Catch or no catch?

quote:

immediately after hit the wall and dropped the ball.

'No catch' is the correct ruling...

quote:

Originally posted by NW Knights07:
At a wood bat tournament our player hit a high fly ball to center field. F8 made the catch, but immediately after hit the wall and dropped the ball. Field umpire ruled no catch, 2 runs score. Other coach appeals to home plate umpire who overrules field umpire. What is the correct ruling on this play?

1. No catch.
2. Plate umpire is an idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

quote:

Originally posted by NW Knights07:
At a wood bat tournament our player hit a high fly ball to center field. F8 made the catch, but immediately after hit the wall and dropped the ball. Field umpire ruled no catch, 2 runs score. Other coach appeals to home plate umpire who overrules field umpire. What is the correct ruling on this play?

1. No catch.
2. Plate umpire is an idiot.

3. Not the Plate Umpires Call
4. Plate Umpire has no legal right to overturn BU

Jimmy took the words right out of my mouth.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
Jimmy took the words right out of my mouth.

Agreed.....in some of these cases, with some of these umpires.....there just isnt any better answer than that....

Without seeing the play how can anyone here make a decision ?


As for the plate umpire making the call I have been in too many games where the plate umpire called catch on outfield plays/catches

It also seems that there is an unwritten rule that the base umpire shall not set foot on the outfield grass to make a call on a fly ball in the outfield

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
Without seeing the play how can anyone here make a decision ?


As for the plate umpire making the call I have been in too many games where the plate umpire called catch on outfield plays/catches

It also seems that there is an unwritten rule that the base umpire shall not set foot on the outfield grass to make a call on a fly ball in the outfield

TR, Pretty easily actually.....

First off there is the definition of a catch...(condensed)...

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; providing he does not use his cap, protector, pocket or
any other part of his uniform in getting possession. It is not a catch, however, if
simultaneously or immediately following his contact with the ball, he collides with a player,
or with a wall, or if he falls down, and as a result of such collision or falling, drops the ball.

Then there are the approved Mechanics for 2 man umpiring which gives the base umpire the catch/no catch on balls hit to center with runners on base. (called in the "V" or in "the cone")....

then there is the rule 9.02c

If a decision is appealed, the umpire making the decision may ask another umpire for information before making a final decision. No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere with another umpire’s decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making the call....


So...

Its not a catch....per rule

It wasnt the Home plate umpires call....per proper mechanics...

The Home plate umpire had no right to overrule the base umpire....per rule....

Read what I asked---how can anyone
on here, this site, know if the catch was a catch or not without seeing the play

If you can tell me yes then it adds more credence to my "three blind mice" theory

Don't get me wrong, the field umpire was correct in his ruling of no catch.
This said, the plate umpire, being UIC, by rule has the right to overrule any rule interpretation by the field umpire. Unfortunately the plate umpire was incorrect, but within the rules when he overturned the call based on a rule interpretation, not a judgment call.

quote:

Originally posted by DVM:
Don't get me wrong, the field umpire was correct in his ruling of no catch.
This said, the plate umpire, being UIC, by rule has the right to overrule any rule interpretation by the field umpire. Unfortunately the plate umpire was incorrect, but within the rules when he overturned the call based on a rule interpretation, not a judgment call.

Citation and rule code, please.

TRhit; Based on the OP there is no voluntary release so there is no catch.

quote:

F8 made the catch, but immediately after hit the wall and dropped the ball.

DVM; If any umpire believes a rule has been improperly applied, the umpires should get together and agree on the proper ruling. If they cannot agree, the plate umpire has no authority to overrule. If I am the base umpire and the PU attempts to overrule me, I will only agree if he has information to offer. Who is to say the UIC is more knowledgeable of the rules simply because he is behind the plate today?

Please cite a rule that says the UIC can overrule a call because he thinks it is a rule misinterpretation. There is no such rule.

