NorthTexasUmp 48 Report post Posted January 17 *2.9.1 SITUATION D: B1 hits a two hopper back to the pitcher. F1 gloves the batted ball but cannot get the ball out of his glove. He quickly removes the glove with ball that is securely stuck inside the webbing of the glove and shovels the glove to the first baseman who is in contact with first base. The first baseman catches the glove with the ball in it, just before B1 touches first base. Is B1 out? RULING: B1 is out, because F3 had secure possession of the glove and ball. 5.1.1 SITUATION Q: A line drive rips the glove from the pitcher's hand. The pitcher retrieves the glove, which contains the ball, and throws the glove and ball to the first baseman. RULING: Illegal. A fair-batted ball is dead immediately when it becomes lodged in player equipment. 2.9.1 Situation D is a new Case Play this year, it was not in 2018's book. Thoughts? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimurray 689 Report post Posted January 17 16 minutes ago, NorthTexasUmp said: *2.9.1 SITUATION D: B1 hits a two hopper back to the pitcher. F1 gloves the batted ball but cannot get the ball out of his glove. He quickly removes the glove with ball that is securely stuck inside the webbing of the glove and shovels the glove to the first baseman who is in contact with first base. The first baseman catches the glove with the ball in it, just before B1 touches first base. Is B1 out? RULING: B1 is out, because F3 had secure possession of the glove and ball. 5.1.1 SITUATION Q: A line drive rips the glove from the pitcher's hand. The pitcher retrieves the glove, which contains the ball, and throws the glove and ball to the first baseman. RULING: Illegal. A fair-batted ball is dead immediately when it becomes lodged in player equipment. 2.9.1 Situation D is a new Case Play this year, it was not in 2018's book. Thoughts? It's a conflict. When you go to a regional clinic they will tell you the new caseplay applies. FED is now the same as OBR. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NorthTexasUmp 48 Report post Posted January 17 58 minutes ago, Jimurray said: It's a conflict. When you go to a regional clinic they will tell you the new caseplay applies. FED is now the same as OBR. I'm not doubting you but who has stated to follow the new case play? TASO State Interpreter? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimurray 689 Report post Posted January 17 8 minutes ago, NorthTexasUmp said: I'm not doubting you but who has stated to follow the new case play? TASO State Interpreter? I can't remember if they noted the caseplay but the regional clinic presenter said FED is now like OBR. It's unfortunate that they did not revise 5-1-1-f5 but I'm calling it like OBR from now on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NorthTexasUmp 48 Report post Posted January 17 20 minutes ago, Jimurray said: I can't remember if they noted the caseplay but the regional clinic presenter said FED is now like OBR. It's unfortunate that they did not revise 5-1-1-f5 but I'm calling it like OBR from now on. OK, thanks!. I was just trying to get something authoritative to take back to the chapter. They are is trying to get an answer from FED. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scrounge 1,208 Report post Posted January 17 Until I see a clarification or official word from NFHS or the state, I'm ignoring the new case. It's in direct conflict not only with long-standing cases still in the book but also the plain letter of the rule as it exists today. If they want to change it, then change the rule and do this in an orderly process, not by sloppily backdooring a contradictory case play under the radar like this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimurray 689 Report post Posted January 17 1 hour ago, scrounge said: Until I see a clarification or official word from NFHS or the state, I'm ignoring the new case. It's in direct conflict not only with long-standing cases still in the book but also the plain letter of the rule as it exists today. If they want to change it, then change the rule and do this in an orderly process, not by sloppily backdooring a contradictory case play under the radar like this. It’s sloppy but I’m willing to call it like the other two codes call it. BTW, FED changed one rule to allow overrunning 1B on a walk last year but did not remove that prohibition in another spot in the book until this year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scrounge 1,208 Report post Posted January 17 53 minutes ago, Jimurray said: It’s sloppy but I’m willing to call it like the other two codes call it. BTW, FED changed one rule to allow overrunning 1B on a walk last year but did not remove that prohibition in another spot in the book until this year. True, but the overrunning was an announced change, with the rule changed but an old case missed. I can understand that. This is kinda the opposite - no change to rule or existing cases, just a new, contradictory case just appearing out of nowhere. It's reasonable to use the new interpretation, but I'm going to wait for further direction before doing so. And let's face it, this is kind of a unicorn play in the first place! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yawetag 288 Report post Posted January 17 26 minutes ago, scrounge said: True, but the overrunning was an announced change, with the rule changed but an old case missed. I can understand that. This is kinda the opposite - no change to rule or existing cases, just a new, contradictory case just appearing out of nowhere. It's reasonable to use the new interpretation, but I'm going to wait for further direction before doing so. And let's face it, this is kind of a unicorn play in the first place! I agree with you on whether or not this was intended. Nowhere in the FED rule changes does it mention this, somewhat big, change. While I would love for it to be changed, if only to put the three codes in line with each other, I don't think it's going to happen with a simple case play being added to the casebook. I do disagree on this being a unicorn play. It's not common, but I've had a few "ball stuck in glove" incidents in my time - at least one each during FED and OBR games. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thatsnotyou 36 Report post Posted January 17 28 minutes ago, scrounge said: True, but the overrunning was an announced change, with the rule changed but an old case missed. I can understand that. This is kinda the opposite - no change to rule or existing cases, just a new, contradictory case just appearing out of nowhere. It's reasonable to use the new interpretation, but I'm going to wait for further direction before doing so. And let's face it, this is kind of a unicorn play in the first place! I'm with you on this. How many people are going to come across this change if it's not in the NFHS packet and the rule stays the same? If I wasn't on this board, I likely never hear about that case play. If the NFHS packet can let us know about "new umpire signals", they should be able to let us know about this. I've only had this play happen one time (pitcher). