Was it a catch?

[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.

[MNBlue]

If that is the case, we don't guess outs. If you don't know for sure that F5 caught the ball, you don't have a catch.

[NC_Blue]

If that is the case, we don't guess outs. If you don't know for sure that F5 caught the ball, you don't have a catch.

"On the fly"....this was my thinking.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by 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.

That is one of the many drawbacks of the one umpire system. You could have probably had a better vantage point as a BU on this play, and at least there would have been two sets of eyes on it.