Trick question?

[johnnyg08]

On the field they likely had to stick w/ the out unless somehow, somebody else on the field saw something.  While it may have been ruled an out on the field, by rule it was incorrect.  The calling umpire would be the first to agree after reviewing the play.

[beerguy55]

6 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

 The calling umpire would be the first to agree after reviewing the play.

As did Jim Joyce and Don Denkinger.  It's rare to meet an umpire who is not willing to admit such a mistake and try to learn from it.  However, during a game, after a play is called, if an umpire says "in my judgment" it closes most doors to discussion...doors that might be used to try to probe to find out if the umpire is truly using judgment or misapplying a rule.  "In my judgment" can cover a lot of sins, and outside of formal replay review, ends the matter.  

The only time I've seen it not close a door (or so I thought) is when the umpire uses judgment when he's not allowed.  In the one case I remember, the umpire said "in my judgment the batter would have reached third base if the ball hadn't bounced over the fence, so I'm giving him third base".   I told him his judgment is not allowed there - he can make a judgment to whether the ball bounced over the fence or flew over the fence, but he can't arbitrarily give the batter a triple, anymore than he can arbitrarily give a guy a single if he thinks the guy is a really slow runner.  He proceeded to toss me from the game.  I got that reversed after formal complaint/appeal and the umpire got reprimanded for ejecting me in that scenario (as I was questioning a technical call, not a judgment call, and I did so without insulting, yelling or swearing, by the umpire's own statement), but he proved a point to me which I've never forgotten - when judgment is invoked (right, wrong, or even inapplicable) the matter is closed.

[BT_Blue]

On Tue Feb 21 2017 at 1:26 PM, alex7 said:

I believe you can think of it as "once the glove fell off, the ball had been released, but not voluntarily."

More like he no longer had control once the glove came off. 

[alex7]

2 hours ago, BT_Blue said:

More like he no longer had control once the glove came off. 

However there are times when you can lose control of the ball and still have it be a catch.

That's why I'd recommend to use the voluntary release part of the rule.

[udbrky]

On 2/3/2017 at 9:04 AM, Aging_Arbiter said:

ok, so to stir the pot a little, what is the citation?  I'm just playing devils advocate in a sense that ...........when a ball is stuck in the pitchers webbing, then he removes the glove and throws it to F3 for an out.......how is this play different?  The ball was in the glove and never touched the ground.

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/63817564/v1095699083/nymstl-cespedes-makes-wainwright-lose-his-glove

[johnnyg08]

17 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

As did Jim Joyce and Don Denkinger.  It's rare to meet an umpire who is not willing to admit such a mistake and try to learn from it.  However, during a game, after a play is called, if an umpire says "in my judgment" it closes most doors to discussion...doors that might be used to try to probe to find out if the umpire is truly using judgment or misapplying a rule.  "In my judgment" can cover a lot of sins, and outside of formal replay review, ends the matter.  

The only time I've seen it not close a door (or so I thought) is when the umpire uses judgment when he's not allowed.  In the one case I remember, the umpire said "in my judgment the batter would have reached third base if the ball hadn't bounced over the fence, so I'm giving him third base".   I told him his judgment is not allowed there - he can make a judgment to whether the ball bounced over the fence or flew over the fence, but he can't arbitrarily give the batter a triple, anymore than he can arbitrarily give a guy a single if he thinks the guy is a really slow runner.  He proceeded to toss me from the game.  I got that reversed after formal complaint/appeal and the umpire got reprimanded for ejecting me in that scenario (as I was questioning a technical call, not a judgment call, and I did so without insulting, yelling or swearing, by the umpire's own statement), but he proved a point to me which I've never forgotten - when judgment is invoked (right, wrong, or even inapplicable) the matter is closed.

that's right...the "in my judgment" piece is far from the be all end all.  We must be cautious w/ blanket statements.

[jms1425]

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 2:54 AM, beerguy55 said:

So to answer the original question - yes, it's a trick question...or, at best, a poorly worded one. 

 

Yeah, agreed. I think they would have been better to say, "This is a voluntary release and therefore a catch. True or False?"