Glove dislodged from fielder

[Guest Darrell]

 In our game this Saturday I had a player hit a line drive to the shortstop and knocked his glove off. The glove fell to the ground with the ball still in the glove. My player stopped at first base. The umpires called him out due to the ball staying in the glove. Is he out or safe? I always thought the glove was an extension of your hand and the ball had to be controlled in order to be caught. If he is out could you tell me what rule addresses this?

[Senor Azul]

Darrell, the umpire in your game was wrong. No rules code gives an out on this play. It is not a catch—in fact, it is considered a lodged ball and it is handled differently in games played under high school rules--

FED Case Book 5.1.1 Situation Q:  A line drive rips the glove from the pitcher’s hand. The pitcher retrieves the glove, which contains the ball, and throws the glove and ball to the first baseman. RULING:  Illegal. A fair-batted ball is dead immediately when it becomes lodged in player equipment.

NFHS Official Interpretation:  Hopkins:  A sharp line drive knocks the glove from the second baseman’s hand, and it falls to the ground with the ball still in the pocket. Is this a catch? Ruling: No. (Website 2008 #2)

In NCAA/OBR, the lodged ball in the glove is live and in play.

OBR Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  Any ball, batted or thrown, that gets stuck in a fielder’s glove remains in play. If a fielder holds the glove with the ball securely, it is the same as holding the ball.

 

 

[Senor Azul]

You are partially correct, Mr. grayhawk. Intent is required for a penalty to be invoked for the use of detached equipment. But the rules do go on to discuss accidental detached equipment—no penalty is assessed but it is still detached equipment. Here are the relevant rules:

OBR 5.06(b)(3)(E) A fielder deliberately touches a pitched ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play, and the award is made from the position of the runner at the time the ball was touched.

5.06(b)(4)Comment Under (C-E) this penalty shall not be invoked against a fielder whose glove is carried off his hand by the force of a batted or thrown ball, or when his glove flies off his hand as he makes an obvious effort to make a legitimate catch.

[udbrky]

It is not. Once it comes off, it's not a catch.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/watch-yoenis-cespedes-called-safe-after-stepping-on-fielders-glove-during-slide/

[maven]

1 hour ago, Guest Darrell said:

If he is out could you tell me what rule addresses this?

If he's not out, you don't need the rule?

You need the definition of TAG, which requires that the ball be held securely in hand or glove, assuming the glove is properly worn. In pro rules, it's in the definitions section at the end. In HS rules this is 2-24-4: "A tag out is the put out of a runner, including the batter-runner, who is not in contact with his base when touched with a live ball, or with the glove or hand when the live ball is held securely therein by a fielder."

If his hand comes off, but the ball stays in the hand, that's also not an out.

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, Guest Darrell said:

 In our game this Saturday I had a player hit a line drive to the shortstop and knocked his glove off. The glove fell to the ground with the ball still in the glove. My player stopped at first base. The umpires called him out due to the ball staying in the glove. Is he out or safe? I always thought the glove was an extension of your hand and the ball had to be controlled in order to be caught. If he is out could you tell me what rule addresses this?

The rule is defined by the definition of a CATCH.

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

One can not firmly hold a ball if it is in a glove, while said glove is on the ground and not attached to any person.  As such, the ball would not be in secure possession.   It should not have been ruled a catch.  It is touched some object other than the fielder.

Once the glove leaves the body it is no longer part of the fielder, and the ball touching said glove is no longer "in flight"

IN FLIGHT describes a batted, thrown, or pitched ball which has not yet touched the ground or some object other than a fielder.

 

The interesting (perhaps to only me) debate is whether or not a fielder who, in your situation, catches his glove before it hits the ground.  By letter of the rule it should not be a catch, though I think the spirit of the rule should make it a catch...under the old adage "I may not be able to define a catch but I know it when I see it".

[grayhawk]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

 

The interesting (perhaps to only me) debate is whether or not a fielder who, in your situation, catches his glove before it hits the ground.  By letter of the rule it should not be a catch, though I think the spirit of the rule should make it a catch...under the old adage "I may not be able to define a catch but I know it when I see it".

By the letter of the rule, it WOULD be a catch.  The ball is still in flight if it hasn't touched the ground, a runner or an umpire.  In fact, even if another fielder catches the glove before it touches the ground, it's still a catch by the letter of the rule.

[ElkOil]

5 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

under the old adage "I may not be able to define a catch but I know it when I see it".

