Jump to content

Here we go again (on the transfer)

grayhawk

By grayhawk
in Professional

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 4428 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

grayhawk

grayhawk

Posted
Posted

Angels vs Mariners tonight.  Josh Hamilton catches a fly ball and as he's dropping it into his throwing hand, it drops to the ground.  Initially ruled a catch and dropped on the transfer.  New York overturns it.  I'm sure the video will be up soon.

  • Replies 25
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

maven
maven

I think Soscia just wanted an explanation of the change, not to argue. He didn't say much.   I like the change. It reminds me of the football philosophy requiring receivers to complete the "process

grayhawk
grayhawk

I disagree. Hamilton's release was voluntary and intentional. It was just lazy. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JaxRolo
JaxRolo

No catch! No control throughout the whole play.   No different than a fielder having the ball in his glove for a step or 2 then colliding with a team mate and losing the ball. No catch.

tldavis19

tldavis19

Posted
Posted

There has to be a rule change or something we don't know about regarding transfers from the glove to the hand. We're 3/3 on transfer replays going against the fielder. No way it's just a freak coincidence. 

umpstu

umpstu

Posted
Posted

Don't be so lazy on the transfer of the ball to the throwing hand, Josh. 

BigUmpire

BigUmpire

Posted
Posted

Soscia should have been ejected as soon as he came out of the dugout.

 

 

It was challenged, reviewed and ruled on- HIT THE SHOWERS MIKE!

 

 

 

BUT It seems we have a NEW definition of a catch based on the past few days.

 

scrounge

scrounge

Posted
Posted

Ok, MLB has clearly redefined what they will allow for catches and quick transfer flubs...at least they're consistent.

JaxRolo

JaxRolo

Posted
Posted

No catch! No control throughout the whole play.

 

No different than a fielder having the ball in his glove for a step or 2 then colliding with a team mate and losing the ball. No catch.

  • Like 1
grayhawk

grayhawk

Posted
  • Author
Posted

No catch! No control throughout the whole play.

No different than a fielder having the ball in his glove for a step or 2 then colliding with a team mate and losing the ball. No catch.

I disagree. Hamilton's release was voluntary and intentional. It was just lazy.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
JaxRolo

JaxRolo

Posted
Posted

 

No catch! No control throughout the whole play.

No different than a fielder having the ball in his glove for a step or 2 then colliding with a team mate and losing the ball. No catch.

I disagree. Hamilton's release was voluntary and intentional without control. It was just lazy.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Fixed your post :wave:  :fuel:

  • Like 1
Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
Posted

No catch! No control throughout the whole play.

 

No different than a fielder having the ball in his glove for a step or 2 then colliding with a team mate and losing the ball. No catch.

why are you always stirring the pot?

JaxRolo

JaxRolo

Posted
Posted

 

No catch! No control throughout the whole play.

 

No different than a fielder having the ball in his glove for a step or 2 then colliding with a team mate and losing the ball. No catch.

why are you always stirring the pot?

 

Because I am rarely correct. I am correct this time so I have to brag while I have the chance! :wave:  :givebeer:

  • Like 1
Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
Posted

 

 

No catch! No control throughout the whole play.

 

No different than a fielder having the ball in his glove for a step or 2 then colliding with a team mate and losing the ball. No catch.

why are you always stirring the pot?

 

Because I am rarely correct. I am correct this time so I have to brag while I have the chance! :wave:  :givebeer:

 

all you're doing is riding on the coattails of the call on the field :smachhead:

Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
Posted

Ahhhh hahhhhh

 

THERE WAS A CHANGE!!!

 

From Hunter on another thread: http://umpire-empire...snt-controlled/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the added portion for this year:

 

In determining whether a fielder drops the ball “while in the act of making a throw following the catch” in accordance with Rule 2.00, the umpires will determine whether the fielder obtained possession of a ball in flight but dropped the ball while in the act of making a throw during the momentum of the catch. For example, if the shortstop, in an effort to turn a double play, throws to the second baseman, who drops the ball while in the act of drawing back his arm to make a throw to first base, the second baseman shall be adjudged to have had secure control of the ball and thus the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught by the second baseman. However, it shall not be adjudged to be a catch if, while in the act of making a throw during the momentum of the catch, the fielder loses possession of the ball in the transfer (e.g., flip from the glove) before he secures the ball with his throwing hand.

