Fed rules. (all cites 2004 book)
Looking at this years book I find that 8-4-3m covers a live ball that lodges in the umpire's or offensive player's uniform or equipment (not lose equipment). The ball is dead in that case and the umpire places the runner(s) at the bases they would have reached in his judgement.

5-1-1g covers a ball lodged with F2. The penalty is then one base on a pitch, 2 bases on a thrown ball. (8-4-3c & 8-1-3g)

A live ball lodged in any other players uniform or equipment (properly worn) does not seem to be covered. It does not fall under the definition of blocked ball.

I can find no case plays to cover this.

Does ASA or any other code have a ruling on a ball that lodges with a defensive player other than F2?

Thanks,
Roger Greene

I can't recall any unless it fits within the improper use of equipment by a defensive player (e.g., catching ball in removed cap).

Both ASA and NCAA state that a ball lodged in a defensive player's clothing is live. ASA Rule 8, Section 4, Article I and NCAA Rule 9, Section 1, Article C.

Acually, ASA sez that the runner(s) is entitled to advance with liability to be put out and NCAA just states that the ball is live.

Given the ASA/NCAA position, how do we rule on this?

Ground ball to F3 goes inside her jersey. F3 clutches the ball to her chest with her hand but not removing it from her jersey, and steps on 1st base.

Out as ball is grasped by her hand even though inside her jersey, or safe as the ball is not caught/held but lodged inside her uniform? (Personally I'd lean to not held securly until removed from uniform.)

MLB recently clairified their ruling on this, FED baseball has been clear for some time. I hadn't caught the difference until last week.

Roger Greene

Roger:

You bring up an interesting point here. The only resolution that I can find, concerning NFHS rules on the live ball lodged in a defensive player's uniform other than F2, is to look at the elaborate dead ball tables that NFHS have. Since the ball being lodged in a defensive player's uniform is not listed in these tables, then the ball must be live. ;)

How's that for sound reasoning???

Yeah, I gotta go with you. If the defensive player is holding the ball with her jersey, that is not demonstrating control to me. I've got a safe call.

Hmmmm,

<b>Show me the ball</b>

I should have known who would be first.

Roger,

I do have a NFHS question for you.

We had an umpire/coaches get together on the DP/FLEX.
after that we covered any questions coaches had. One was
very interesting. Coach hosting meet brought out two new
softballs still in box. Both had the NFHS Authenticating
Mark as required. COR.47. One had the compression stamp-
ed on it as .375, the other blank. As the plate umpire
would you accept both, or if coach just handed you two w/o
compression stamp but Authenticating Mark and COR.47 would
you accept them. The one w/o compression stamp was a COR.47
compression .525

Glenn,
I would require both balls to be marked with the same stamps, including compression. I think that is the intention of 1-3-5 & 6.

If I am aware the that the balls are in excess of the 375 lbs compression, then I would not allow them to be used.

If the compression is not marked, but the coach tells me they are legal, I would probably take his word for it absent evidence to the contrary. If he has intentionally misled me, I would guess that he is opening himself up to some pretty serious liability.

Roger Greene

[Edited by Roger Greene on Jan 27th, 2004 at 10:03 PM]

If the ball is live it is playable, so the question is whether the jersey between the ball and the hand prevents control. Is this different than a ball caught with the "bare" hand wearing a batting glove? However, "lodged in a defensive player's clothing" being in the book defines that as different, so I would say it is not the same as caught, therefore safe. Bet you could sell either side.
Does a "baseball" ruling really matter?

Don't you dare ;)

Look at it this way. Can the player throw the ball away? If not, she must not have total control, or at least none which she can demonstrate without some possible embarrassment.

Only if your intent is to poke Mike! http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung...smiley-054.gif
It's more like the ball being trapped between the player's arm and body... the Rule Book / POE / Case Book (sorry, I don't have my "stuff" with me today - but I think this is covered in a POE) make it clear that trapping the ball against the body is not a catch. Sure, you could sell either one, but SAFE is correct.

Quoting from the NFHS Rule book:

A catch shall not be credited if:

a: A fielder catches a batted, pitched, or thrown ball with anything other than her hand(s) or glove/mitt in its proper place.

But there is a difference between "a catch", and "possession". I'd be inclined to rule that a ball firmly grasped by the hand, even if inside the jersey, is possession (especially if the uniform was loose enough that the player could pull the ball away from the body with the hand and maintain control).

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"

I think that fits with my "safe" call.

Please cite and quote the rule which defines "possession".

Here ya go...
;)

Thank you, Tom.

Now the questions become (in Fed), is the player holding the ball or her jersey? Does this constitute control since the player cannot do anything with that ball voluntarily except release it within the confines of her jersey?

That rule I quoted wasn't Fed... it was NCAA.

Oh, did I forget to mention... NCAA football! ;)

(Sorry... lame joke, I know).

