catch and carry

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Don't think I would since it wasn't done to stop the runner from advancing.

That's not in the rule is it? If somebody caught the ball near deadball territory and then for whatever dumb reason that is obviously intentional (maybe to get in a fight with someone in the opposite dugout [it's kind of far out there]) then we have a two base award regardless of what they were trying to accomplish. No?
________
Bong reviews

[BretMan]

The rules seem to recognize scenarios where the ball might be carried out of play for reasons other than to purposely halt the advance of runners.

Hence, the unintentional "catch and carry" resulting in a one-base award, versus the intentional "catch and carry" and the more severe two-base award.

("Catch and carry" is really a misnomer. While a common application of this rule is when a fielder's momentum takes them out-of-play after making a catch, no "catch" is required before a defender carries, kicks, pushes or throws a ball out of play. But it is a misnomer that has has become an accepted shorthand to describe this play or violation.)

As to the original play posted, if the umpire awarded a base on that one then the call did get pulled from some deep and dark orifice. Time had been called so there can be no violation.

On the other hand, if time had not been called, I don't see anything in the rules that would preclude the award of bases.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

That's not in the rule is it? If somebody caught the ball near deadball territory and then for whatever dumb reason that is obviously intentional (maybe to get in a fight with someone in the opposite dugout [it's kind of far out there]) then we have a two base award regardless of what they were trying to accomplish. No?

Well, to start, we are way off subject as the OP clearly noted the ball was dead.

However, I'm going to step back and agree that an umpire could award two bases because that is the black and white of the rule book.

I will also disagree with the ruling as the purpose of the rule was to prevent the defense from restricting the offense from moving around the bases, in either direction.

Then again, if there is no pending action and an umpire sees what is happening, time should be called as a preventive measure. An umpire shouldn't be looking for "gotcha" outs.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...An umpire shouldn't be looking for "gotcha" outs.

If you had some of the rec league games I've had.....you would be looking for all of the "gotcha" outs you could get!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Andy

If you had some of the rec league games I've had.....you would be looking for all of the "gotcha" outs you could get!

Well, I certainly cannot argue with that.

[argodad]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

... if there is no pending action and an umpire sees what is happening, time should be called as a preventive measure. An umpire shouldn't be looking for "gotcha" outs.

Easy to kill this one. As F1 walks toward the foul line, my mask is coming off and I'm asking, "Pitcher ... Coach ... Do you want a conference?"