Was it a catch?
 

I haven't read the definition this morning......on purpose. I wanted to ask you all.

I had a very soft liner hit to 3B. He moves toward mound (that direction) and as he is attempting to catch the ball......the top of the glove and the ball are on the same plane (almost a sno-cone.....but they're level). At the same time.....he's rolling on the ground.

I'm out from behind the plate (one-man)......and I'm selling a "safe" signal with both arms with everything I have. The runner on 1st is naturally hung up.....and gets forced at 2B.....but that really had nothing to do with the call.

My contention is I saw the ball touching the ground. BUT.....it was also in his glove.

Is this one you'd just have to see? I appreciate all replies.

Sounds like you're talking about baseball (He and mound), I don't know those rules.

However, in the NFHS rules, that would be a catch. 2-9-5-f

In ASA, if the catch was made without the assistance of the ground, than it is a catch. If the ball was touching the ground while F5 was gaining possession of the ball, it was a trap - no catch. If F5 gained control before the ball touched the ground, AND F5 proved control and voluntary release, I would have a catch.

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

So are you saying that the ground can't aid in F5 maintaining control?

If the ball comes into contact with the ground DURING the "catch" (or "attempt")......does this have any influence on your call?

"Mound" was used likely incorrectly (for the sticklers). I guess I should have said "Rubber".

Yes, it means it was not a catch
How about "Pitcher's Plate"?

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

No. Though packaged in that shape, I don't think you would ever confuse a rubber with the circle.;)

The sad thing is, guys.....I'm a damned good umpire.....and it's responses like this that keep me away time after time (and likely others).

Have a great week.

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

Lighten up.

I hope we are all "damn good umpires" but LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!:D :D :D :D

That was good - "So what's in your wallet?"

You guys remind me of the readers who write into Playboy to let them know Miss April's earrings didn't match.:D

Really? What in the world did ANYONE say that upset you? I see nothing at all even mildly insulting.

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

Not pertinent

Not pertinent

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

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?

So you say.As I said, lighten up.

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.)

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).

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?

I would say that is because we are anal about such details, but in context, that has a whole 'nuther connotation! :eek:

FAIR question! I really couldn't tell if it was or it wasn't......but I decided in that instant that I saw the ball contact/touch the ground. Based on that, ALONE.....I wasn't going to rule a catch.

If I'm wrong....I'll admit I'm wrong. I just need to see the ammo before I'm shot!

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

Thanks. I appreciate the honest response.

So ... which ruleset was it?

ASA: Fielder must show control of the ball in the hands/glove/mitt and/or the ability to voluntarily release the ball. If the ball actually touched something other the player's hand/glove/mitt, s/he obviously did not have control of the ball. And since the yet to be caught ball has now touched something other than this or any other defender, it is no longer available to be a valid catch.

I umpire ASA Men's SP.

Mike R.:

I remember some of our conversations and discussions from a few years back.

Respect.

And he was one of them who was joking with you earlier!!! See...it all worked out in the end. :)