Ball "caught" but not in hand

[beerguy55]

I had a situation about ten years ago where I'm the catcher, and batter attempts a bunt which flares a few feet in front of the plate.  I get out, dive, bobble the ball, and then end up lying on my back, with the ball pinned between my arm and side.  I have the ball, it's not going anywhere, but I'm not going anywhere.  I'm aware that the umpire has not ruled BR out yet, and I'm lying there scared to move and drop the ball.  The umpire is standing over me, and my pitcher is standing over me.  Then a light bulb goes off, the pitcher reaches down, grabs the ball with his hand, and umpire says "out".   It probably lasted five seconds but felt like minutes.
 

After I got up I asked "wasn't that control?" and he said "it needs to be in your hand", which I didn't know at the time (thanks for the learning moment, Blue).

My question is, if, while still lying on the ground, I had said something like "I got it" or "You gonna call it?" would you answer me, would you simply say "no", or would you let me know I need to secure it in my hand....I envision an umpire saying "Show me" and me saying "it's right here, you can see it."

 

[conbo61]

OBR 5.09(a)

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.

To answer you other question, I am not saying a word lest I be accused of providing an advantage to a team.

[udbrky]

What does the rule book say about a catch?

[beerguy55]

2 minutes ago, udbrky said:

What does the rule book say about a catch?

I'm not sure the context of your question.  I know "now" that it wasn't catch until it was secured in hand.  In fact, I knew after the play was over when the umpire explained it to me.  I didn't know it at the time, while lying on the ground.  All I knew was that the umpire hadn't called the batter out yet, so I better make sure I didn't let the ball hit the ground.

I'm simply asking what an umpire would typically do if I had asked about it while the play was still live.

[udbrky]

Well, seeing as how the condition of a catch had not been met, nothing that you mentioned thinking about saying would meet the conditions, so nothing would change.

 

I don't understand what you think makes it qualify as a catch, can you show your work?

[kylehutson]

I think my immediate reaction would be "it's nothing yet".

[conbo61]

Would the "safe" signal (akin to "that's nothing") be appropriate here?  Once the player obtains secure possession with his hand or glove, THEN call the out?

[BT_Blue]

My answer would probably be "no."

[udbrky]

1 minute ago, conbo61 said:

Would the "safe" signal (akin to "that's nothing") be appropriate here?  Once the player obtains secure possession with his hand or glove, THEN call the out?

Well, then it would be hard to justify calling him out later.

[Stk004]

8 minutes ago, conbo61 said:

Would the "safe" signal (akin to "that's nothing") be appropriate here?  Once the player obtains secure possession with his hand or glove, THEN call the out?

I wouldn't give a safe signal, because I would certainly have to explain myself to the offensive coach after the catch was completed. 

[basejester]

12 minutes ago, conbo61 said:

Would the "safe" signal (akin to "that's nothing") be appropriate here?  Once the player obtains secure possession with his hand or glove, THEN call the out?

I think people would interpret the "safe" signal as meaning the ball touched the ground. 

 

[udbrky]

4 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

I wouldn't give a safe signal, because I would certainly have to explain myself to the offensive coach after the catch was completed. 

 

Just now, basejester said:

I think people would interpret the "safe" signal as meaning the ball touched the ground. 

 

100% agree - I would only use it for when an attempt at an out was made and missed. This is in progress. Just a nothing until it's done. If he bobbles it getting it from his pit to his hand and hits the ground, safe, if he secures it, out.

[beerguy55]

23 minutes ago, udbrky said:

Well, seeing as how the condition of a catch had not been met, nothing that you mentioned thinking about saying would meet the conditions, so nothing would change.

 

I don't understand what you think makes it qualify as a catch, can you show your work?

 

I don't know what you're talking about.  I didn't say it qualified as a catch...in fact I have very clearly stated that it didn't qualify as a catch.

[conbo61]

Got it.  Thank you gentlemen.

[udbrky]

Quote

My question is, if, while still lying on the ground, I had said something like "I got it" or "You gonna call it?" would you answer me, would you simply say "no", or would you let me know I need to secure it in my hand....I envision an umpire saying "Show me" and me saying "it's right here, you can see it."

 

 

What I'm trying to do is have you explain why that may or may not qualify. Understanding how you get the answer helps retain the answer more in the future.

[JSam21]

37 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I'm not sure the context of your question.  I know "now" that it wasn't catch until it was secured in hand.  In fact, I knew after the play was over when the umpire explained it to me.  I didn't know it at the time, while lying on the ground.  All I knew was that the umpire hadn't called the batter out yet, so I better make sure I didn't let the ball hit the ground.

I'm simply asking what an umpire would typically do if I had asked about it while the play was still live.

I would say nothing... because I don't have anything until you have the ball in your hand or glove or the ball hits the ground.

[maven]

39 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I'm simply asking what an umpire would typically do if I had asked about it while the play was still live.

 

25 minutes ago, kylehutson said:

I think my immediate reaction would be "it's nothing yet".

