Jump to content

AND ANOTHER transfer they say wasn't controlled .......

Thunderheads

By Thunderheads
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 4547 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

ricka56

ricka56

Posted
Posted

 

...and the ball ceases to move inside the glove...

Good luck getting instant replay to show you that. New for 2015, MLB announces an x-ray machine sponsorship deal with TSA...

An X-ray machine doesn't detect common sense either, wiseguy. When I played and closed my glove on the ball, the ball stopped moving WRT the glove...I really don't know how a ball moves inside a closed glove unless it isn't closed. If IR shows a glove closed with the ball inside, why would you assume that it might be moving...that's not my experience.

 

This (like the 3b fake rule) is an issue that didn't need fixing. The old criteria worked fine.

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

umpschool
umpschool

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

JaxRolo
JaxRolo

I did but I never made mistakes. Just like my Umpiring!

grayhawk
grayhawk

Much appreciated. So now the question remains, why does MLB hate outs so much? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sdix00

sdix00

Posted
Posted

I have been told that the momentum of a catch ends when the fielder makes a "baseball move" after gloving the ball.   That is, demonstrate that he has control of his body, glove, etc. by changing direction, pulling the ball out, etc.

 

This rule of thumb has worked for me. 

  • Like 1
JaxRolo

JaxRolo

Posted
Posted

@Jocko is correct in staying that the expected call "now" is Out.

But it won't be for long when using OBR.

In FED we will probably have to wait for the higher ups to tell us when to call it.

  • Like 1
BigUmpire

BigUmpire

Posted
Posted

Thrown out what you know boys.

 

One issue is our association calls a lot of USSSA ball.

 

There is no definition of a legal catch in the USSSA rulebook, it defers to OBR.

 

What if an up to date coaches protests an "on the transfer" ruling in a USSSA tournament?

 

Rodeo time!

BigUmpire

BigUmpire

Posted
Posted

This is an interp being used by MLB, not a new rule. I wouldn't change a thing for my non-MLB games...

Sent using Tapatalk[/quote

I already have 5 emails from coaches and umpires.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jocko

Jocko

Posted
Posted

The 3 key words to end EVERY argument:

"In my judgement..."

Now shut up and go away. Can't appeal or protest a judgement call

  • Like 3
th3

th3

Posted
Posted

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.

sorry for my (continued) ignorance - what, exactly is this from?  is it an MLB official manual or something? and by "our emphasis". is that what the school is emphasizing? or mlb umpires? thanks..and how does that trickle down?

JaxRolo

JaxRolo

Posted
Posted

I talked to a friend who got a job this year in the minors. I asked him about it and he didn't know about it. He called his sources and confirmed what I told him.

bam

bam

Posted
Posted

I really am glad to have clarification as to why that wasn't on the transfer. And I believe we know DEFINITIVELY what we can expect to see in MLB games. By MLB umpires. Who make 6 figure salaries and fly business class. This is what they are expected to call. When in Rome.....

I'm not in Rome. And I like outs. I will rule this a catch EVERY SINGLE TIME. PERIOD. Trickle down or not, until replay reaches the levels I call, this is an expected out. As is the neighborhood play on the front end of a DP. And guess what? I do what's expected.

Ymmv. Im getting the out and youre welcome that our 7 inning 1:50 ball game didn't go into extras because of a rule interp noone but us (NOW) has seen. How overly officious would a guy look calling this in a HS game? And being able to cite reference?

Dude, I've probably seen a half dozen of these types of plays in 10 years, and that's a generous estimate.

IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!

New bumper sticker - Baseball - it's not rocket science.

  • Like 2
Richvee

Richvee

Posted
Posted

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.

 

 

I don't know....is it just me? I have trouble seeing where you can get this interpretation from the definition of a catch as described in OBR. It seems more like they've redefined the definition of a catch than interpreted it differently. 

maven

maven

Posted
Posted

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.

 

 

I don't know....is it just me? I have trouble seeing where you can get this interpretation from the definition of a catch as described in OBR. It seems more like they've redefined the definition of a catch than interpreted it differently. 

