Sorry, ...that's a catch

[Thunderheads]

http://m.mlb.com/video/?content_id=31762179&topic_id=vtp_review&query=twins challenge

[BigUmpire]

A. Review took WAY too long

B. Jeff is correct, glove closed on the ball, fielder did NOT show any jiggle. just a bad transfer.

C. Umpires in NY blew it.

[scrounge]

Agreed, very surprising overturn. And I'm not just saying that because of my moniker!

[dumbdumb]

no catch. no voluntary release and clean exchange. Burden of proof on the fielder. Only recently have they become a little less strict on burden of proof, but apparently that burden of proof has supposedly gone back to the stricter version per one of the other sites. The ball did not come out and pop up in the air or go out behind the fielder like he had made a clean exchange to his free hand and then as he was cocking his wrist to throw the ball popped out during the wrist action. Ball went straight to ground. Definite no catch in the old days, recently a little looser, now back to the stricter. May be call different ways at different levels with other levels being less strict than pro level. Much more burden of proof on the fielder.

Also left handed fielder's glove blocked Scott from seeing what was going on inside the glove and the glove and hand movement. May have been able to see if fielder was a right hander.

[Thunderheads]

no catch. no voluntary release and clean exchange. Burden of proof on the fielder. Only recently have they become a little less strict on burden of proof, but apparently that burden of proof has supposedly gone back to the stricter version per one of the other sites. The ball did not come out and pop up in the air or go out behind the fielder like he had made a clean exchange to his free hand and then as he was cocking his wrist to throw the ball popped out during the wrist action. Ball went straight to ground. Definite no catch in the old days, recently a little looser, now back to the stricter. May be call different ways at different levels with other levels being less strict than pro level. Much more burden of proof on the fielder.

Also left handed fielder's glove blocked Scott from seeing what was going on inside the glove and the glove and hand movement. May have been able to see if fielder was a right hander.

who came up with this crap?  Definately someone who never played the game.  YOU CAN manage to execute a bad-exchange, ...and this video proves it.

[bleacher_bum]

I totally agree, definition of catch was met by the fielder;however, I have absolutely no problem with the overturn (except that it's an overturn), a major league outfielder set up underneath a fly ball should not have that happen.

[JaxRolo]

No problem with the overturn. No catch.

[Thunderheads]

No problem with the overturn. No catch.

you honestly feel that way?  that honestly looked like a botched catch with no control to you in real speed?

 

this question can be directed at anyone who agrees w/ the overturn, not just to Jax, no picking on the poor chap

[goody14]

The sticky part about this one is runner placement.

 

I think you can make a pretty reasonable argument that if it had been ruled no-catch on the field, the runner originally on first would have forced out at second.

 

I wonder if that is what Ventura was talking about after the ruling.

[BigUmpire]

Bumper sticker from our UIC @Umpire in Chief and ME :

• “Never pass up an opportunity to get an outâ€.- Umpire in Chief 

 

• “The more strikes and outs you call the closer you are to Miller Timeâ€.-Bigumpire

[maven]

If that happened on the bases, I'd have a TAG, ball out on the transfer.

 

Since it happened on a batted ball, I agree with the overturn: no voluntary release = no CATCH. The standards for possession are higher on a batted ball, and not met on this play.

 

What surprised me is Dale Scott ruling this a catch in real time.

[scrounge]

It wasn't a clean release but it most certainly was voluntary...Eaton was looking down at it, seems clear to me that he was just intentionally releasing it and plopping it into his throwing hand, just was too nonchalant and dropped it. But dropped it on the release. I think replay overthought it and talked themselves into a reversal that shouldn't have been made. That's a catch to me.

[Thunderheads]

If that happened on the bases, I'd have a TAG, ball out on the transfer.

 

Since it happened on a batted ball, I agree with the overturn: no voluntary release = no CATCH. The standards for possession are higher on a batted ball, and not met on this play.

 

What surprised me is Dale Scott ruling this a catch in real time.

so you're saying he never caught the ball, and wasn't taking the ball out/transfering to his throwing hand on this?

[JaxRolo]

He has to maintain control throughout the whole catching process. 

 

I can see how some would see it the other way BUT:

 

I am the best Umpire ever. What I say goes as gospel!!!!

[johnnyg08]

The sticky part about this one is runner placement.

 

I think you can make a pretty reasonable argument that if it had been ruled no-catch on the field, the runner originally on first would have forced out at second.

 

I wonder if that is what Ventura was talking about after the ruling.

 

This is one of the flaws in replay.  Will the MLB guys start calling the game like the NFL where in this case he would've ruled no catch, let everything play out, then they challenge and it makes it easier to fix.  Time will tell.  There would've been a play at 2b for sure had this been ruled no catch in real time.

