering the multiple ways a rule can be interpreted. I do wish Fed would come up with some sort of case play on this.

One part of the Fed rule on a catch is 2-10-2 which states:

A ball prevented from hitting the ground by a player's equipment (providing it is in its proper place) or body shall not be ruled caught until the ball is securely held in the player's hand(s) or glove/mitt.

Rule 2-10-1c:

A catch shall not be credited if the fielder uses any part of her uniform that is displaced from its proper position.

From what I am gathering from these two rules is that, if the uniform is in its proper place/tucked in, and the fielder is showing the she has control of the ball in her hand, we have a catch. I've seen this play before in MLB, and the player was ruled to have possession. But that's baseball, who cares?

ON THE OTHER HAND...

2-10-1

In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder must hold the ball long enough to prove she has control of the ball and that her release of the ball is voluntary and intentional.

So, now that I've contradicted myself, this post is now useless. Sorry guys.

[Roger Greene]

Originally posted by BigUmpJohn
From what I am gathering from these two rules is that, if the uniform is in its proper place/tucked in, and the fielder is showing the she has control of the ball in her hand, we have a catch. I've seen this play before in MLB, and the player was ruled to have possession. But that's baseball, who cares?

So, now that I've contradicted myself, this post is now useless. Sorry guys.

That could have been true under OBR before, but not now.
A joint MLB committee has issued a ruling in August of this year that states that a ball lodged inside the uniform of a player is dead. Of course that takes the fun out of the old (pre WWII, I beleive) play where a batted ball, after passing by F4 lodged in the rear pocket of R1, and he scampered around the bases while the defense attempted to retrieve the ball to tagg him out.

Roger Greene

[Dakota]

This siutation is a force play. IOW, the defense must have control of the ball (e.g. a legal catch / field of the ball) while tagging the base prior to the BR touching the base.

When the ball is inside the jersey, the umpire cannot see the ball

Since the rules are silent on the specific situation, following the normal practice is legitimate.

If the ball was inside the jersey only (i.e. no attempt to grasp the ball) there would be no control. That is clear.

So, the only issue is can the fielder demonstrate control with a hidden ball? I say no.

It is similar to a crash play at home with F2 making the tag and falling on top of her glove. She must come up with the ball still in the glove or no out. Reaching under her body with the other hand first - no out. Likewise, this fielder must be able to show the ball without help from the other hand.

[Edited by Dakota on Jan 30th, 2004 at 10:07 AM]

[CecilOne]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CecilOne

Does a "baseball" ruling really matter?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't you dare

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know I wouldn't.
I was "gently" setting aside the earlier "MLB recently clairified their ruling on this, FED baseball has been clear for some time"

[Dakota]

Originally posted by CecilOne

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CecilOne

Does a "baseball" ruling really matter?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't you dare

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know I wouldn't.
I was "gently" setting aside the earlier "MLB recently clairified their ruling on this, FED baseball has been clear for some time"

Didn't you already post this?