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
Read what I asked---how can anyoner on here, this site, know if the catch was a catch or not without seeing the play

If you can tell me yes then it adds more credence to my "three blind mice" theory

By your implied criterion, no one could opine on any post other than a quetion of the wording of a rule, ever, because we were not there.

However, as is accepted practice, we have a taken the OP to represent the facts of the matter and thus we are free to express our opinions.

Do you stay awake nights trying to count the ways you hate umpires? You never fail to include an insult, implied or direct in your posts.

Sincerely,

Mouse #2.

First I agree that it's a no catch and the plate ump should keep his mouth shut because that is the right way to handle this. Maybe the field could get the play wrong but hopefully not but it is 100% judgement call IMO.


Second for those of you saying the plate ump has the right to change this call let me ask this - if the field ump is watching the OF on catch / no catch and the plate ump is watching catch / no catch to see if the field ump got it right then who's watching the runner(s)?

If both guys (assuming a two man crew here since it was a fall ball game) are watching the OF then the runners could be all over the place.

As already stated, this is the BU's call per every mechanics manual out there so that is black letter law. The definition of a catch is plaining worded in the rulebook. The fact that another umpire can't overrule his partner is equally stated. There is absolutely no judgment in this play at all, nor any obtuse interpretation. This is as cut and dried a situation as we have had in while.

quote:

Originally posted by DVM:
This said, the plate umpire, being UIC, by rule has the right to overrule any rule interpretation by the field umpire. Unfortunately the plate umpire was incorrect, but within the rules when he overturned the call based on a rule interpretation, not a judgment call.

I believe what DVM is referring to is OBR rule 9.04C...But understanding that MLB rules are based on the assumption that there are 4-6 Umpires on the field. This does not apply to games umpired by less umpires...

In 90% of the games umpired by those of us here, there are some 3 man games, but mostly they are only 2 man games. In the 2 man system each umpire has his own responsibilities based on the situation at hand....In the OP, if the umpires were using the basic fundamental mechanics system, the HPU would not have seen the catch/no catch, as he would have had the tag up...

But here is the MLB rule.....

9.04C

If different decisions should be made on one play by different umpires, the umpire-in-chief shall call all the umpires into consultation, with no manager or player present. After consultation, the umpire-in-chief (unless another umpire may have been designated by the league president) shall determine which decision shall prevail, based on which umpire was in best position and which decision was most likely correct. Play shall proceed as if only the final decision had been made.

Now this rule specifies the Umpire in chief, which may or not be the HPU....the rules mention that the HPU shall be called the umpire in chief, yet in practical usage, each crew has a Crew Chief whose authority is virtually never questioned.

NO HS umpire should infer that this rule is a justification for pulling the boneheaded action of over-riding his partner as per the OP...

This is a blown call by the HPU, per rule and practical application....In the OP, the HPU blew the call, and put the crew into a possible protest situation, which makes the chapter and the profession look bad... if you did this in my chapter, you would earn yourself a suspension and most probably a reassignment to lower JV types games....

quote:

Originally posted by piaa_ump:

quote:

Originally posted by DVM:
This said, the plate umpire, being UIC, by rule has the right to overrule any rule interpretation by the field umpire. Unfortunately the plate umpire was incorrect, but within the rules when he overturned the call based on a rule interpretation, not a judgment call.

I believe what DVM is referring to is OBR rule 9.04C..

9.04 (C) is used when two different calls have been made. It requires consultation with all umpires involved and then, the UIC decides which call is correct. It is not used to allow one umpire to overrule another. There is a huge difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

quote:

Originally posted by piaa_ump:

quote:

Originally posted by DVM:
This said, the plate umpire, being UIC, by rule has the right to overrule any rule interpretation by the field umpire. Unfortunately the plate umpire was incorrect, but within the rules when he overturned the call based on a rule interpretation, not a judgment call.

I believe what DVM is referring to is OBR rule 9.04C..