[maven]

 

If that happened on the bases, I'd have a TAG, ball out on the transfer.

 

Since it happened on a batted ball, I agree with the overturn: no voluntary release = no CATCH. The standards for possession are higher on a batted ball, and not met on this play.

 

What surprised me is Dale Scott ruling this a catch in real time.

so you're saying he never caught the ball, and wasn't taking the ball out/transfering to his throwing hand on this?

 

 

Jeff, as you know, CATCH is a technical term, that includes both secure possession and voluntary release. As I indicated in my post, I do indeed think that the fielder gloved the ball and that it came out on the "transfer," which does not qualify as voluntary release.

 

Just because he let go of it, does not mean that the release was voluntary. And the burden is entirely on the fielder to demonstrate voluntary release by taking the ball out of the glove, flipping it to his other hand, or running in from the outfield with it. I agree with replay that this fielder did not demonstrate voluntary release in any of the usual ways.

[Thunderheads]

 

 

If that happened on the bases, I'd have a TAG, ball out on the transfer.

 

Since it happened on a batted ball, I agree with the overturn: no voluntary release = no CATCH. The standards for possession are higher on a batted ball, and not met on this play.

 

What surprised me is Dale Scott ruling this a catch in real time.

so you're saying he never caught the ball, and wasn't taking the ball out/transfering to his throwing hand on this?

 

 

Jeff, as you know, CATCH is a technical term, that includes both secure possession and voluntary release. As I indicated in my post, I do indeed think that the fielder gloved the ball and that it came out on the "transfer," which does not qualify as voluntary release.

 

Just because he let go of it, does not mean that the release was voluntary. And the burden is entirely on the fielder to demonstrate voluntary release by taking the ball out of the glove, flipping it to his other hand, or running in from the outfield with it. I agree with replay that this fielder did not demonstrate voluntary release in any of the usual ways.

 

then based on this .... a fielder can catch the ball, and place his hand in the glove to grab it, .... start to pull the ball out, drop it, and it not be a catch?  (based on above, that's not voluntary either)

[goody14]

This is one of the flaws in replay.  Will the MLB guys start calling the game like the NFL where in this case he would've ruled no catch, let everything play out, then they challenge and it makes it easier to fix.  Time will tell.  There would've been a play at 2b for sure had this been ruled no catch in real time.

 

 

At minimum, the teams will learn to play this out.  I suppose the CF should have thrown to second just to cover his backside.

 

Of course if he does this, then the other manager will have to decide if the challenge would be worth it (might be if batter was a faster runner).

[bleacher_bum]

One thing's for sure, not many would have predicted that an IR challenge and a LOT of discussion would be on a caught/uncaught FLY BALL to an outfielder who is set up underneath it.

[noumpere]

In NCAA, this is the type of call that can't get discussed / changed -- because we don't know what to do with the runners.  I have no problem with the video supporting a "no catch" but I still wonder how this can get overturned and put the runner on second.

[maven]

I have no problem with the video supporting a "no catch" but I still wonder how this can get overturned and put the runner on second.

 

You have to put the BR on 1B, so bump R1 to 2B. Easy!

[noumpere]

 

I have no problem with the video supporting a "no catch" but I still wonder how this can get overturned and put the runner on second.

 

You have to put the BR on 1B, so bump R1 to 2B. Easy!

 

So what do you do if review shows that R1 would clearly (just accept it for the moment) been put out at second if the correct call of no-catch had been made in the first place?

 

That's what I don't like about some of the replay reviews.

[Jocko]

5 minutes to review this. Boy.... IR is gonna save the game.

In real time AND after replay, I still see a catch. I disagree the he wasn't voluntarily releasing the ball from his glove. He accidentally dropped it, but IMO he was ABSOLUTELY attempting to flip the ball from his glove to his throwing hand.

[tldavis19]

Didn't almost this exact thing happen with Carl Crawford last season? Trying to be a little nonchalant and dropped the ball resulting in a no catch? I'll look up the video, but it wouldn't be the first time a fielder got caught not paying attention to what they were doing.

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/27334974/v26909135/?query=carl%2Bcrawford

 

here it is, its the post game interview, but the play is shown starting at 0:08 and better close up slo-mo view at 0:34. Same situation, same call made but without review. I think these are two classic cases of not having your head where it should be and the fielder paid for it.

[Larry in TN]

I was expecting the result of the reply to be "call stands".  I see the glove close around the ball then, when the throwing hand is coming in the get the transfer, the glove opens up and the ball drops out.  I can see them not going with "call confirmed" but I don't see the evidence that there was not a voluntary release which would be needed for "overturned".

 

And I agree, in this case, it took way too long.