Intentional, or not intentional?

[azbigdawg]

GUIDING the ball to the ground is not against the rules. But in that situation, if the ball gets into the glove and I think there is even a small possibility she let it fall out, Im calling a catch and killing the play. I havent had a tough time selling it, because most of the time its fairly obvious.

[Jaycec]

I don't think you can call an intentional drop in this case because, as azbigdawg pointed out, guiding the ball to the ground is not against the rules. With the face of the glove down you can't call this a catch.

Batters need to be hustling down the line to avoid these situations.

[NCASAUmp]

At one of our local clinics, this kind of play had been discussed. For it to be an intentionally dropped ball, the ball must hit the glove. Now, it's possible that our trainer and UIC glossed over whether or not the pocket of the glove needs to be facing the ball. I'd have to see this play in person to judge the intent.

However, that's what we as umpires are paid to do: judge plays. If you judge that the fielder allowed the ball to hit her glove to set up a cheap double play, dead ball it and call the BR out (ASA). There's a difference between intentionally dropping a fly ball and "oops."

I've only made this call once in over 15 years.

[archangel]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

At one of our local clinics, this kind of play had been discussed. For it to be an intentionally dropped ball, the ball must hit the glove. .

I know what you are trying to say, but will expand a bit on it. It does take more than just the ball hitting the glove, i.e. fielder diving to catch, hits it but doesnt catch it= not intentional drop.
A fielder is allowed to let the catchable ball drop untouched, then try to turn two. Intentionally not catching it by letting it drop untouched is not an intentional drop. Many people (Im not including you) are confused by the word "intentional". The OP is a HTBT with regards to the fielders actions....

[Dakota]

The ASA interpretation is that an intentionally dropped ball must first be caught and THEN intentionally dropped.

Since the BR is out if the ball is caught, it would seem what ASA is doing is ruling the ball dead to prevent deceiving the runner into believing the force is on.

Otherwise, the ASA ruling makes little sense (to me, anyway).

[Al]

Originally Posted by Dakota

The ASA interpretation is that an intentionally dropped ball must first be caught and THEN intentionally dropped.

Since the BR is out if the ball is caught, it would seem what ASA is doing is ruling the ball dead to prevent deceiving the runner into believing the force is on.

Otherwise, the ASA ruling makes little sense (to me, anyway).

Dakota,

I think most umpires would have seen this as a very obvious attempt to deceive the runner at 1st. (that's why I was suprised by the no-call) She made it look like she caught the ball, then let it roll out of her glove where she could pick it up quickly. When an umpire believes this to be the case shouldn't he or she call intentional dropping. The reason I believe the call should have been made is two-fold. One: the way she set herself in position (basket catch) to easily get to the ball after letting it roll out of her glove. And two: actually letting the ball come rolling out of her glove. There was no guiding the ball to the ground, but a grasp of the ball in her glove, and then what appeared to be an intentional releasing of the ball directly in front of her. Thanks to all for all the good replies. Nothin' like fun at the ole' ball park! ...Al

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Al

...There was no guiding the ball to the ground, but a grasp of the ball in her glove, and then what appeared to be an intentional releasing of the ball directly in front of her. ...

As you describe it, sounds like a catch and a voluntary release. But, definitely umpire judgment.

[Jaycec]

Originally Posted by Al

Dakota,
There was no guiding the ball to the ground, but a grasp of the ball in her glove, and then what appeared to be an intentional releasing of the ball directly in front of her. Thanks to all for all the good replies. Nothin' like fun at the ole' ball park! ...Al

Based on your original description I was picturing the ball hitting the back of the glove-hand where it could not be caught. If it was in fact in the glove and then voluntarily released, it should probably be ruled an out.

I wish the rule was written better. I played with a shortstop who had the art of guiding a ball to the ground down to a science. With a runner on first or first and second, he'd let a line drive hit the back of his glove. After the ball would drop in front of him we'd turn a double-play. Seems to be one of those ambiguous rules that I wish was less so.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

The ASA interpretation is that an intentionally dropped ball must first be caught and THEN intentionally dropped.

Since the BR is out if the ball is caught, it would seem what ASA is doing is ruling the ball dead to prevent deceiving the runner into believing the force is on.

Otherwise, the ASA ruling makes little sense (to me, anyway).

#1. If the BR doesn't run out the play, they deserve zero protection from anyone or any rule. DMR, you're out.

#2. Any umpire worth a 10th of what they make for umpiring a game knows a catch and ID when they see it. It is the folks who try to overanalyze every little situation, trying to prove something that is not what they want it to be.

#3. Even as definitive as the ASA rule is, people still screw it up by overthinking a simple play. Could you imagine if the wording was extremely vague and allowed an umpire to free-lance this rule? I don't want to be the UIC trying to get an umpire off the hook when he comes up with some ridiculous interpretation on the field of which only s/he and their guardian angel are aware.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

#1. If the BR doesn't run out the play, they deserve zero protection from anyone or any rule. DMR, you're out.

#2. Any umpire worth a 10th of what they make for umpiring a game knows a catch and ID when they see it. It is the folks who try to overanalyze every little situation, trying to prove something that is not what they want it to be.

#3. Even as definitive as the ASA rule is, people still screw it up by overthinking a simple play. Could you imagine if the wording was extremely vague and allowed an umpire to free-lance this rule? I don't want to be the UIC trying to get an umpire off the hook when he comes up with some ridiculous interpretation on the field of which only s/he and their guardian angel are aware.

So that being said, what is the official interpretation from ASA? Is it that if the fielder simply catches the ball, then releases the ball to the ground voluntarily, dead ball and BR out? Maybe I have over-thought this rule.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

#1. If the BR doesn't run out the play, they deserve zero protection from anyone or any rule. DMR, you're out.

Since, by ASA interpretation and rule, the ball is caught and intentionally dropped, the BR is out on the catch. If the rule is invoked, the catch and drop did not fool the umpire - it was a catch. So, this can't be for protection of the BR.