Ball Stuck in Glove...Lodged?

[lawump]

22 hours ago, JSam21 said:

In a month of being a registered NCAA official... their model blows NFHS out of the water. Everyone on the same page on how things should be called. NFHS is slightly more than a book of suggestions to states.

Someday, when my term is over, I'll write a book.  LOL 

With that said, in the NFHS the power is not centralized.  It is structured like the old Articles of Confederation.  The natural result of such a structure is what you alluded to your post.

[LRZ]

41 minutes ago, lawump said:

With that said, in the NFHS the power is not centralized.  It is structured like the old Articles of Confederation.  The natural result of such a structure is what you alluded to your post.

Nothing wrong with that: the states are "laboratories of democracy." 

[Jimurray]

One of the PIAA rationales in their PDF is that the new ruling conflicts with the definition of a catch. I don't see that conflict in the FED rule myself but I do see a hint of a conflict in NCAA. My 2011 BRD says NCAA agrees with OBR that a ball stuck in a glove can be transferred to another fielder who can have "secure possession" and tag a runner or a base. But the BRD play involves a grounder. Can that stuck ball be called a catch if it was a line drive in all the codes? Can the fielder "voluntary release" the glove and ball together?

[noumpere]

At least FED recognized this error and sent out a correction.  We can hope that this means the incorrect case play will be changed / removed next year.

 

Unlike other changes they have made in the past where they didn't go back an change (or clarify) all the now-incorrect / unclear case plays and rules after a change.  I'm looking at you "batter gets two strikes for stepping out of the box" rule / case.

[Tborze]

On January 18, 2019 at 11:02 AM, lawump said:

I haven't read this whole thread.  However, this was sent from the NFHS to all states this week:

Ball in glove (2-9-1, 5-1-1)

With the change of interpretation by the NFHS Baseball Rules Committee, CB 2.9.1 Situation D: No longer will the ball be immediately dead when a ball is "lodged" in a player's glove.  The player may take his glove, with the ball in it, and toss it to another fielder to record a force out at the base.

CB 5.1.1 Situations Q and R should be removed.  They are no longer valid.

 

Is this meant to be interpreted as, "any base"?

[noumpere]

11 hours ago, Tborze said:

Is this meant to be interpreted as, "any base"?

Only first, second, third, and home.  No others.

[Tborze]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

Only first, second, third, and home.  No others.

The reason I asked is this:

We are to call the play exactly as presented: If the ball is a ground ball to the pitcher and the ball lodges in his glove he may toss the glove and ball to first base and only first base. He is not permited to toss it to another base.

Even though this play is a one in a million occurrence, We must have a ruling and guide lines for making this call and and how to deal with other related plays. So for the sake of simplicity, in every other situaton where a ground ball lodges in a FIELDERS glove, We are to apply Rule 5.1.1 (f) and Rule 8.3.3 (c), 

[Jimurray]

19 minutes ago, Tborze said:

The reason I asked is this:

We are to call the play exactly as presented: If the ball is a ground ball to the pitcher and the ball lodges in his glove he may toss the glove and ball to first base and only first base. He is not permited to toss it to another base.

Even though this play is a one in a million occurrence, We must have a ruling and guide lines for making this call and and how to deal with other related plays. So for the sake of simplicity, in every other situaton where a ground ball lodges in a elders glove, We are to apply Rule 5.1.1 (f) and Rule 8.3.3 (c), 

If that is an official communique from the PA umpires group I would advise you to comply with it and call it like they want if you see an elder with a glove in such a situaton. And while the pitcher is not permited to throw to another base he would still be permitted to throw to another base:)

[beerguy55]

On 1/18/2019 at 9:02 AM, lawump said:

I haven't read this whole thread.  However, this was sent from the NFHS to all states this week:

Ball in glove (2-9-1, 5-1-1)

With the change of interpretation by the NFHS Baseball Rules Committee, CB 2.9.1 Situation D: No longer will the ball be immediately dead when a ball is "lodged" in a player's glove.  The player may take his glove, with the ball in it, and toss it to another fielder to record a force out at the base.

CB 5.1.1 Situations Q and R should be removed.  They are no longer valid.

 

Is it limited to a force out situation?  Or was that simply the scenario/situation at hand? 

How about an appeal?   Or a plain old tag?

eg. line drive to pitcher, caught...and lodged.  F1 throws ball/glove to F3 to get R1 diving back.  (assuming throwing ball/glove is seen as "voluntary release")

OR

Two hopper, lodged in pitcher's glove.  R3 sees F1 struggling and goes home...F1 throws ball/glove to F2 - can F2 apply tag with ball/glove in his glove?  Can he hold ball/glove in his bare hand and apply tag?

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

Is it limited to a force out situation?  Or was that simply the scenario/situation at hand? 

How about an appeal?   Or a plain old tag?

eg. line drive to pitcher, caught...and lodged.  F1 throws ball/glove to F3 to get R1 diving back.  (assuming throwing ball/glove is seen as "voluntary release")

OR

Two hopper, lodged in pitcher's glove.  R3 sees F1 struggling and goes home...F1 throws ball/glove to F2 - can F2 apply tag with ball/glove in his glove?  Can he hold ball/glove in his bare hand and apply tag?

If FED is trying to call it the same as OBR then I believe, based upon the BRD,  that your two scenarios would be allowed except in PA. I did have a question earlier in the thread about whether the stricter NCAA catch wording would allow this as a voluntary release.

[Tborze]

The editorial clarification on pg 1 says, 

The player may take his glove, with the ball in it, and toss it to another fielder to record a force out at the base.

[Jimurray]

4 hours ago, Tborze said:

The editorial clarification on pg 1 says, 

The player may take his glove, with the ball in it, and toss it to another fielder to record a force out at the base.

