No, I wouldn't. You say glove/hand. NFHS Case Play says "hand." A glove is not a hand. Unless the player has hands like Shaq, you can see the ball, and see the grip and determine control. You can do none of those with a glove covering the ball.

And, you have the test backwards. I don't have to see evidence of lack of control. The player has to show evidence she has control.

I'm with Dakota pretty much across the board on this one. You have to KNOW the fielder has possession. Sitch 1 and 4 are NOT the same. In 1, you see the ball and can see if any further regripping happens. In 4, you can't see the ball. You can't GUESS an out. And as he stated, it's relatively easy to turn a trap into control without any visible movement.

I understand the distinction you guys are making about the ball being on the ground and either in the hand or glove. Valid point.

Then again, we're talking about the personal judgment of an individual umpire and how he might apply it to the actual playing rule, not the rule itself. While the rule is constant on this play, individual judgment is a huge variable.

Nevertheless, this sounds like a solid rule of thumb that an umpire could use to help form his judgment.

BretMan is absolutely correct, the matter of possession and control is judgment. However, ASA & ISF both teach that merely trapping the ball against body, ground, wall or any object other than the opposite hand or glove on the hand is not to be considered possession.

IOW, if the glove is simply covering the ball, it is nothing at that time.

Though there is a difference between possession and catch, ASA offers what I consider a clear indication their position on the matter of demonstrating control of the ball. Personally, I see little difference between the two in definition.