Jump to content

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
  • 0
Mister B

Glove knocked off fielders hand

Question

I was watching this game, but wanted to verify the ruling.

LL Districts championship game. Hard line shot to F5, the ball hits the glove and rips it off F5's hand, the glove with the ball in it, hit the ground and the ball rolls out. It's ruled as no catch.

After the game, one of the coaches asked if the ball had stayed in the glove, would it have been a catch? I said that since, he didn't maintain control, I would have ruled no catch. 

What's the correct ruling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

No catch.  Once the glove is off your person it is no longer part of the body...it is a ball that has touched an object other than a fielder, making it no longer "in flight".

IN FLIGHT describes a batted, thrown, or pitched ball which has not yet touched the ground or some object other than a fielder.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
  • 0

Fielder must voluntary release the ball after the catch as well, hard to do when the glove is no longer attached to his body

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

that's correct, it's no catch.  fielder didn't secure the ball in his hand or glove ( .....because the glove is on the ground) :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

1 hour ago, Thunderheads said:

that's correct, it's no catch.  fielder didn't secure the ball in his hand or glove ( .....because the glove is on the ground) :D 

BUT, BUT!!! Aren't the hands part of the glove?????? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
19 minutes ago, Mudisfun said:

 

BUT, BUT!!! Aren't the hands part of the glove?????? :P

Absolutely - I hated my hands, and so I went to the store, and I bought I nice Easton glove, as well as a nice Easton bat, and each of them came with a brand new pair of hands.  I rotate them out weekly.   I keep my original hands in an old ball bag just in case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

OK. Let's expand on this one a bit. Here's a slightly different scenario. Happened this weekend in a 11U LL district championship game.

Kid catches the ball in his glove (I understand catches is subject to interpretation because of what I'm about to add.) and it knocks the glove off his hand, but the ball never comes out of his glove and the glove/ball more or less roll off into both hands and he hangs firmly on to them (ball still in glove). 

What's the call?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
42 minutes ago, WilsonFlyer said:

OK. Let's expand on this one a bit. Here's a slightly different scenario. Happened this weekend in a 11U LL district championship game.

Kid catches the ball in his glove (I understand catches is subject to interpretation because of what I'm about to add.) and it knocks the glove off his hand, but the ball never comes out of his glove and the glove/ball more or less roll off into both hands and he hangs firmly on to them (ball still in glove). 

What's the call?

Out.  Just like when the ball gets stuck in F1's mitt and F1 throws the entire mitt to F3 -- when F3 catches the mitt (with the ball) while standing on the base, BR is out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, WilsonFlyer said:

Kid catches the ball in his glove (I understand catches is subject to interpretation because of what I'm about to add.) and it knocks the glove off his hand, but the ball never comes out of his glove and the glove/ball more or less roll off into both hands and he hangs firmly on to them (ball still in glove). 

What's the call?

 

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

Out.  Just like when the ball gets stuck in F1's mitt and F1 throws the entire mitt to F3 -- when F3 catches the mitt (with the ball) while standing on the base, BR is out.

I'd like to see a case play on that.   Once the glove is no longer worn, it's not part of the fielder.  Once the ball touches something other than a fielder it's no longer in flight.  If it's not in flight it can't be caught.

I think in "spirit" it should be an out.  But by letter of rule, I think it's not.  Imagine a scenario where a fielder's glove flew off his hand (unintentionally) and while it was in the air the batted ball hit the glove (the first thing it hit), and then the fielder caught the ball in his hands, with the ball never touching the ground.   Is that a catch?  I don't think it is, and I don't think it's any different from the ball being in the glove while off the hand.   I'm assuming it would be true for any piece of clothing that comes off and hits a ball in flight (shoe, hat).

 

 

As a secondary question - I've seen when the pitcher throws the glove to the first baseman the first baseman drops his own glove to catch the pitcher's glove.  Does he have to do that to make it a catch?  Or do they just think they need to?  Or perhaps it's just easier to catch it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

 

I'd like to see a case play on that.   Once the glove is no longer worn, it's not part of the fielder.  Once the ball touches something other than a fielder it's no longer in flight.  If it's not in flight it can't be caught.

