Jump to content
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 494 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

Posted

Sharp & Direct to the Catcher’s body, secured for a catch (used to be mitt or hand only). 

Strike Out. 

Posted
56 minutes ago, MadMax said:

Sharp & Direct to the Catcher’s body, secured for a catch (used to be mitt or hand only). 

Strike Out. 

Doesn't NFHS still have to be mitt or hand first?

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Thunderheads said:

Doesn't NFHS still have to be mitt or hand first?

Yup. Another point where NFHS needs to “catch up” to NCAA and OBR. 

  • Like 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Disagree … it’s a point where NFHS has it right and the others are messing with it.

How? 🤔 Instead of having to determine whether or not it hit the mitt (or free hand) first – else Foul – this makes it far easier, for the batted ball can hit any part of the catcher sharp-&-direct and, provided it doesn’t hit the ground or the umpire, be subsequently caught. 

In all other cases of catch/no-catch, a ball can be trapped against the body, or (still) caught on a ricochet off a leg, or shoulder… so why is the bar so much higher – and for teenage amateurs, no less – on a Foul Tip? We don’t have video replay in Fed… why is the determination so specific? 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Posted

Because once it goes past the hand or the mitt, you don’t have to figure out anything, it is a foul ball.  Easy “black and white” line.  It is either caught at the hand or the mitt, or it is not.  You don’t have to crane around and see if the ball is squeezed between his left testicle and his leg, maybe a few centimeters off the ground, maybe not … there is much more to have to figure out under the “anything goes” system.

By allowing all these other shenanigans, you take us back to the play we saw video of a few months ago, where the ball went sharp and direct to the catcher’s mask/helmet and ricocheted out to the pitcher.  Not saying there isn’t a rule to cover that, but K.I.S.S.

In “all other cases of a catch” or no catch the fielder must have secure possession in his hand or glove long enough to show “COMPLETE control.”  OBR definition.

Gingerly wheedling the ball around to the glove or hand is not “complete control” (IMO).

Posted
1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

Because once it goes past the hand or the mitt, you don’t have to figure out anything, it is a foul ball.

Not necessarily. If it hits the hand or mitt first, it still can be caught for a foul tip.

What Max is saying, is that it is sometimes hard to tell if hit first hit the hand or mitt. With the OBR rule, it makes it easier to rule on a foul tip. All you have to see is if the catcher secured it properly, or if it hit the ground.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Posted
12 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Because once it goes past the hand or the mitt, you don’t have to figure out anything, it is a foul ball.  Easy “black and white” line.  It is either caught at the hand or the mitt, or it is not.  You don’t have to crane around and see if the ball is squeezed between his left testicle and his leg, maybe a few centimeters off the ground, maybe not … there is much more to have to figure out under the “anything goes” system.

By allowing all these other shenanigans, you take us back to the play we saw video of a few months ago, where the ball went sharp and direct to the catcher’s mask/helmet and ricocheted out to the pitcher.  Not saying there isn’t a rule to cover that, but K.I.S.S.

In “all other cases of a catch” or no catch the fielder must have secure possession in his hand or glove long enough to show “COMPLETE control.”  OBR definition.

Gingerly wheedling the ball around to the glove or hand is not “complete control” (IMO).

That's because it isn't, until it is in the hand or glove. 

Posted
21 hours ago, MadMax said:

Yup. Another point where NFHS needs to “catch up” to NCAA and OBR. 

 

17 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Disagree … it’s a point where NFHS has it right and the others are messing with it.

Personally, I'm torn between the two stances. To Max's point, changing the FED rule to match the other two codes would mean more outs, which we umpires love.

On the other hand, to TMiB's statement, how do we expect NFHS to change to this rule when they don't even trust their umpires to adjudicate balks properly?

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Posted

It’s a philosophical view, not tying to sway anybody or argue the rules.  A foul tip is not “any other catch” and should not be adjudicated as such.  Old man yelling. 

Posted
1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

It’s a philosophical view, not tying to sway anybody or argue the rules.  A foul tip is not “any other catch” and should not be adjudicated as such.  Old man yelling. 

Could you expand on why you feel it shouldn't be adjudicated as any other catch?

Posted

Exhibit A: If it were the same as any other catch, it wouldn’t need to be defined as “sharp and direct.”  

Exhibit B: A caught fly ball is already live.  A dropped ball in foul territory is already foul.  There is no need to define it any different if it isn’t different.  

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
On 9/21/2023 at 5:21 PM, The Man in Blue said:

In “all other cases of a catch” or no catch the fielder must have secure possession in his hand or glove long enough to show “COMPLETE control.”  OBR definition.

Gingerly wheedling the ball around to the glove or hand is not “complete control” (IMO).

ummm...what?

The foul tip rule still requires a "catch" which still requires the ball to be held securely in glove hand.  That hasn't changed in any rule set.

It's far easier to determine if the "sharp and direct" ball hit F2 first, rather than trying to determine if it hit F2's hand/glove before his knee, chest, elbow, or face.

×
×
  • Create New...