Sorry, ...that's a catch

[Richvee]

 

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!

 

I don't like this at all. R1 was back at 1st base when Eaton dropped the ball. IF the ruling had been NO CATCH on the field, R1 is an easy force out @2nd. The reason a grounball past 1st or 3rd is not reviewable is because if the intial call is foul it would cause runners and fielders to do things differently. Same should apply here. Maybe amend the rule to catch/no catch, trap/catch is only reviewable with the bases empty? 

[BalkHawk]

$#!++Â¥ title for this thread.

[JaxRolo]

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)

correct

[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)

 

correct

 

 

[BigUmpire]

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.

Jocko and Jeff are correct.

This is a training video for young umpires on a legal catch and transfer issue.

Both criteria was met to call this a catch.

I think the umpires in New York penalized the fielder for a transfer issue.

[BigUmpire]

$#!++Â¥ title for this thread.

That is a bulSH*# coment to a great post and title from @Thunderheads!

[Thunderheads]

$#!++Â¥ title for this thread.

wow, ... that's deep, thanks for your insight

[ricka56]

I think the best look on the video occurs at 6:48. The glove closes (ball inside it) and then opens (voluntarily, IMO) at 6:51. There was no bobble until he opened his glove. The rule says that for a catch, you have to voluntarily release the ball...it doesn't require a clean exchange to the throwing hand. 

 

And putting R1 on 2B was BS. There would have been an easy force out if the umpire had ruled no-catch. And 6 minutes to decide this erroneous overturn...terrible.

[BalkHawk]

$#!++Â¥ title for this thread.

wow, ... that's deep, thanks for your insight

You fancy yourself an umpire then drag professionals through the dirt. You sound like a rat.

You can question the validity of a call without coming off like a pubescent female. If you were standing in front of the umpire in the booth who reviewed the call would you ask him, "seriously? Omg, you call that a catch?"

As a moderator, you should be aware that impressionable yet tech savvy young umpires will quickly find this forum.

[BalkHawk]

Sorry, look in the scorebook; it still ain't a catch.

[johnnyg08]

Tough call.  Lots of judgment there.

[tldavis19]

I wonder how much of the replay conversation was "was it a catch or not?" versus "What do we do with the runners?" It could've taken so long because they were discussing how to handle it. The only reason I see that the runner was left at second was that they judged had the call been a "no catch" initially then he would've made second rather than an "as the play played out" kind of thing. 

[Thunderheads]

 

 

$#!++Â¥ title for this thread.

wow, ... that's deep, thanks for your insight

You fancy yourself an umpire then drag professionals through the dirt. You sound like a rat.

You can question the validity of a call without coming off like a pubescent female. If you were standing in front of the umpire in the booth who reviewed the call would you ask him, "seriously? Omg, you call that a catch?"

As a moderator, you should be aware that impressionable yet tech savvy young umpires will quickly find this forum.

 

Let's see here, ... I express my opinion on a play (mind you, I'm not the only one who feels the same about this reversal),...you come one here and call the "title" of the thread $h1Tty without even expressing your opinion?  And I'm coming across like a pubescent female??   If I was a part of the crew in the booth, (which I never will be because I suck) ...yes, I would have said "I have a catch on this guys".

 

Does the title of my thread really rub you the wrong way that much ??  Jeeeez....

 

Moderator or not, ... I'm a part of this forum, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even you, and you give it without regard quite a lot.  By the way, you haven't given your insight regarding this play aside from your infantile "look at the scorebook" comment , ...  LOL 

 

And, ....please show me where I "dragged professionals through the dirt" ???  Please, ...I'll wait patiently

 

Sorry, look in the scorebook; it still ain't a catch.

"look in the scorebook" ??  YOU definately now sound like a pubescent female

[JaxRolo]

Guys this is very simple.

Those who say this is a catch are wrong.

Those who say it is not a catch are correct.

Nothing more to it. :wave:

[Thunderheads]

Guys this is not very simple.

Those who say this is a catch are wrong.

Those who say it is not a catch are correct.

Nothing more to it.

[JaxRolo]

Guys this is not very simple.

Those who say this is a catch are wrong.

Those who say it is not a catch are correct.

Nothing more to it.

You know I'm joking.

This is one of those things that is fount to have 2 different opinions. Not going to convince either to to change their mind.

But there no need for anyone to be an a$$

It's childish!

[Thunderheads]

 

 

Guys this is not very simple.

Those who say this is a catch are wrong.