Luckily, you don't have to define a catch since FED has already done it for you:

A catch is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a live ball in flight and firmly holding it, provided he does not use his cap, protector, mask, pocket or other part of his uniform to trap the ball. The catch of a fly ball by a fielder is not completed until the continuing action of the catch is completed. A fielder who catches a ball and then runs into a wall or another player and drops the ball has not made a catch. A fielder, at full speed, who catches a ball and whose initial momentum carries him several more yards after which the ball drops from his glove has not made a catch. When the fielder, by his action of stopping, removing the ball from his glove, etc., signifies the -initial action is completed and then drops the ball, will be judged to have made the catch. The same definition of a catch would apply when making a double play. It is considered a catch if a fielder catches a fair or foul ball and then steps or falls into a bench, dugout, stand, bleacher or over any boundary or barrier, such as a fence, rope, chalk line, or a pregame determined imaginary boundary line from the field of play. Falling into does not include merely running against such object. (See 2-24-4 for fielder juggling ball and 8-4-1c for intentionally dropped ball; 2-16-2 and 5-1-1d for ball striking catcher before touching his glove.) It is not a catch when a fielder touches a batted ball in flight which then contacts a member of the offensive team or an umpire and is then caught by a defensive player.

[beerguy55]

17 hours ago, grayhawk said:

By the letter of the rule, it WOULD be a catch.  The ball is still in flight if it hasn't touched the ground, a runner or an umpire.  In fact, even if another fielder catches the glove before it touches the ground, it's still a catch by the letter of the rule.

No, by letter of the rule (a least under OBR), a ball that is touching either the ground OR an object other than the fielder (ie. the glove that is no longer on his hand) is no longer in flight...ergo, the moment the ball is touching the glove while said glove is not attached to the fielder, it is no longer in flight, and can no longer be caught, by letter of the rule. 

That is, the ball that is still in the fielder's glove after that glove has fallen to the ground is not a catch not because it's touching the ground - it isn't - but because it's touching an object other than the fielder.

 

As I stated earlier, I think it SHOULD be a catch, but if you follow the letter of the rule, it isn't.  The NFL is working through similar problems - they acknowledge a few instances where a play ruled a "no catch" should be ruled "catches", but the problem is not how the officials interpreted the rules (ie. they were technically correct) but how the rule was worded.

14 hours ago, ElkOil said:

Luckily, you don't have to define a catch since FED has already done it for you:

A catch is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a live ball in flight and firmly holding it, provided he does not use his cap, protector, mask, pocket or other part of his uniform to trap the ball. The catch of a fly ball by a fielder is not completed until the continuing action of the catch is completed. A fielder who catches a ball and then runs into a wall or another player and drops the ball has not made a catch. A fielder, at full speed, who catches a ball and whose initial momentum carries him several more yards after which the ball drops from his glove has not made a catch. When the fielder, by his action of stopping, removing the ball from his glove, etc., signifies the -initial action is completed and then drops the ball, will be judged to have made the catch. The same definition of a catch would apply when making a double play. It is considered a catch if a fielder catches a fair or foul ball and then steps or falls into a bench, dugout, stand, bleacher or over any boundary or barrier, such as a fence, rope, chalk line, or a pregame determined imaginary boundary line from the field of play. Falling into does not include merely running against such object. (See 2-24-4 for fielder juggling ball and 8-4-1c for intentionally dropped ball; 2-16-2 and 5-1-1d for ball striking catcher before touching his glove.) It is not a catch when a fielder touches a batted ball in flight which then contacts a member of the offensive team or an umpire and is then caught by a defensive player.

 And what is the FED definition of "in flight"?   I've quoted the OBR definition of IN FLIGHT above.  That's the only thing that matters.  If the ball is not "in flight" there can be no catch - all the other scenarios and explanations become irrelevant.

[grayhawk]

I disagree with your interpretation. If what you say is true, then another fielder couldn’t catch a ball that was deflected by his team mate because he isn’t THE fielder.

In the one in a million chance this ever happens, I’m calling it a catch.

[beerguy55]

24 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I disagree with your interpretation. If what you say is true, then another fielder couldn’t catch a ball that was deflected by his team mate because he isn’t THE fielder.

In the one in a million chance this ever happens, I’m calling it a catch.

IN FLIGHT describes a batted, thrown, or pitched ball which has not yet touched the ground or some object other than a fielder.

A, not THE.   It's in black and white in OBR.   A ball can bounce off all nine fielders and still be caught....as long as it doesn't touch a runner, umpire, base, fence, spectator, piece of equipment, etc.

I think 999 out of a 1000 umpires would make the same call, and likely every pro.   I'm just saying, if someone made a protest, by letter of the rule they have a legitimate case.