9.04 (C) is used when two different calls have been made. It requires consultation with all umpires involved and then, the UIC decides which call is correct. It is not used to allow one umpire to overrule another. There is a huge difference.

agreed, but I cant for the life of me think of any other rule that DVM would be referring to...

quote:

Originally posted by piaa_ump:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

quote:

Originally posted by piaa_ump:

quote:

Originally posted by DVM:
This said, the plate umpire, being UIC, by rule has the right to overrule any rule interpretation by the field umpire. Unfortunately the plate umpire was incorrect, but within the rules when he overturned the call based on a rule interpretation, not a judgment call.

I believe what DVM is referring to is OBR rule 9.04C..

9.04 (C) is used when two different calls have been made. It requires consultation with all umpires involved and then, the UIC decides which call is correct. It is not used to allow one umpire to overrule another. There is a huge difference.

agreed, but I cant for the life of me think of any other rule that DVM would be referring to...

I suppose it's possible that DVM could be mistaken.

quote:

Originally posted by DVM:
Don't get me wrong, the field umpire was correct in his ruling of no catch.
This said, the plate umpire, being UIC, by rule has the right to overrule any rule interpretation by the field umpire. Unfortunately the plate umpire was incorrect, but within the rules when he overturned the call based on a rule interpretation, not a judgment call.

Catch/no-catch is a judgment call - only the BU can change it.

You guys get pretty excited about a play that ocurred 300+ feet from the only guy who saw it.

At least 5 opinions on this thing.

Are you all sure this isn't a YHTBT play?

quote:

Originally posted by JMoff:
You guys get pretty excited about a play that ocurred 300+ feet from the only guy who saw it.

First, two people saw it, one much closer than 300 feet.

Second, the one with the better proximity made the call, and if we assume the OP is accurate, he made the correct call.

The emotion you detect is not excitement, but disgust that a PU would feel he had authority, as well as the positioning to "overrule" his partner.

If we never accept the word of original posters, every play posted would be a HTBT. That would eliminate the need for any internet board.

"What do you think?"

"HTBT"

"What do you think?"

"HTBT"

"What do you think?"

"HTBT"

"What do you think?"

"HTBT"

"What do you think?"

"HTBT"

"What do you think?"

"HTBT"

How informative.

I am a high school coach and have gotten to know a lot of umpires. There are a couple of issues here. #1. I am assuming that no one was on base and we had only two umpires. If this is the case, the home plate umpire has catch/no catch on fly ball to CF, unless it is a troublesome catch. If there is going to be trouble the base ump goes out to see if there is a catch. When the base umpire goes out, the home plate umpire has to follow the batter all the way around the bases and be at 2nd or 3rd for a play on the batter/runner. Therefore, umpires don't like to go out and make their partner run around the bases in their equipment. #2. The home plate umpire should only help on a call if asked by his partner, not the other teams players or coaches.

quote:

Originally posted by bobcat72476:
I am a high school coach and have gotten to know a lot of umpires. There are a couple of issues here. #1. I am assuming that no one was on base and we had only two umpires.

There were baserunners in the OP.

quote:

If this is the case, the home plate umpire has catch/no catch on fly ball to CF, unless it is a troublesome catch. If there is going to be trouble the base ump goes out to see if there is a catch. When the base umpire goes out, the home plate umpire has to follow the batter all the way around the bases and be at 2nd or 3rd for a play on the batter/runner. Therefore, umpires don't like to go out and make their partner run around the bases in their equipment.

That should never be a factor in BU's decision to go out or come in and pivot.

quote:

Originally posted by bobcat72476:
I am a high school coach and have gotten to know a lot of umpires. There are a couple of issues here. #1. I am assuming that no one was on base and we had only two umpires.

Reading is better than assuming. From the OP, "Field umpire ruled no catch, 2 runs score."

quote:

If this is the case, the home plate umpire has catch/no catch on fly ball to CF, unless it is a troublesome catch. If there is going to be trouble the base ump goes out to see if there is a catch.