Those who say it is not a catch are correct.

Nothing more to it.

 

You know I'm joking.

This is one of those things that is fount to have 2 different opinions. Not going to convince either to to change their mind.

But there no need for anyone to be an a$$

It's childish!

 

I know you're kidding Rolando! No problem!

 

Yes, ..there are two opinions here.   However, .... Balkhawk hasn't really given his insight on this play, but that's ok.

 

Again, there are two opinions, and those aren't just mine and Balkhawk's, ... there are two sides to this play ....by numerous people here, not just two ...

 

Agreed, not sure where the name calling came from, but, no biggie

[Dash Riprock]

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.

I'm in this camp.  Once you determine the release was voluntary (and reaching into the glove with the bare hand is pretty substantial evidence of a voluntary release), nothing else matters.  Catch.

[Thunderheads]

 

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.

I'm in this camp.  Once you determine the release was voluntary (and reaching into the glove with the bare hand is pretty substantial evidence of a voluntary release), nothing else matters.  Catch.

 

Can you smell the fresh breeze of sensibility?  Snnniiiifffffff ...............ahhhhhhhhhhhhh

[JaxRolo]

oh boy

[BigUmpire]

 

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.

I'm in this camp.  Once you determine the release was voluntary (and reaching into the glove with the bare hand is pretty substantial evidence of a voluntary release), nothing else matters.  Catch.

 

BEST answer yet!

[JaxRolo]

 

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.

I'm in this camp.  Once you determine the release was voluntary (and reaching into the glove with the bare hand is pretty substantial evidence of a voluntary release), nothing else matters.  Catch.

 

No No No

 

A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it; providing he does not use his cap, protector, pocket or any other part of his uniform in getting possession. It is not a catch, however, if simultaneously or immediately following his contact with the ball, he collides with a player, or with a wall, or if he falls down, and as a result of such collision or falling, drops the ball. It is not a catch if a fielder touches a fly ball which then hits a member of the offensive team or an umpire and then is caught by another defensive player. If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch, the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught. In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional.

 

 

Opening the glove is not releasing the ball. Maintain control through the whole process. There is nothing voluntary and intentional about this catch.

 

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night so I know what I am talking about.

 

 

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.

I'm in this camp.  Once you determine the release was voluntary (and reaching into the glove with the bare hand is pretty substantial evidence of a voluntary release), nothing else matters.  Catch.

 

BEST answer yet!

 

 

There can not be a best answer in this thread.

[Thunderheads]

 

 

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.

I'm in this camp.  Once you determine the release was voluntary (and reaching into the glove with the bare hand is pretty substantial evidence of a voluntary release), nothing else matters.  Catch.

 

No No No

 

A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it; providing he does not use his cap, protector, pocket or any other part of his uniform in getting possession. It is not a catch, however, if simultaneously or immediately following his contact with the ball, he collides with a player, or with a wall, or if he falls down, and as a result of such collision or falling, drops the ball. It is not a catch if a fielder touches a fly ball which then hits a member of the offensive team or an umpire and then is caught by another defensive player. If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch, the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught. In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional.

 

 

Opening the glove is not releasing the ball. Maintain control through the whole process. There is nothing voluntary and intentional about this catch.

 

 

So, opening his glove and reaching for the ball isn't voluntary and intentional?

[JaxRolo]

 

 

 

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.

I'm in this camp.  Once you determine the release was voluntary (and reaching into the glove with the bare hand is pretty substantial evidence of a voluntary release), nothing else matters.  Catch.

 

No No No

 

A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it; providing he does not use his cap, protector, pocket or any other part of his uniform in getting possession. It is not a catch, however, if simultaneously or immediately following his contact with the ball, he collides with a player, or with a wall, or if he falls down, and as a result of such collision or falling, drops the ball. It is not a catch if a fielder touches a fly ball which then hits a member of the offensive team or an umpire and then is caught by another defensive player. If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch, the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught. In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional.

 

 

Opening the glove is not releasing the ball. Maintain control through the whole process. There is nothing voluntary and intentional about this catch.

 

 

So, opening his glove and reaching for the ball isn't voluntary and intentional?

 

Not if he don't maintain control

[bam]

That's not a catch.  I'm siding with the replay officials.  A player must maintain control throughout the process of releasing it from the glove.  I'm not sure if there is any definitive declaration form the various publications that there is a difference between a middle infielder dropping a ball through transfer and this type of play, but I have always been of the opinion there is a difference.