Getting back to serious discussion...

Speaking ASA...

Until the fielder retrieves the ball out of her clothing and has it in her hand(s) or glove, it is not yet caught, it seems to me.

Tom,

Since a player cannot have possession of the ball without "catching" the ball, I believe, in ASA, the requirements are basically the same.

I would have to say, a ball that cannot be given to another player is a ball which isn't controled. Therefore, if the first base person wants control of the ball, it better either be in her hand, or her glove. inside her shirt ain't going to get it.

A player can definitely be in possession of a ball he/she did not catch. The most obvious example being the fielding of a ball or simply the picking up of a ball on the ground. The "catch" rules sited are in reference to CATCHING a ball (in other words, controlling a batted ball before it hits the ground in such a way to allow an OUT to be called). You certainly wouldn't be using the same rules to say a fielder didn't POSSESS the ball when he/she tagged a player simply because he didn't catch it before it hit the ground. The rules sited are irrelevant to this topic.

I don't have the book in front of me. But we should be looking at the rules desribing what a fielder must do with the ball when tagging an opponent or touching a base for a force.

Also - what a player may or may not do with a ball is also irrelevant to whether he/she controls it. It was mentioned that if a player couldn't throw the ball or hand the ball to a teammate, he doesn't possess it. Where is that in the book? I've never heard such a description of possession (in any sport). Certainly if the player's grasp (by her hand) is keeping the ball from dropping (to the ground or further down the shirt), the hand is CONTROLLING the ball - which is what is at issue.

Well, I certainly wouldn't doubt a NFHS rule book stated such a thing, but I am not aware that for a ball to be legally caught, it was required to be inflight. As far as I'm concerned, "fielding" a ground ball is synonymous with "catching" a ground ball.

Quote:

I don't have the book in front of me. But we should be looking at the rules desribing what a fielder must do with the ball when tagging an opponent or touching a base for a force. Also - what a player may or may not do with a ball is also irrelevant to whether he/she controls it. It was mentioned that if a player couldn't throw the ball or hand the ball to a teammate, he doesn't possess it.

That's demonstrating control and voluntary release. I know this may be a stupid question, but does NFHS not recognize the throwing of a glove with the ball wedged in the webbing or fingers as a matter of control to put out a runner as long as the recepient controls them as a single unit?

Quote:

Where is that in the book? I've never heard such a description of possession (in any sport). Certainly if the player's grasp (by her hand) is keeping the ball from dropping (to the ground or further down the shirt), the hand is CONTROLLING the ball - which is what is at issue.

Guess we could use NFHS Rule 1-8-3.....
"Loose equipment of the teams may not be on or
near the field."

or maybe

3-2-10.....
"Players shall wear/<u>utilize</u> uniforms/equipment
properly and as designed by the manufacturer."

Jersey's are not meant to catch softballs.

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk...e/biggrin3.gif

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Quote:

Originally posted by mcrowder [. [That's demonstrating control and voluntary release. I know this may be a stupid question, but does NFHS not recognize the throwing of a glove with the ball wedged in the webbing or fingers as a matter of control to put out a runner as long as the recepient controls them as a single unit? [

I'm not aware of a FED softball rule that covers that,
but Fed baseball does. A batted ball that is lodged in any players (defensive or offensive) uniform or equipment is dead (5-1-1 f 5) and a pitch or thrown ball lodged with the umpire or F2 is dead (5-1-1 g 4). The rule doesn't speak to a thrown ball that lodges with any player other than F2, but I recall seeing an authoritive ruling that ruled that ball dead as well as any ball lodged with the umpire. MLB made a ruling in August of this year that a ball lodged in a player's uniform was to be ruled dead.

Roger Greene

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Roger Greene

Quote:

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA Quote: Originally posted by mcrowder [. [That's demonstrating control and voluntary release. I know this may be a stupid question, but does NFHS not recognize the throwing of a glove with the ball wedged in the webbing or fingers as a matter of control to put out a runner as long as the recepient controls them as a single unit? [ I'm not aware of a FED softball rule that covers that, but Fed baseball does. A batted ball that is lodged in any players (defensive or offensive) uniform or equipment is dead (5-1-1 f 5) and a pitch or thrown ball lodged with the umpire or F2 is dead (5-1-1 g 4). The rule doesn't speak to a thrown ball that lodges with any player other than F2, but I recall seeing an authoritive ruling that ruled that ball dead as well as any ball lodged with the umpire. MLB made a ruling in August of this year that a ball lodged in a player's uniform was to be ruled dead. Roger Greene

So you are saying that if a fielder catches the ball and it gets stuck in the webbing, it is automatically a dead ball? I would hope that they would be a bit more specific, but then again, this is Fed.

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.

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. ;)

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

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]

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? http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung...smiley-013.gif