On the transfer ...... oops

[Thunderheads]

Here we go again.  This definately confirms that there's been a new interpretation/definition of 'on the transfer' because this is another good example.  The close up of Andrus is the clear teller (:48).  However, .... somehow NY is seeing this differently

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/?content_id=31901865&topic_id=vtp_review&query=rangers challenge

[JaxRolo]

Not a new interp. always been that way.

[Thunderheads]

Not a new interp. always been that way.

Nope. No it hasn't .... they're talking about it on UEFL as well on Gil's post of this play on his site.

[JaxRolo]

lol I agree this is a catch. But a catch of a fly ball is different.

[BigUmpire]

Would really like to wade in on this BUT this will probally turn into another pissing match between many of us on this board JUST LIKE LAST TIME!

[JaxRolo]

On the bases you only need the ball for an instant for it to be an out.

Just going by what Brent a Rice ( head instructor at Wendelstads) at a camp last year.

[Thunderheads]

lol I agree this is a catch. But a catch of a fly ball is different.

Thank you Understood .... not my concern here .... this is the second potential double play ball/transfer call that's clearly a "transfer" that hasn't been called ....

 

here's an example, ...this is no different than the two I'm inquiring about

http://m.mlb.com/video/?content_id=18099123&query=padres get call at second

[JaxRolo]

I first I thought you were talking about the other thread fly ball to outfield.

[afaber12]

It certainly seemed like it was caught in the glove initially, and that when he lost it it was certainly last touched, if not actually "held", by the bare hand. I would think that in most cases that would be a fairly textbook "in the transfer".

The only way I can see this being rules safe is if it was ruled that the ball was not held for long enough in the glove to demonstrate control, almost as though the ball was slapped in mid-air by the glove into the bare hand. Assuming that's the case, then there was no "release" from the glove so the ball could only be caught by the bare hand, and since the drop wasn't voluntary, there was therefore no catch.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it, but at least if that's how they're treating these it makes some kind of sense.

Do you suppose this apparent interpretation change could be something stemming from last year's World Series? Wasn't there a play early in game 1 that was called safe then changed to out after the crew got together?

[dumbdumb]

But, no matter what the rule book definition, you are going to have differences of opinion. Coach, in my opinion, that was a catch. Coach, in my opinion, that was not a catch. You could set up any definition you want and there are going to be "borderline "plays no matter what the situation. Just like with a check swing. On the exact same "borderline" swing, some umpires would call it a swing and some umpires would call it no swing. There will never be 100% consistency across the board on borderline calls although there is 100% consistency on how the rule is to be interpreted. A called 3rd strike on a check swing could hurt just as much as a called catch/no catch in certain situations.

 

Just like the strike zone. If we all got in a room and agreed 100% on a strike zone and then had 1000 randomly thrown pitches and used pitch/fx, there is no way the calls on all 1000 pitches will be unanimous among all the umpires although we just had a 100% unanimous agreement of the strike zone and what should be called a strike and what should not.

[Thunderheads]

I first I thought you were talking about the other thread fly ball to outfield.

why, the video is of a double play  ....

[JaxRolo]

 

I first I thought you were talking about the other thread fly ball to outfield.

why, the video is of a double play  ....

 

Cause its early and hadn't had my caffeine yet.

[Thunderheads]

 

 

I first I thought you were talking about the other thread fly ball to outfield.

why, the video is of a double play  ....

 

Cause its early and hadn't had my caffeine yet.

 

understood!!!!

[BigUmpire]

I guess we now have " RuleBook" catches and "New York Replay Booth" catches.

 

I have already had one of my young umpires email me about this.

 

What is next?

[dumbdumb]

I guess we now have " RuleBook" catches and "New York Replay Booth" catches.

 

I have already had one of my young umpires email me about this.

 

What is next?

Explain to him exactly how it should be called by the evaluators who evaluate both you and the young umpires so they will not be dinged. That is all that really matters. Use this play as an example and then if this is the exact play happens to them, and they are dinged, they should use your name as the person who told them (as well as other evaluators who used this play as a reference) that is the way this "exact play" should be called.

The evaluators should remove the ding, and now instead of being horse bleep umpires they become umpires who are the greatest thing since sliced bread (phenoms) and let this call move them to the head of the class and skip over everyone else who did not call this play exactly like they did. Isn't this how any system works anywhere whether one likes it or not? Just asking. Seems like there have been calls in all sports that have made or broken in some cases an officials career.

 

And no, do not read the above as personal or trying to be smart you know what with you.

I am just going by things that seem to be after reading on several different boards over the years and several different sports.

 

I enjoy reading both your insights and those of others. Maybe I have extrapolated bad instincts from my readings.

[BigUmpire]

 

I guess we now have " RuleBook" catches and "New York Replay Booth" catches.

 

I have already had one of my young umpires email me about this.

 

What is next?

Explain to him exactly how it should be called by the evaluators who evaluate both you and the young umpires so they will not be dinged. That is all that really matters. Use this play as an example and then if this is the exact play happens to them, and they are dinged, they should use your name as the person who told them (as well as other evaluators who used this play as a reference) that is the way this "exact play" should be called.

The evaluators should remove the ding, and now instead of being horse bleep umpires they become umpires who are the greatest thing since sliced bread (phenoms) and let this call move them to the head of the class and skip over everyone else who did not call this play exactly like they did.

 

That is what I replied BUT these guys, and some of us as well, tend to use MLB guys as paragons.

 

This is where good clinics really help a young umpire in years 2-4 of their path to being good.