With no runners on, BU does not go out on all trouble balls to CF. Under most mechanics, he has F8 when he moves towards RF. He does not have straightaway center or F8 moving towards LF.

quote:

When the base umpire goes out, the home plate umpire has to follow the batter all the way around the bases and be at 2nd or 3rd for a play on the batter/runner. Therefore, umpires don't like to go out and make their partner run around the bases in their equipment.

That is not a consideration.

quote:

#2. The home plate umpire should only help on a call if asked by his partner, not the other teams players or coaches.

The PU should only offer information when asked by his partner and when the play is properly appealable and when his obligations would not have prevented him from seeing the play better than his partner.

If I were to have a PU step on my **** like that I would assume he didn't need my assistance for the rest of the evening.

FVB10......GOOD TO SEE YOU BACK......

I'm going to chime in here on what I THINK TRhit was questioning. I know he doesn't need my help, but I think I know what he was getting at.

Clearly, the rule reads that it is not a catch if after immediately hitting the glove the fielder hits the wall and the ball comes out.

I think he was saying there is also an interpretation of "immediately". So I'm assuming that if I catch it and take 5 steps before I hit the wall and it comes out, it is a catch, right? What if it is 3 steps? Still a catch I assume. But then we get down to: what if it is "Ball hits glove, one step, hit wall, ball out"?

Probably no right answer for this other than: It's a judgment call and that's why umps have the tough job they have, because they have to make the split second decision about what is "immediate"....

I think, based on what I read here, TR's past posts have riled up some umps and vice versa. Maybe rightly so. But I think he does have a good point: do we KNOW it was not a catch without either seeing the play, OR a little bit more information....

Off topic a little bit about the primary point of this post, but still a good question.

quote:

Originally posted by TCB1:

Clearly, the rule reads that it is not a catch if after immediately hitting the glove the fielder hits the wall and the ball comes out.

I think he was saying there is also an interpretation of "immediately". So I'm assuming that if I catch it and take 5 steps before I hit the wall and it comes out, it is a catch, right? What if it is 3 steps? Still a catch I assume. But then we get down to: what if it is "Ball hits glove, one step, hit wall, ball out"?

The universally accepted interpretation of a catch is that the fielder must do one of 2 things:

1) Demonstrate complete control of the ball and his body following the catch. Crashing into a wall demonstrates lack of body control. The number of "steps" taken before colliding with the wall is not relevant. If the fielder made a lunging grab, staggered 10 steps before crashing into the wall and dropping the ball, it would not be a catch.

2) VOLUNTARILY release the ball. Dropping the ball after crashing into the wall is not a voluntary release.

You don't "have to be there" for this one (OP). No catch any way you look at it.

Dash,

OK, now I'm confused. Your definition of a catch contradicts the ruling made by another ump earlier in this thread who indicated the "drop" had to happen "simultaneously or immediately"...

So if I'm on a dead run, reach up and make firm grab of the ball, have it securely in my glove for 8 steps while my momentum carries me into the wall, and then I'm knocked senseless and drop the ball, those 8 steps are ignored and it isn't a catch...wow! I never would have considered that a "no catch"....

quote:

Your definition of a catch contradicts the ruling made by another ump earlier in this thread who indicated the "drop" had to happen "simultaneously or immediately"...

I've re-read the thread, and I see no such ruling. Perhaps the post by piaa-ump is the one you're referring to. He quoted part of the definition of a catch from OBR and labeled it as "condensed". Go to OBR Rules, open up 2.00 Definition of Terms, and read the full definition of "Catch". You'll see that piaa-ump quoted the first part of the rule, which was enough to answer the OP question. The entire rule says what dash_riprock stated above.

An additional source of information is the Major League Baseball Umpire Manual. It discusses a "legal catch" in section 8.1. Here's the first item: "If a fielder, after catching the ball, crashes into a stand and drops the ball, it is not a catch."

NCAA rules are available on-line, and the college rule is very similar.