 

Sure, it's an interpretation of "voluntary release."

  • Like 1
Mike Prince

Mike Prince

Posted
Posted

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.

I don't know....is it just me? I have trouble seeing where you can get this interpretation from the definition of a catch as described in OBR. It seems more like they've redefined the definition of a catch than interpreted it differently.

Sure, it's an interpretation of "voluntary release."

And an MLB one at that...

Sent using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Richvee

Richvee

Posted
Posted

 

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.

 

 

I don't know....is it just me? I have trouble seeing where you can get this interpretation from the definition of a catch as described in OBR. It seems more like they've redefined the definition of a catch than interpreted it differently. 

 

Sure, it's an interpretation of "voluntary release."

 

I understand. But to say "voluntary release" = "securing the ball with the bare hand after catching it in the glove" seems like a hell of a stretch to me. 

BigUmpire

BigUmpire

Posted
Posted

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.

I don't know....is it just me? I have trouble seeing where you can get this interpretation from the definition of a catch as described in OBR. It seems more like they've redefined the definition of a catch than interpreted it differently.

Exactly!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jocko

Jocko

Posted
Posted

I really am glad to have clarification as to why that wasn't on the transfer. And I believe we know DEFINITIVELY what we can expect to see in MLB games. By MLB umpires. Who make 6 figure salaries and fly business class. This is what they are expected to call. When in Rome.....

I'm not in Rome. And I like outs. I will rule this a catch EVERY SINGLE TIME. PERIOD. Trickle down or not, until replay reaches the levels I call, this is an expected out. As is the neighborhood play on the front end of a DP. And guess what? I do what's expected.

Ymmv. Im getting the out and youre welcome that our 7 inning 1:50 ball game didn't go into extras because of a rule interp noone but us (NOW) has seen. How overly officious would a guy look calling this in a HS game? And being able to cite reference?

Dude, I've probably seen a half dozen of these types of plays in 10 years, and that's a generous estimate.

IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!

New bumper sticker - Baseball - it's not rocket science.who turned it into astrophysics? I simply said its horsehit to call this NOT a catch without instant replay.

  • Like 3
sdix00

sdix00

Posted
Posted

That is actually interesting. Does this not apply to catchers? or would it have been overturned had it been reviewed? Strange.

Good question. I think the rule does apply to the catcher catching a pitch or a foul tip in flight.

We all know that we rule catches without waiting for voluntary release, ALL THE TIME. (Third out, Can o corn, etc.). We also look for a player to make "a baseball move" such as remove the ball from the mitt, change direction, or otherwise show control and completion of the catch.

In the foul tip clip, the catcher gloved the foul tip, and in a new move turned up his glove. There was no other play to make, and no reason to believe that a transfer was even necessary.

All my guessing, obviously. I am just trying to get in on that umpire huddle.

Great example clip.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

BigUmpire

BigUmpire

Posted
Posted

 

 

I really am glad to have clarification as to why that wasn't on the transfer. And I believe we know DEFINITIVELY what we can expect to see in MLB games. By MLB umpires. Who make 6 figure salaries and fly business class. This is what they are expected to call. When in Rome.....

I'm not in Rome. And I like outs. I will rule this a catch EVERY SINGLE TIME. PERIOD. Trickle down or not, until replay reaches the levels I call, this is an expected out. As is the neighborhood play on the front end of a DP. And guess what? I do what's expected.

Ymmv. Im getting the out and youre welcome that our 7 inning 1:50 ball game didn't go into extras because of a rule interp noone but us (NOW) has seen. How overly officious would a guy look calling this in a HS game? And being able to cite reference?

Dude, I've probably seen a half dozen of these types of plays in 10 years, and that's a generous estimate.

IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!

New bumper sticker - Baseball - it's not rocket science. who turned it into astrophysics? I simply said its horsehit to call this NOT a catch without instant replay.

 

It seems Jocko IS a rocket scientist. Well said bud, HORSESH*# is right.

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