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimurray 689 Report post Posted January 17 31 minutes ago, scrounge said: True, but the overrunning was an announced change, with the rule changed but an old case missed. I can understand that. This is kinda the opposite - no change to rule or existing cases, just a new, contradictory case just appearing out of nowhere. It's reasonable to use the new interpretation, but I'm going to wait for further direction before doing so. And let's face it, this is kind of a unicorn play in the first place! Actually they left the exception in 8-1-4h-1 in 2018 and took it out in 2019: “1. If a batter-runner safely touches first base and then overslides or overruns it, except on a base on balls, he may immediately return to first base without liability of being tagged out, provided he did not attempt to run or feint to second. Also, if any base comes loose from its fastening when any runner contacts it, such runner cannot be tagged out because the base slides away from him.” Excerpt From 2018 NFHS Baseball Rules Book NFHShttps://itunes.apple.com/us/book/2018-nfhs-baseball-rules-book/id1314997555?mt=11 This material may be protected by copyright. But as with all codes conflicting wording can be corrected by an interp. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Senor Azul 247 Report post Posted January 17 The new case play, 2.9.1 D, conflicts with two rules and two case plays. The rules are 5-1-1f-5 and 8-3-3f. Besides the case play already mentioned by Mr. NorthTexasUmp, the very next one in the book, 5.1.1 Situation R, would also have to be deleted or rewritten. And 5.1.1 Situation S will probably need to be deleted as well. This is an egregious oversight on the part of the NFHS rules interpreters. Also, please note that the new case play is placed in the Catch section. So wouldn't the definition of catch have to be amended as well? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spiffdawg7 71 Report post Posted January 18 @lawump Is this intended to be a change, or should we go with the rule as written? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawump 934 Report post Posted January 18 I haven't read this whole thread. However, this was sent from the NFHS to all states this week: Ball in glove (2-9-1, 5-1-1) With the change of interpretation by the NFHS Baseball Rules Committee, CB 2.9.1 Situation D: No longer will the ball be immediately dead when a ball is "lodged" in a player's glove. The player may take his glove, with the ball in it, and toss it to another fielder to record a force out at the base. CB 5.1.1 Situations Q and R should be removed. They are no longer valid. 2 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yawetag 288 Report post Posted January 22 Got the attached from my organization, given to him by SCHSL. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tborze 50 Report post Posted January 23 2019 Case Book ERRORS. 2.9.1 SITUATION D: B1 hits a two hopper back to the pitcher. F1 gloves the batted ball, but cannot get the ball out of his glove. He quickly removes his glove with the ball securely stuck inside the webbing of the glove and shovels the glove to the first baseman who is in contact with first base. The first baseman catches the glove with the ball in it just before B1 touches first base. RULING: B1 is out because F3 had secure possession of the glove and ball. This ruling is incorrect because: Looks like PA isn't adopting it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scrounge 1,208 Report post Posted January 23 If so, then this was a very sloppy and improper way of changing the interpretation. Change the rule to exclude glove from the definition of lodged if this is the desired result. Do it right, from the start rather than a backdoor case slipped in without announcement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thunderheads 2,545 Report post Posted January 24 On 1/22/2019 at 3:52 PM, yawetag said: Got the attached from my organization, given to him by SCHSL. YAWETAG SIGHTING!!!! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thunderheads 2,545 Report post Posted January 24 20 hours ago, Tborze said: 2019 Case Book ERRORS. 2.9.1 SITUATION D: B1 hits a two hopper back to the pitcher. F1 gloves the batted ball, but cannot get the ball out of his glove. He quickly removes his glove with the ball securely stuck inside the webbing of the glove and shovels the glove to the first baseman who is in contact with first base. The first baseman catches the glove with the ball in it just before B1 touches first base. RULING: B1 is out because F3 had secure possession of the glove and ball. This ruling is incorrect because: Looks like PA isn't adopting it. NFHS books aren't state specific Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aging_Arbiter 902 Report post Posted January 24 21 hours ago, Tborze said: Looks like PA isn't adopting it. Did you already have your mandatory rules meeting? Ours isn't until 2/18, at which point I'm sure the question will come up (because I'll be the one asking). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tborze 50 Report post Posted January 24 35 minutes ago, Aging_Arbiter said: Did you already have your mandatory rules meeting? Ours isn't until 2/18, at which point I'm sure the question will come up (because I'll be the one asking). No. Found it here: http://www.piaa.org/assets/web/documents/2019 Baseball Chapter Meeting Guide(1).pdf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JSam21 244 Report post Posted January 24 5 minutes ago, Tborze said: No. Found it here: http://www.piaa.org/assets/web/documents/2019 Baseball Chapter Meeting Guide(1).pdf So... Instead of just ignoring it, why don't they seek clarification from NFHS before issuing a sweeping statement? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tborze 50 Report post Posted January 24 21 minutes ago, JSam21 said: So... Instead of just ignoring it, why don't they seek clarification from NFHS before issuing a sweeping statement? Well, I do have an idea! There still has been no clarification on last years, Time Play vs Awards Play. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JSam21 244 Report post Posted January 24 3 minutes ago, Tborze said: Well, I do have an idea! There still has been no clarification on last years, Time Play vs Awards Play. In a month of being a registered NCAA official... their model blows NFHS out of the water. Everyone on the same page on how things should be called. NFHS is slightly more than a book of suggestions to states. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yawetag 288 Report post Posted January 24 4 hours ago, Thunderheads said: YAWETAG SIGHTING!!!! Where? 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
