Out or lodged ball?

[stkjock]

I cannot find a reference in OBR other than a catcher on a third strike (6.05(b) and 5.09(a)  I thought I recalled the rule would dictate this not being a legal catch.

 

https://www.mlb.com/video/must-c-pivettas-jersey-catch/c-1839492983

[maven]

The rule book does not interpret itself, especially when borderline cases arise.

If a fielder can immediately retrieve a ball just inside his jersey, then it is not lodged. It remains live; when he holds it securely in hand or glove it's a catch.

That play happened so fast, the umpires might not have seen the ball go into the jersey. If they thought he trapped it, then held it in his hand, they'd also rule it a catch.

[stkjock]

Thanks @maven

[Umpire in Chief]

I don't think in real time I would have caught that as being in his jersey. 

[stkjock]

17 minutes ago, Umpire in Chief said:

I don't think in real time I would have caught that as being in his jersey. 

if you had what would you rule?

[Umpire in Chief]

3 minutes ago, stkjock said:

if you had what would you rule?

Being that he immediately removed it I'd rule catch. If he fumbled around for it I'd have to rule lodged ball.

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, stkjock said:

I cannot find a reference in OBR other than a catcher on a third strike (6.05(b) and 5.09(a)  I thought I recalled the rule would dictate this not being a legal catch.

You are correct -- if it had been accurately judged.  Award the "value" of the hit, but no outs -- so here, BR to first (and any other runners advance if forced).

[johnpatrick]

http://www.closecallsports.com/2017/09/caught-by-uniform-jersey-assisted-catch.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook&m=1

[beerguy55]

Though it was not lodged, he did indeed use his uniform to assist in catching the ball, meaning it is not a catch, by definition.

 It was inadvertent, but the ball entered the jersey - in theory the play should be dead immediately...no consideration is given to the player being able to immediately retrieve and control the ball.

I wonder if this would be reviewable if someone on the offense noticed it.

In real time, I highly doubt anyway would ever notice this, and most observers would think he simply trapped the ball against his body.

[Gfoley4]

19 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Though it was not lodged, he did indeed use his uniform to assist in catching the ball, meaning it is not a catch, by definition.

 It was inadvertent, but the ball entered the jersey - in theory the play should be dead immediately...no consideration is given to the player being able to immediately retrieve and control the ball.

I wonder if this would be reviewable if someone on the offense noticed it.

In real time, I highly doubt anyway would ever notice this, and most observers would think he simply trapped the ball against his body.

Donaldson noticed, and looked up the rule! 

 

[Senor Azul]

The idea that the rule book does not interpret itself would be news to the Playing Rules Committee. The following text appears in the front matter of the Official Baseball Rules on page (Roman numeral) v:

“(2) The Playing Rules Committee, at its December 1977 meeting, voted to incorporate the Notes/Case Book/Comments section directly into the Official Baseball Rules at the appropriate places. Basically, the Case Book interprets or elaborates on the basic rules and in essence have the same effect as rules when applied to particular sections for which they are intended.

“This arrangement is designed to give quicker access to any written language pertaining to an Official Rule and does not require a reader to refer to different sections of the Official Baseball Rules book in considering the application of a particular rule.”

[beerguy55]

55 minutes ago, Gfoley4 said:

Donaldson noticed, and looked up the rule! 

 

Well, a lot of people noticed after the fact, and after 500 replays, and looked up the rule - I did too....that's why I specifically used the words "in real time".

 

[LRZ]

What does the word "use" mean? Does it imply an intent? What does the word "lodge" mean? Are there case plays and/or official interpretations that clarify?

[Rich Ives]

John Patrick posted a link to an article that quotes the correct ruling. Why are y'all still arguing?