Jump to content
  • 0

Rule 2.00 - Catch


BigVic69

Question

in the rule there are terms like "voluntary and intentional" and "in the act of making a throw".

This is what I would like to understand better.

how is "voluntary and intentional" to be judged (other than dropping the ball)?

 - I have heard moving of the foot, change in direction, etc.

how is "in the act of making a throw" to be judged?  Does this mean that the ball at least needs to be in the throwing hand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
16 minutes ago, BigVic69 said:

in the rule there are terms like "voluntary and intentional" and "in the act of making a throw".

This is what I would like to understand better.

how is "voluntary and intentional" to be judged (other than dropping the ball)?

 - I have heard moving of the foot, change in direction, etc.

how is "in the act of making a throw" to be judged?  Does this mean that the ball at least needs to be in the throwing hand?

Here is a good way to judge it.  If the ball is in the glove and then the fielder goes for it and the ball drops STRAIGHT DOWN, that's a not a catch!  The release of the ball was not intentional/voluntary.  You can make the claim that there was not SECURE control of the ball in the first place.

If however, the ball goes out at an angle, you can claim that the fielder added impetus to the ball, and that's why it went out that way.  Thus he did have control of the ball in the glove.  That's a catch and drop on transfer.

This is the way WRLL teaches it.

Mike

Las Vegas

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 2/3/2021 at 1:35 PM, BigVic69 said:

 

how is "in the act of making a throw" to be judged?  Does this mean that the ball at least needs to be in the throwing hand?

No...You can have the ball securely in glove and try to pop it to your throwing hand...that is control and voluntary release.   You can also throw/flip/propel the ball from your glove to another fielder without ever using the bare hand.   Ball secure in bare hand is certainly a good indicator, but not necessary.

Honestly...best thing I can recommend is play catch with somebody...or go shag some fly balls...you start figuring out what you can and can't do with a glove...what secure control feels/looks like...and what it looks like when you bobble a ball...or take your eye of the ball for a sec...or put your hand in the glove too early.   Best way to judge a catch, or an act of making a throw, is to understand what it really is to do it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I think @beerguy55is absolutely correct. The best way to understand is to do. 

Something you can consider in addition, had there not be some attempt to transfer the ball to the throwing hand, would the ball have stayed firmly and securely in the glove? Or, was it the act of trying to do something after having caught the ball that caused control to be lost? If you answer yes, that's a catch (or tag). 

The change of direction has nothing to do with voluntary release. However, it does indicate that the momentum of the catch has stopped, which, when combined with firm and secure possession, legalizes a catch. 

Remember, for a catch, we must always have firm and secure possession. We then must have one or both of voluntary release, or the momentum of the catch stopping.

Momentum of the catch stopping is kinda a you'll know it when you see it kinda deal. I'm not necessarily going to require him to change direction or come to a complete stop to judge that the momentum of the catch has stopped. For example, if the right fielder is running in hard, catches the ball for the third out, and is able to regain control of his body, that would be the momentum of the catch stopping, even if he only slows to a jog and he drops the ball in his way to the dugout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 2/3/2021 at 3:57 PM, Vegas_Ump said:

Here is a good way to judge it.  If the ball is in the glove and then the fielder goes for it and the ball drops STRAIGHT DOWN, that's a not a catch!  The release of the ball was not intentional/voluntary.  You can make the claim that there was not SECURE control of the ball in the first place.

I don't like this (no offense @Vegas_Ump ..nothing personal) ...    I just don't like this teaching method.  I don't like it because there are many ways a ball can come out of the glove, and it's direction is not indicative of control, or voluntary release, etc.    For example; let's say an outfielder is about to catch a fly ball and throw the ball in quickly to the infield.   He catches the ball just above his head to the left side. Then brings the glove down to meet up w/ his right hand.  That ball is coming out in a downward direction, it doesn't mean he never had control.

.....if that makes sense .... :HS

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Jeff:

All excellent points.  I guess I was looking in the idiom of an infielder receiving a throw from another or like the turn on a double play attempt.  [I sorta had some "help" from ESPN at a WR Tourney in 2017 on a play at first.]

Outfield geometry is truly different.

Thanks.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 minute ago, Vegas_Ump said:

Jeff:

All excellent points.  I guess I was looking in the idiom of an infielder receiving a throw from another or like the turn on a double play attempt.  [I sorta had some "help" from ESPN at a WR Tourney in 2017 on a play at first.]

Outfield geometry is truly different.

Thanks.

Mike

AHHH, ....yes, ...ok, I see!  That does make your scenario more valid! :nod: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
10 hours ago, BT_Blue said:

I feel like I'm missing something here.

tenor.gif

Perhaps. @LRZ's reply suggests that Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's ability to determine what is or is not is often in the eye of the beholder.

For further details see Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Voluntary means as a result of willing; intentional means toward an intended end.

The act of throwing begins with removing the ball from the glove and ends with the throw.

Hope that helps. Sometimes umpires look for definitions in order to escape responsibility for judgment calls. Unfortunately, there are no self-interpreting texts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Each of the umpire manuals has some kind of definition of the term catch and each one makes an effort to explain the concepts of voluntary release and act of throwing. But they’re all slightly different—let’s start with the MLBUM and the MiLBUM manuals--

From the 2015 MLBUM (paragraph 65, p. 80) and the same text can be found in the 2018 MiLBUM (p. 135):

The umpire should find that a legal catch has occurred pursuant to Definitions of Terms, “Catch,” or valid force out or tag has occurred pursuant to Definitions of Terms, “Tag,” if the fielder had complete control over the ball in his glove, and drops the ball after intentionally opening his glove to make the transfer to his throwing hand. A legal catch does not require that the fielder secure possession or control of the ball in his throwing hand when making the transfer.

And the 2019-2020 NCAA rule book has some help in its definition of catch found in its rule 2-16…

In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall demonstrate complete control of the ball and that the release of the ball is voluntary and intentional. Only two circumstances may be interpreted as creating a voluntary and intentional release.

 1) When the momentum of the catch is complete; i.e., the fielder has reversed his direction and is running the ball back toward the infield or;

 2) When the fielder is reaching for the ball to make a throw…

c. If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw (i.e., reaching for the ball in the glove) after the catch, the ball shall be judged to have been caught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
13 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

Perhaps. @LRZ's reply suggests that Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's ability to determine what is or is not is often in the eye of the beholder.

For further details see Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)

 

10 hours ago, Matt said:

Or if you want something more headshaking, see Jacobellis v. Turin (2006).

Ok... once you mentioned this, I knew where we were headed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...