Have the PA authorities brainwashed you?

[Tborze]

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Have the PA authorities brainwashed you?

No!  At least I hope not!  Maybe?! 

I was referring to pg 1 of this thread from the NFHS, which from my understanding, has been sent to every state.  

They do have me bewildered as to why they would make it more difficult considering the NFHS has already said to disregard

5-1-1 Q&R  and that ANY player may record an out at ANY base.  

IMO, they would have been better off disregarding the whole rule than to put stipulations on it!  

PA seems to follow NFHS to the T unless it can't be rationalized by the powers that be.  

 

 

 

 

[Jimurray]

9 hours ago, Tborze said:

No!  At least I hope not!  Maybe?! 

I was referring to pg 1 of this thread from the NFHS, which from my understanding, has been sent to every state.  

They do have me bewildered as to why they would make it more difficult considering the NFHS has already said to disregard

5-1-1 Q&R  and that ANY player may record an out at ANY base.  

IMO, they would have been better off disregarding the whole rule than to put stipulations on it!  

PA seems to follow NFHS to the T unless it can't be rationalized by the powers that be.  

 

 

 

 

I don't think FED wants to stipulate only a force. I think PA wants to quibble because they don't like the change to how OBR calls it. The new caseplay refers to secure possession. Anything you can do when you have secure possession would be allowed, tag a base, tag a runner. BTW were the spelling errors in your referenced communique yours or PA's?

[Tborze]

54 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I don't think FED wants to stipulate only a force. I think PA wants to quibble because they don't like the change to how OBR calls it. The new caseplay refers to secure possession. Anything you can do when you have secure possession would be allowed, tag a base, tag a runner. BTW were the spelling errors in your referenced communique yours or PA's?

I copied and pasted. It left out a few letters and I had to edit. You can see it here: 

http://www.piaa.org/sports/baseball/default.aspx

[kylehutson]

On 2/16/2019 at 8:31 AM, Jimurray said:

I think PA wants to quibble because they don't like the change to how OBR calls it.

After reading PIAA's bulletin, I think you nailed it.

[johnnyg08]

On 1/24/2019 at 9:40 AM, JSam21 said:

In a month of being a registered NCAA official... their model blows NFHS out of the water. Everyone on the same page on how things should be called. NFHS is slightly more than a book of suggestions to states.

NCAA is getting better, and work each year to improve...but consistency across the country is still a work in progress.

[johnnyg08]

1 hour ago, kylehutson said:

After reading PIAA's bulletin, I think you nailed it.

Perhaps...but why in the hell would anybody want to call a two base award on this play? 

Certainly not me. 

[yawetag]

15 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Perhaps...but why in the hell would anybody want to call a two base award on this play? 

Certainly not me. 

That was the old Fed rule. If the ball was lodged, immediately dead and two bases.

[Jimurray]

4 hours ago, yawetag said:

That was the old Fed rule. If the ball was lodged, immediately dead and two bases.

Isn't that still the rule for a ball lodged in a defensive player's or umpire's equipment except that a ball in the glove is not considered lodged?

[Kevin_K]

Ball lodged in an umpire's or catcher's equipment is one base.

[Jimurray]

28 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

Ball lodged in an umpire's or catcher's equipment is one base.

A pitch lodged in an umpire's or catcher's equipment is one base. Any other ball is two bases: "8-3-c. two bases if a fair batted or thrown ball becomes dead because of bouncing over or passing through a fence, or lodges in a defensive player's or umpire's equipment or uniform; or if a live thrown ball:"

[johnnyg08]

10 hours ago, yawetag said:

That was the old Fed rule. If the ball was lodged, immediately dead and two bases.

I'm well aware. My point is that some were saying that they didn't want the rule to change...wanted it to remain a 2 base award in FED...which is obnoxious. I understand that it was the rule...but it was obnoxious. 

[MadMax]

On 2/16/2019 at 8:31 AM, Jimurray said:

I think PA wants to quibble because they don’t like the change to how OBR calls it.

 

16 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

My point is that some were saying that they didn’t want the rule to change...

And this and these people are prime examples of The Establishment, a minority conclave that is one of the greatest challenges to us as umpires (and other sports officials).

The games – whether they be baseball, football, basketball, hockey, softball, volleyball, quidditch, or competitive basket weaving – change. They evolve. The correlating rules are not static, but instead dynamic. We often confuse “absolute” for “static”, and “relative” for “dynamic”. The Rules are to be referenced and applied absolutely, but they themselves grow, evolve, and adapt in relation to the game they govern dynamically. The way in which these adaptations are made through a duly designated (or elected) governing body are done through a particular process (sometimes, we’re not privy to), and when they are implemented, they are done for the benefit of Rules across the the breadth and range of their applications.

Now, can a state adopt these Rules wholesale, or piecemeal? Yes, certainly, they are empowered to do so. Can individual organizations (such as USA Baseball, or Triple Crown) use these Rules, and selectively countermand or negate specific sections (such as catcher’s two-piece masks, or Mercy Rules, or defensive conferences)? Yes, certainly, they have done so for years. If these organizations countermand, or selectively apply these Rules codecies, they are often doing so for the benefit of their own organization, most often in terms of efficiency and efficacy.

Here’s what is concerning – if the State of Pennsylvania is ignoring or refusing to apply this Rule, is there a reason for efficacy or efficiency for them doing so? Better yet, did they poll their constituency – the umpires within their association – as to if the Rule should be applied or negated? Sounds like they didn’t, and it just became “someone not liking it”.

[Aging_Arbiter]

Didn't someone ask a question a one point in regards to "Why don't they play baseball under 1 rules code"?