This seems about right to me, and I'd have no problem responding to a player in those terms.

Interestingly, when F1 picked out the ball with his hand, it was still legally in flight, despite being pinned to the OP's side, and thus could be "caught" for an out! Sounds like a sharp umpire was on the spot that day!

And because the ball was still in flight, it would be incorrect to signal "safe" = "no catch," as that determination would be premature.

[beerguy55]

2 minutes ago, udbrky said:

 

 

What I'm trying to do is have you explain why that may or may not qualify. Understanding how you get the answer helps retain the answer more in the future.

So, in the middle of the play, you would actually say to me " I don't understand what you think makes it qualify as a catch, can you show your work?"???

I'm not sure what you want me to retain.  I know it wasn't a catch until the pitcher secured the ball in his hand.  I know the rule.  I knew the rule before I posted the question.  The question isn't about the rule.

At the time (not now, ten years ago) I thought that "control" was all I needed.  The ball was "secured"...it wasn't moving, so I believed AT THE TIME, that I had completed the catch.  So, in real time, I'm lying on my back believing the catch is complete, but not understanding why the umpire hasn't called it yet.  Before I had a chance to ask the umpire anything the pitcher grabbed the ball and the umpire called out.  I think the umpire did a good job in how he handled the play, and gave me a succinct explanation afterwards to why it wasn't a catch yet, and I learned something.

I'm just curious how an umpire would have handled my question in real time - it was a unique situation because play was kind of suspended.  It's not a catch, but it's not a "no catch" yet either.  And as has been said in this thread, I'm guessing a typical umpire isn't just going to give me the answer while the play is still live.

I'm not asking if it should have been ruled a catch.

[udbrky]

OK, it sounded like you were asking if verbally saying you had it made it a catch.

 

Like Kyle and Maven said - "it's nothing yet"

 

That should suffice for the player to grab it with his hand.

[BuckeyeMike]

Is this different than the NCAA video test question this year where the 2 outfielders collide and it's ruled "not voluntary release"?  

For those not familiar, RF & CF (? can't remember) converge on a flare to right-center and the fielders collide.  The ball ends up in one of the fielder's gloves and the other fielder actually plucks it out and throws it back to the infield.   From the clinic and the correct test response, the NCAA wants this ruled a no-catch because it wasn't voluntary release.  

Is this different?   Or am I misinterpreting something?

[Stk004]

1 minute ago, BuckeyeMike said:

Is this different than the NCAA video test question this year where the 2 outfielders collide and it's ruled "not voluntary release"?  

For those not familiar, RF & CF (? can't remember) converge on a flare to right-center and the fielders collide.  The ball ends up in one of the fielder's gloves and the other fielder actually plucks it out and throws it back to the infield.   From the clinic and the correct test response, the NCAA wants this ruled a no-catch because it wasn't voluntary release.  

Is this different?   Or am I misinterpreting something?

There's a thread on this in Collegiate. 

The difference is in this thread, the ball in still in flight when it's wedged between F2's arm and side. In the video, the ball is no longer in flight when the other outfielder (CF?) picks it up out of the glove lying on the ground, and thus can no longer be caught for an out. The original outfielder did not make the catch because his release of the ball was not voluntary. 

[noumpere]

8 hours ago, BuckeyeMike said:

Is this different than the NCAA video test question this year where the 2 outfielders collide and it's ruled "not voluntary release"?  

For those not familiar, RF & CF (? can't remember) converge on a flare to right-center and the fielders collide.  The ball ends up in one of the fielder's gloves and the other fielder actually plucks it out and throws it back to the infield.   From the clinic and the correct test response, the NCAA wants this ruled a no-catch because it wasn't voluntary release.  

Is this different?   Or am I misinterpreting something?

The key is that in the video, the glove is no longer "worn properly" -- so this is NOT a catch.  Had the ball been in the glove and the glove still been on the hand, this would have been a catch.  That's similar to the post in this thread.

[udbrky]

Also reminds you of the Cespedes-Wainwright play

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

[Richvee]

The OP got me thinking,.....Assuming FED rules, could this be considered a lodged ball 2 base award? I wouldn't think so myself, being that the fielder was able to lift the ball out of his armpit in short order.

So it got me thinking..what constitutes lodged? Would the ball have to land in a shirt, or in a pocket, where the fielder couldn't retrieve the ball almost immediately?

 

 

[udbrky]

I don't think it constitutes - it was held, not lodged. I think lodged needs to be in uniform, equipment, or a manner in which it is not easily accessed to put back in play.

[basejester]

9 hours ago, Richvee said:

The OP got me thinking,.....Assuming FED rules, could this be considered a lodged ball 2 base award? I wouldn't think so myself, being that the fielder was able to lift the ball out of his armpit in short order.

So it got me thinking..what constitutes lodged? Would the ball have to land in a shirt, or in a pocket, where the fielder couldn't retrieve the ball almost immediately?

 

 

I'm not sure where the line is exactly, but if the fielder stands up and the ball falls out, I'm confident that the ball was not lodged.