Catch without Intentional Release

[Velho]

This was ruled a catch.

Interested to see if people have counter examples.

 

[Jimurray]

8 minutes ago, Velho said:

This was ruled a catch.

Interested to see if people have counter examples.

 

Courtesy of @dumbdumb MLBUM, bolding is theirs:

"83. LEGAL CATCH Definitions of Terms: 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."

[The Man in Blue]

Yeah, not a voluntary release or opening the glove for a transfer.  That was the equivalent of celebrating on the five yard line and getting the ball stripped for a fumble.

[Velho]

Wonder how this play would be ruled in MLB

 

[agdz59]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

Yeah, not a voluntary release or opening the glove for a transfer.  That was the equivalent of celebrating on the five yard line and getting the ball stripped for a fumble.

I don't know.  There are 2 outs.  He snow-cones it, look at it then controls it enough to toss it out of his glove and catch it in the webbing while then celebrating and hitting his catching arm such that it dislodges.  I'd rule that a catch too.

[Kevin_K]

9 hours ago, Velho said:

Wonder how this play would be ruled in MLB

Obstruction. Score the run.

[Velho]

1 hour ago, Kevin_K said:

10 hours ago, Velho said:

Wonder how this play would be ruled in MLB

Obstruction. Score the run.

Falls under the exception (emphasis mine):

Not withstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(2) if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field the throw (e.g., in reaction to the direction, trajectory or the hop of the incoming throw, or in reaction to a throw that originates from a pitcher or drawn-in infielder). 

[The Man in Blue]

12 hours ago, agdz59 said:

I don't know.  There are 2 outs.  He snow-cones it, look at it then controls it enough to toss it out of his glove and catch it in the webbing while then celebrating and hitting his catching arm such that it dislodges.  I'd rule that a catch too.

I am seeing that differently … but I am watching it in my phone at the moment.

I saw the ball in the glove, a flex, and the ball shoot out.

[Kevin_K]

6 hours ago, Velho said:

Falls under the exception (emphasis mine):

Not withstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(2) if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field the throw (e.g., in reaction to the direction, trajectory or the hop of the incoming throw, or in reaction to a throw that originates from a pitcher or drawn-in infielder). 

They weren't drawn in. Note f6 and F5's position after the ball has been put in play.

F2 is blocking R3's path to the base without the ball

Please don't misconstrue my reply. @Velho asked how this would be ruled in MLB with replay available. I wouldn't call this obstruction. MLB probably would.

[Velho]

16 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

They weren't drawn in. Note f6 and F5's position after the ball has been put in play.

I don't think MLB defines "drawn in" (so more issues with the Posey rule). Even with the bag in a tied game bottom of 9 may get that leeway but agree it is judgmental (as is F2 foot inside the line (legal) or on the line (illegal).

Regardless, I was focused on the tag followed by the ball coming out from the F2 mask - and not the runner contact. Would be interesting to see MLB ruling of that in comparison to Caballero's ruled catch.