Was it a catch?

[NC_Blue]

Generally, it helps to give us the ruleset involved when asking a question. It doesn't ALWAYS matter, but it does often enough.

I stated, up-front, that I wasn't going to look at the def. until I got other responses.

How about "Pitcher's Plate"?

Not pertinent

Or, even, "circle" (if FP).

Not pertinent

But, unfortunately, a bit humor challenged, it seems.

Lighten up.

Not humor challenged.....just didn't SEE any

The picking apart of the situation.....just isn't necessary to derive a conclusion. I've got thick skin......but it's sorta childish.....don't ya think?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by NC_Blue

I've got thick skin...

So you say.

Originally Posted by NC_Blue

...but it's sorta childish...

As I said, lighten up.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by NC_Blue

I stated, up-front, that I wasn't going to look at the def. until I got other responses.

You looking up the rule was not important to what I said. The reason it is important to list the ruleset the game is being played under is so that we can answer your question. Sometimes (not always, but often enough), the answer is different depending on what ruleset you're playing under. The fact that you wanted to ask here before looking it up doesn't tell us which ruleset the game was being played under (and you still haven't ... and it matters this time.)

The picking apart of the situation.....just isn't necessary to derive a conclusion. I've got thick skin......but it's sorta childish.....don't ya think?

Mentions of "Mound" and "Rubber" often imply that someone with a baseball question has wandered in, as these terms only exist in baseball. And if this was a baseball question ... see above. I don't think anyone was picking on you ... just asking you to use softball terms on a softball board (and then making fun of each other ... not you).

[NC_Blue]

OK, then.....

Help me out. Under (____________) ruleset would the outcome for the QUESTION I ASKED be different?

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by NC_Blue

OK, then.....

Help me out. Under (____________) ruleset would the outcome for the QUESTION I ASKED be different?

Next question. I couldn't tell from your post, but was the ground helping the player to maintain the ball in his glove?? Or, as he rolled on the ground did the ball simply "brush" the ground in passing?

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by NC_Blue

OK, then.....

Help me out. Under (____________) ruleset would the outcome for the QUESTION I ASKED be different?

In FED, this is probably an out, assuming you rule control before it hit the ground. Glove, then ground, is normally an out (and ground, then glove is not, obviously)
In ASA, this depends on whether you determine the ball helped the fielder control the ball. A question you've been asked above, and admitted you couldn't answer. Well... if you're calling ASA, then this is the KEY question that you must answer if you're the umpire. You can't just say, "I don't know" - your judgement on this is why you get the check, and the answer to your OP question hinges on the answer to THIS question.

And if this was baseball ("he","Mound","Rubber"), then you have other rulesets to deal with, with OBR closest to ASA on this one, and FED closest to FED (and LL, I suspect ASA, although I don't work LL).

[NC_Blue]

Answer me this.

Is the definiton of a CATCH different in the associations you reference?

The "mound" has NOTHING TO DO with the situation....and you know it.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by NC_Blue

Answer me this.

Is the definiton of a CATCH different in the associations you reference?

The "mound" has NOTHING TO DO with the situation....and you know it.

The definitions of "catch" are all pretty much the same. However, if the ground, or any other object for that matter, did nothing to help the player in maintaining control of the ball, then I would probably have ruled this a catch. Merely touching, or brushing against the ground does not invalidate the catch.

[NC_Blue]

Scott:

My initial post indicated my fear that this was one of those that you had to see.

MY perception (in a split second) was that I wasn't sure if it aided him or not......and by NOT being 100% sure the ground DIDN'T aid him (because it DID touch it).....I ruled no catch.

The only way I'd have been 100% sure the ground DIDN'T aid him.....is if it hadn't touched the ground.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by NC_Blue

Answer me this.

Is the definiton of a CATCH different in the associations you reference?

The "mound" has NOTHING TO DO with the situation....and you know it.

The existence of one would ... it would put you under different rulesets from those discussed here.

And no, the definition is not different. Clinics and interps are though. We've been told more than once in NFHS clinics that if the ball goes into the fielders glove before it hits the ground, then we need to be positive that contact with the ground aided in the catch, whereas in ASA I've heard the opposite.

The definitions are the same... but on this particular case, the burden of proof, if you will, differs, and the "Not sure" default case goes in opposite directions (out in NFHS, safe in ASA).

[NC_Blue]

And no, the definition is not different.

Thanks. I appreciate the honest response.