I think in "spirit" it should be an out.  But by letter of rule, I think it's not.  Imagine a scenario where a fielder's glove flew off his hand (unintentionally) and while it was in the air the batted ball hit the glove (the first thing it hit), and then the fielder caught the ball in his hands, with the ball never touching the ground.   Is that a catch?  I don't think it is, and I don't think it's any different from the ball being in the glove while off the hand.   I'm assuming it would be true for any piece of clothing that comes off and hits a ball in flight (shoe, hat).

If you grab the ball with one hand and it gets dropped but you then actually catch it with the other hand is it an out?  Of course.  Same here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
11 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

If you grab the ball with one hand and it gets dropped but you then actually catch it with the other hand is it an out?  Of course.  Same here.

But your left and right hand are both part of a fielder.  The glove, while it's off your body, is not.  if the ball is in the glove, it's touching something other than a fielder.

As I've said - spirit of the rule vs letter of the rule.  Without reading the definition of a catch, I'd consider it a catch based on the Supreme Court's ruling on pornography - I may not be able to define it but I know it when I see it.  It certainly looks like a catch.  But we've seen that isn't true in baseball...and football...when ruling a "catch".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I was actually not on the field for that play but had about as good of a look at it as our guys in the field and in my judgement, the kid never lost "contact" with the glove/ball at all. It was more of a roll off one hand and into the two hands if that makes sense. I'm not sure it matters but it would be interesting even again if it does. 

Nice point, beerguy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I think if the ball first contacted equipment (glove, hat, sunglasses, etc.) while the equipment was being properly worn, and then the equipment became dislodged, and the ball was caught before touching anything other than the originally-properly-worn equipment, I'd have a catch.  If the equipment were to become dislodged before the ball contacted it, then I think the ball would no longer be in flight and could not be caught for an out.

I don't have a rule citation to back this up at all, but I think I could sell it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 hours ago, noumpere said:

Out.  Just like when the ball gets stuck in F1's mitt and F1 throws the entire mitt to F3 -- when F3 catches the mitt (with the ball) while standing on the base, BR is out.

Not so under FED:

5.1.1 SITUATION R:

On a sharply hit ground ball that is snagged by F1, the player's initial attempts to withdraw the ball from the glove and throw the ball to F3 are not successful. In an attempt to retire the batter-runner, F1 tosses his glove with the lodged ball to F3.

RULING: U1 will declare the ball dead and award the batter-runner second base. When F1 tossed his fielding glove to F3 to put out the batter-runner, it became apparent that the ball was lodged and the ball becomes dead and the award is made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, CJK said:

I think if the ball first contacted equipment (glove, hat, sunglasses, etc.) while the equipment was being properly worn, and then the equipment became dislodged, and the ball was caught before touching anything other than the originally-properly-worn equipment, I'd have a catch.  If the equipment were to become dislodged before the ball contacted it, then I think the ball would no longer be in flight and could not be caught for an out.

I don't have a rule citation to back this up at all, but I think I could sell it.

In this instance, the ball took the glove off, so the fielder never had control of the ball. The ball staying in the glove is more luck than anything. How would you rule the ball popping out and landing on top of the glove? 

If the ball remains in the glove, we now have the issue of using detached equipment to pick up the ball. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
37 minutes ago, Mister B said:

In this instance, the ball took the glove off, so the fielder never had control of the ball. The ball staying in the glove is more luck than anything. How would you rule the ball popping out and landing on top of the glove? 

If the ball remains in the glove, we now have the issue of using detached equipment to pick up the ball. 

I think you could guess these answers, but I'll try to be more clear.

No catch if the ball touches detached equipment which is on the ground.

Catch if the ball causes originally-properly-worn equipment to become detached and a fielder secures the ball before it touches the ground (or detached equipment which is on the ground).

And again, I do not have rule citations.  This is just my attempt to describe the way I interpret the spirit of catch/no catch.

I don't think anyone really thinks that the ball falling into an open glove on the ground should be a catch.  At the same time, I don't think anyone really thinks that a fielder who has his glove pulled off by a ball but then catches the glove with the ball still in it hasn't made a catch.  Everything else is really just people trying to explain the difference to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
23 minutes ago, CJK said:

I think you could guess these answers, but I'll try to be more clear.

No catch if the ball touches detached equipment which is on the ground.

Catch if the ball causes originally-properly-worn equipment to become detached and a fielder secures the ball before it touches the ground (or detached equipment which is on the ground).

