Intentional, or not intentional?

[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