[grayhawk]

IN FLIGHT describes a batted, thrown, or pitched ball which has not yet touched the ground or some object other than a fielder.
A, not THE.   It's in black and white in OBR.   A ball can bounce off all nine fielders and still be caught....as long as it doesn't touch a runner, umpire, base, fence, spectator, piece of equipment, etc.
I think 999 out of a 1000 umpires would make the same call, and likely every pro.   I'm just saying, if someone made a protest, by letter of the rule they have a legitimate case.

Your post above said “the” so I was quoting you. I understand your position, but since the glove was properly worn when the ball knocked it off and neither the glove nor the ball ever hit the ground, I can’t see this being anything other than a catch.

[Senor Azul]

A couple of things to consider—

Lodged ball:  A ball that remains on the playing field but has become wedged, stuck, lost, unreachable, etc.

A batted ball cannot be caught if the ball becomes lodged or a fielder uses detached gear to field it.

In your scenario, Mr. beerguy55, isn’t the glove now detached equipment?

And the FED definition of in flight can be found in rule 2-6-1:  A batted or thrown ball is in flight until it has touched the ground or some object other than a fielder.

[grayhawk]

A couple of things to consider—
Lodged ball:  A ball that remains on the playing field but has become wedged, stuck, lost, unreachable, etc.
A batted ball cannot be caught if the ball becomes lodged or a fielder uses detached gear to field it.
In your scenario, Mr. beerguy55, isn’t the glove now detached equipment?
And the FED definition of in flight can be found in rule 2-6-1:  A batted or thrown ball is in flight until it has touched the ground or some object other than a fielder.

Detached equipment requires intent.

[noumpere]

17 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

I think 999 out of a 1000 umpires would make the same call, and likely every pro.   I'm just saying, if someone made a protest, by letter of the rule they have a legitimate case.

You've been around long enough to know that there are lots of things where a person could have a "legitimate case" "by letter of they rule" and that doesn't mean that it's the way the rule is meant or interpreted or judged in a protest. 

[Rich Ives]

12 hours ago, grayhawk said:

 

Detached equipment requires intent.

 

Only to apply the penalty. 

[grayhawk]

Only to apply the penalty. 

If no penalty is applied, then we have nothing. If the force of the ball ripped the glove off a fielder’s hand, we aren’t declaring “that’s detached equipment” and then not applying a penalty. If we do anything, we’re declaring “that’s nothing.”

[beerguy55]

17 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

A couple of things to consider—

Lodged ball:  A ball that remains on the playing field but has become wedged, stuck, lost, unreachable, etc.

A batted ball cannot be caught if the ball becomes lodged or a fielder uses detached gear to field it.

In your scenario, Mr. beerguy55, isn’t the glove now detached equipment?

And the FED definition of in flight can be found in rule 2-6-1:  A batted or thrown ball is in flight until it has touched the ground or some object other than a fielder.

Exactly my point.  Whether you want to consider the ball lodged in the detached glove, or simply touching the detached glove, or that the fielder is using detached gear to field the ball (though the detachment was unintentional) in any of those interpretations the batted ball is touching some object other than a fielder, because the glove is no longer attached to the fielder.  At that point it's no longer in flight.

 

4 hours ago, noumpere said:

You've been around long enough to know that there are lots of things where a person could have a "legitimate case" "by letter of they rule" and that doesn't mean that it's the way the rule is meant or interpreted or judged in a protest. 

Yes - I've also been around long enough to see rule makers in two major professional North American sports struggle with defining a catch in language that can be consistently enforced by the on field (or even in booth) officials, especially in the new age of instant replay in high def frame by frame presentation, and have had many instances where the public perception of what looks like a catch, or what should be a catch, is not reconciled with an official who has usually correctly interpreted the current letter of the rule, which has obviously come short of the spirit of the rule, in specific (if rare or at least uncommon) scenarios.

At some point you just have to look and say - that looks a lot like a catch to me.

Otherwise, we will get to the day of 16k or 64k supreme high def television where we will be able to see that as a fielder was diving for a ball it nicked the top of a blade of grass that was an inch taller than the other blades of grass, before the ball entered the glove, and rule it a no catch.

[Rich Ives]

20 hours ago, grayhawk said:

 

If no penalty is applied, then we have nothing. If the force of the ball ripped the glove off a fielder’s hand, we aren’t declaring “that’s detached equipment” and then not applying a penalty. If we do anything, we’re declaring “that’s nothing.”

 

If it isn't detached  it must still be on this hand.  It isn't.

[maven]

If 'detached equipment' is the name of a violation with a penalty, then we need another term for equipment that "comes off" legally. 'Unattached equipment'?