Seriously?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by gsf23

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.

[MD Longhorn]

I predict this "change" won't survive the year. There is NO ONE in favor of this new way of interpreting things.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

I predict you're right.

MLB clarifies rule on transfer of ball from glove to hand | MLB.com: News

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

[soundedlikeastrike]

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..