NFHS Discrepancy on Detached Equip

[BretMan]

Those top secret rules that they never tell anyone about and aren't in the rule book are always the hardest ones to enforce.

[jmkupka]

Shallow infield popup... can o' corn catch situation, F2 removes her mask (doesn't toss it) ball comes down, skips off her glove, she corrals it in her arms, ends up in the mask, then she dumps it into her mitt and shows control.

Situation 2; at the last second, sun gets in her eyes, ball never touches the mitt, ball lands down in her arms close to the body, rolls into the (still held) mask, dumps it into the mitt to show control.

Are these both examples of detached equipment infractions?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Shallow infield popup... can o' corn catch situation, F2 removes her mask (doesn't toss it) ball comes down, skips off her glove, she corrals it in her arms, ends up in the mask, then she dumps it into her mitt and shows control.

Situation 2; at the last second, sun gets in her eyes, ball never touches the mitt, ball lands down in her arms close to the body, rolls into the (still held) mask, dumps it into the mitt to show control.

Are these both examples of detached equipment infractions?

The rule requires the fielder to show intent to contact the ball with detached equipment. So I would say there is no infraction here.

However, the FED definition of Catch in rule 2-9 says that any equipment used that is not in its proper place will negate the validity of a catch. So in both of your examples, the catcher will not receive credit for legally catching the popups.

[jmkupka]

Interesting... even after control is shown in the mitt, it would still be ruled as if the ball hit the ground?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Interesting... even after control is shown in the mitt, it would still be ruled as if the ball hit the ground?

Yes. The language says:

"A catch shall not be credited if:
.
.
.
c. The fielder uses any equipment or part of her uniform that is displaced from its proper position."

There is no mention of intent in "c". So even if the ball inadvertently rolls into her removed helmet/mask, it still meets the language of "c".

Now, if, for example, the ball had somehow rolled into her jersey or behind her chest protector, and she reaches in and grabs the ball before it falls to the ground, that would be a legal catch. In those cases, the equipment or uniform are not displaced from their proper position.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Yes. The language says:

"A catch shall not be credited if:
.
.
.
c. The fielder uses any equipment or part of her uniform that is displaced from its proper position."

There is no mention of intent in "c". So even if the ball inadvertently rolls into her removed helmet/mask, it still meets the language of "c".

Now, if, for example, the ball had somehow rolled into her jersey or behind her chest protector, and she reaches in and grabs the ball before it falls to the ground, that would be a legal catch. In those cases, the equipment or uniform are not displaced from their proper position.

Disagree. IMO, the word "uses" would show the need for intent. I would site the difference between a glove that comes off the hand as opposed to a glove thrown at a ball.