Legal posseion of the ball for an out?

[PSUchem]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

Exactly. And your question of whether or not there was control is answered by the fielder lifting their hand/glove and showing you.

I agree. They must show control by lifting the glove. But I am contending that they need not do that very thing BEFORE the runner gets there. They must have had control before the runner arrived, but they can demonstrate that even after the runner has passed.

Originally Posted by Dakota

So, how do you determine there was no gripping as the glove is lifted? I don't know about everyone else, but being sure of an out seems like a requirement to me.

If they can squeeze that ball and lift it straight up(and therefore demonstrate control) without readjusting the glove position or turn the glove upside down or something, then they have shown control.

[Dakota]

I don't agree. Any fielder worth his/her glove can pick up a ball with the glove without a lot of fiddling around. Covering the ball does not indicate control. Call it what you want; I call it a trap.

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I don't agree. Any fielder worth his/her glove can pick up a ball with the glove without a lot of fiddling around. Covering the ball does not indicate control. Call it what you want; I call it a trap.

Without evidence to support there was no control while the glove/hand was on the ground, you'd be incorrect and would be in direct opposition to NFHS Casebook Case 2.9.5 Situation C which states:

2.9.5 SITUATION C: F3 secures a thrown ball while it is in contact with the
ground and her hand is on top of the ball. F3 turns her hand over so the ball is
facing upward (a) before; or (b) after the batter-runner touches first base. RULING:
In both (a) and (b) the batter-runner is out. F3 demonstrated control of the
thrown ball by turning it upward. COMMENT: Umpires must determine if the fielder
had control of the ball before the runner touched the base. This is a similar situation to the umpire asking to "see the ball" after a tag has been made. (2-9-5f)

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

Without evidence to support there was no control while the glove/hand was on the ground, you'd be incorrect and would be in direct opposition to NFHS Casebook Case 2.9.5 Situation C which states:

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[BretMan]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by BretMan

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.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by PSUchem

I agree. They must show control by lifting the glove. But I am contending that they need not do that very thing BEFORE the runner gets there. They must have had control before the runner arrived, but they can demonstrate that even after the runner has passed.


If they can squeeze that ball and lift it straight up(and therefore demonstrate control) without readjusting the glove position or turn the glove upside down or something, then they have shown control.

Wrong - as Tom said - they can easily gain control after the runner passed the bag and then pick it up for your out. Me - I've got the runner safe unless that glove comes up with the ball before the runner gets there.