Seriously?
 

According to MLB this is no longer an out. How long until it filters down to us???

Rangers manager Ron Washington ejected after call is overturned Monday | Mariners.com: News

Certainly looks like a catch and a loss of the ball on transfer to throwing hand to me. Saw another last week on a play at 2nd the ruled no catch. What is this definition in MLB? Havent seen it.

It all ready is with us. the catcher flipped the ball to his hand bobbled it so he has no control.

But the catch is a catch. What if the play ended with the catch? Are you going to require a transfer to see if the catch was legit????

I will continue to rule on the catch, as an umpire, and not on the transfer.

More exhibits as to just how badly MLB umpires have lost their minds:

Baseball’s New Strategy: Drop the Ball on Purpose | FanGraphs Baseball

By that definition then, even if the catcher had controlled the ball with the throwing hand it should not be an out because control was not established until after he removed his foot from the base.

just going by the book.

the flip of the ball to the throwing hand is a 'voluntary release' ... catch!

This is what someone posted on the baseball discussion board. It apparently comes from the Wendlestedt Umpire School.

Did that happen to come from the same person who wrote the NFHS courtesy runner interpretation over on the baseball board? :eek:

Here's what I'm waiting for.

Bases loaded, no outs. Shallow fly ball to right field. F9 appears to catch the ball, then jogs to the pitcher. Then flips the ball to his throwing hand so he can hand it to the pitcher - but he fails to catch the flip.

No catch.

Pitcher gets the ball, they then throw home, then 3rd, then 2nd. Triple play.

It doesn't matter. It's obvious that the MLB replay officials are going by it.

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.

Bullshit. The fact that the catcher COULD flip the ball from glove to bare hand demonstrates control.

Y'all gotta forget MLB as a valid rule source. Just because there is a lot of money involved does not make it better or more authoritative than any other organization.

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

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.

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

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

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..