 

 

Our emphasis:

The "flip" itself is not deemed a voluntary release, even though it may be a voluntary action. This is an update you will find in the 2014 Rules and Interpretations Manual. We have removed the exclusive interpretation offered for a number of year providing that it only be an attempted voluntary release. This is no longer the case. The release must be voluntary. Additionally, this interpretation has been merged with a tag of a base as well on the front end of a double play attempt. He must secure the ball in his throwing hand before it will be deemed secure possession was made.

maven

maven

Posted
Posted

I think Soscia just wanted an explanation of the change, not to argue. He didn't say much.

 

I like the change. It reminds me of the football philosophy requiring receivers to complete the "process of the catch," which becomes especially relevant if the ball comes out when they hit the ground or get hit by a defender.

 

I think we could even import that terminology to understand this ruling: the process of the catch is not complete until the fielder secures possession of the ball in his throwing hand or the momentum of the catch ends (that is, he begins to run in from the outfield).

  • Like 3
Mike Prince

Mike Prince

Posted
Posted (edited)

Managers must not have gotten the memo if they are wasting their one challenge on these plays.

 

Edit - correction, this one was actually a successful challenge - the last one I saw (Boston-Texas Monday night) the defense wasted their challenge trying to get the call on the field reversed.

 

We should merge these threads, seems like each one of these is breaking up into multiple discussions...

Edited by Mike Prince
  • Like 1
Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
Posted

Managers must not have gotten the memo if they are wasting their one challenge on these plays.

 

Edit - correction, this one was actually a successful challenge - the last one I saw (Boston-Texas Monday night) the defense wasted their challenge trying to get the call on the field reversed.

 

We should merge these threads, seems like each one of these is breaking up into multiple discussions...

Mike,

that's a good idea, but they're different plays that encompass the same ruling .......... maybe start a new under "RULES" with Hunter's info ??  Lock it and make it sticky?

 

Thoughts?

  • Like 1
Mike Prince

Mike Prince

Posted
Posted

 

Managers must not have gotten the memo if they are wasting their one challenge on these plays.

 

Edit - correction, this one was actually a successful challenge - the last one I saw (Boston-Texas Monday night) the defense wasted their challenge trying to get the call on the field reversed.

 

We should merge these threads, seems like each one of these is breaking up into multiple discussions...

Mike,

that's a good idea, but they're different plays that encompass the same ruling .......... maybe start a new under "RULES" with Hunter's info ??  Lock it and make it sticky?

 

Thoughts?

 

I don't know.  Just seems like we have Gil's thread which gets responded to, this one plus one you locked.  So for this specific play there are 3 separate threads, two of which can be replied to.

tldavis19

tldavis19

Posted
Posted

I think just merging the topics is enough. No need for a sticky, once the newness of this ruling wears off there won't much left to discuss. 

DVA7130

DVA7130

Posted
Posted

I think Soscia just wanted an explanation of the change, not to argue. He didn't say much.

 

I like the change. It reminds me of the football philosophy requiring receivers to complete the "process of the catch," which becomes especially relevant if the ball comes out when they hit the ground or get hit by a defender.

 

I think we could even import that terminology to understand this ruling: the process of the catch is not complete until the fielder secures possession of the ball in his throwing hand or the momentum of the catch ends (that is, he begins to run in from the outfield).

Ew... No.

We already have imported God-awful replay, we do not need that catch garage either.

Jocko

Jocko

Posted
Posted

No need for the sticky.  I won't have time until later this evening...

do you have any idea how hard it was for me not to chime in on this? I deserve a frickin MEDAL!
ricka56

ricka56

Posted
Posted

Before the umpires signalled that the call was going to be reversed, the announcers said that the call was going to be reversed. Who gets to listen in on the umpires to NY HDQT conversation ?   :shrug:  Is it offered in my premium sports cable TV package ?  :smachhead:

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...