And again, I do not have rule citations.  This is just my attempt to describe the way I interpret the spirit of catch/no catch.

I don't think anyone really thinks that the ball falling into an open glove on the ground should be a catch.  At the same time, I don't think anyone really thinks that a fielder who has his glove pulled off by a ball but then catches the glove with the ball still in it hasn't made a catch.  Everything else is really just people trying to explain the difference to each other.

I agree with you on the above. The part I have an issue with is that the coach had said that U1 told him that had the ball remained in the glove after the glove fell to the ground, he would have called it an out. I'm not seeing any kind of control or "firmly holding it". When the glove hits the ground, the definition of a catch has not been met, regardless of the ball not touching the actual ground. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Mister B said:

If the ball remains in the glove, we now have the issue of using detached equipment to pick up the ball. 

No, we don't.  Detached equipment requires some sort of intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

Not so under FED:

5.1.1 SITUATION R:

On a sharply hit ground ball that is snagged by F1, the player's initial attempts to withdraw the ball from the glove and throw the ball to F3 are not successful. In an attempt to retire the batter-runner, F1 tosses his glove with the lodged ball to F3.

RULING: U1 will declare the ball dead and award the batter-runner second base. When F1 tossed his fielding glove to F3 to put out the batter-runner, it became apparent that the ball was lodged and the ball becomes dead and the award is made.

Agreed.  I was talking OBR, but I should have specified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 minutes ago, Mister B said:

I agree with you on the above. The part I have an issue with is that the coach had said that U1 told him that had the ball remained in the glove after the glove fell to the ground, he would have called it an out. I'm not seeing any kind of control or "firmly holding it". When the glove hits the ground, the definition of a catch has not been met, regardless of the ball not touching the actual ground. 

That play has been discussed here several times in the past week, and no one has a catch in that situation.  There is no specific interp in any of the codes (that I know of)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 minutes ago, noumpere said:

That play has been discussed here several times in the past week, and no one has a catch in that situation.  There is no specific interp in any of the codes (that I know of)

And the reason it's not a catch is the ball, while laying inside the glove while the glove is on the ground, is touching something other than a fielder, no?   It's not touching the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Here’s an interpretation that covers NFHS from the 2016 Baseball Rule Differences by Carl Childress (section 130, page 102):

Federation Official Interpretation:  Hopkins:  A sharp line drive knocks the glove from the second baseman’s hand, and it falls to the ground with the ball still in the pocket. Is this a catch? Ruling:  No. (Website 2008 #2)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
58 minutes ago, CJK said:

At the same time, I don't think anyone really thinks that a fielder who has his glove pulled off by a ball but then catches the glove with the ball still in it hasn't made a catch

And this is where I'm not sure.  I'd like to say it is a catch, because to me, in spirit, it is, but I wonder if a protest committee would overrule based on literal definition.  And I wonder if any authoritative figure would rule it a non-catch, for the reasons stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
15 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

And this is where I'm not sure.  I'd like to say it is a catch, because to me, in spirit, it is, but I wonder if a protest committee would overrule based on literal definition.  And I wonder if any authoritative figure would rule it a non-catch, for the reasons stated.

I ran across this link while I was thinking about and looking for information about your point.  It appears to be at least 15 years old (since Ralph Nelson resigned from his position in 2003), I don't really know where to find "MLB Regulations," and I'm not sure they'd help anyone using OBR outside MLB or using any other rule set, but I thought it was interesting.

Quote

As a side-note, MLB Regulations do cover a batted or thrown ball (but not a pitched ball) touching an animal: "If a batted or thrown ball strikes a bird or other animal on the playing field, consider the ball alive and in play, the same as if it had not touched the bird or animal."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
38 minutes ago, CJK said:

I ran across this link while I was thinking about and looking for information about your point.  It appears to be at least 15 years old (since Ralph Nelson resigned from his position in 2003), I don't really know where to find "MLB Regulations," and I'm not sure they'd help anyone using OBR outside MLB or using any other rule set, but I thought it was interesting.

 

Reads like it's right from PBUC / MLBUM.  I don't have them handy to check, though I agree with the interp.

 

(I'll spare you the old joke about a pig eating the ball.  You're welcome in advance.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×