The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 17, 2014, 01:31pm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 391
Here's a great explanation of the new catch/transfer interpretation. The Wendlestedt quote is a result of the new MLB intreptation which is contained in the link below:

New 2014 Rule Interpretation: Catch/Transfer Explained | Close Call Sports & Umpire Ejection Fantasy League
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 19, 2014, 03:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKBUmp View Post
Intersting that they appear to be going by some rule from an umpire school when the following is taken directly from the MLB rulebook posted on the MLB website.
Yes, but MLB has changed its interpretation of that rule. Before, the transfer from the glove to the throwing hand was considered part of the throw, that is why it was still ruled a catch before. MLB is now saying that the catch is not complete UNTIL the ball is secured in the throwing hand. So now transferring the ball from the glove to the throwing hand is considered part of the catch, not the throw so the catch is not complete until the transfer is complete.
__________________
"Booze, broads, and bullsh!t. If you got all that, what else do you need?"."
- Harry Caray -
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 19, 2014, 04:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsf23 View Post
Yes, but MLB has changed its interpretation of that rule. Before, the transfer from the glove to the throwing hand was considered part of the throw, that is why it was still ruled a catch before. MLB is now saying that the catch is not complete UNTIL the ball is secured in the throwing hand. So now transferring the ball from the glove to the throwing hand is considered part of the catch, not the throw so the catch is not complete until the transfer is complete.
Doesn't make it right or intelligent. Sounds like a lazy man's change and IMO, a cowardly interpretation

Cannot wait until a charging OF snags one off the top of his shoe and on the way to the dugout voluntarily on the mound or flips it to a bat/ball boy from the glove and the manager demands a replay to show that the OF never showed control of the ball in the bare hand and, BTW, his runner just crossed the plate.

But it doesn't surprise me, MLB hasn't been about the game for quite a while now.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 21, 2014, 10:35am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
I predict this "change" won't survive the year. There is NO ONE in favor of this new way of interpreting things.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 25, 2014, 03:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The 503
Posts: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
I predict this "change" won't survive the year. There is NO ONE in favor of this new way of interpreting things.
I predict you're right.

MLB clarifies rule on transfer of ball from glove to hand | MLB.com: News
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 26, 2014, 11:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sherman, TX
Posts: 4,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by SethPDX View Post

It took them long enough to finally see their last interp had absolutely no support in the rules.
__________________
Scott


It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 27, 2014, 11:28am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wa.
Posts: 198
Well I disagree with Joe to this degree, the umpires I've seen have called it the same on the field, but the reviewers were turning it over. So, I think the only ones hosed up were the reviewers..
__________________
SLAS
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:38am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1