NFHS rules aren't freely available on line, so here is the first part of the definition of a catch from Rule 2-15:
ART. 1 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......

quote:

Originally posted by TCB1:
So if I'm on a dead run, reach up and make firm grab of the ball, have it securely in my glove for 8 steps while my momentum carries me into the wall, and then I'm knocked senseless and drop the ball, those 8 steps are ignored and it isn't a catch.

Correct.

quote:

Originally posted by TCB1:
Dash,

OK, now I'm confused. Your definition of a catch contradicts the ruling made by another ump earlier in this thread who indicated the "drop" had to happen "simultaneously or immediately"...

You're apparently misreading. No umpire made any such ruling in this thread.

quote:

So if I'm on a dead run, reach up and make firm grab of the ball, have it securely in my glove for 8 steps while my momentum carries me into the wall, and then I'm knocked senseless and drop the ball, those 8 steps are ignored and it isn't a catch...wow!

Yep. No catch.

quote:

I never would have considered that a "no catch"....

That's what rule books are for.

It's a tough rule in some circumstances, but it is the rule. I first saw it applied back int he 1980's when Andre Dawson made a great diving catch. He laid out completely, caught the ball, but was hurt. He rolled over once and dropped the ball. No catch.

I agree with Dash, Rob, 3finger, Jimmy and PIAA. They all have said if hit a wall during the catch, it's a no catch.

quote:

Therefore, umpires don't like to go out and make their partner run around the bases in their equipment.
That should never be a factor in BU's decision to go out or come in and pivot.

Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving.
Haven't stopped in for while.
I was in total agreement, no catch, BU call, no over ruling etc. etc... But, consider;

Top 7 visitor still up, in a blow out. Lots of Xtr BH's, lotta doubles, R2 and R3, all night, stealing, PO attempts.
Home teams been no hit thus far. Steller D by the V's. 4 DP's, couple of CS's, one CS DP 3rd then 2nd..lot's a bangers, no walks and one K's. PU had one full count and about 3 called strike's..couple of foul chunks..
Believe you me, no R's. FB anywhere near a CF direction, if F8 simply flinches the wrong way..

U2 "will" take this opportunity to get his pard an opportunity to "do something tonight".

Happy Holidays

quote:

Originally posted by jjk:
Believe you me, no R's. FB anywhere near a CF direction, if F8 simply flinches the wrong way..

U2 "will" take this opportunity to get his pard an opportunity to "do something tonight".

Happy Holidays

If I read a trouble ball in my area, I will go out. If I don't, I won't.

Jimmy,

I'm sorry, but I'm not misreading anything...in Piaa Ump's post of October 8 at 12:01, he uses those exact phrases. I was just paraphrasing him.

I am not arguing, because now that it has been clarified/explained several times, I get it. It is probably very rare to see a situation where a kid catches a ball, continues to run several steps and THEN either hits a wall or another player or just has the ball pop out. I now know that it will result in a "no catch" call, without going off my rocker

I think most of the time the ball pops out, it happens very soon after the ball hits the glove, thereby making it a bit of an easier call for fans to understand when the ump makes the correct, "no catch" call. I think if it happend AFTER those 8 steps, you'd have a bunch of coaches and parents thiking it was a "catch" and thinking the ump was wrong.....probably equating it with a "catch" in football where the player just has to exhibit control before hitting the ground. That's my guess anyway.....

quote:

Originally posted by TCB1:
Jimmy,

I'm sorry, but I'm not misreading anything...in Piaa Ump's post of October 8 at 12:01, he uses those exact phrases. I was just paraphrasing him.

I stand by my post. PIAAUmp was not making a ruling at that time, he was quoting a definition.

For his ruling see his post of October 07, 2009 05:51 PM.

OK, so you want to get into semantics? Fine, he wasn't making a "ruling", I agree. But why not stop quoting dicta and address my point? By bringing in the words "simultaneously or immediately", he muddied the waters (unintentially I know Piaa; no beef with you, you do great work on here).....my point is, "simultaneously or immediately" seemed to conflict with what was being said about when a catch was a catch.

Clearly, after hearing everyone, it doesn't matter if the "drop" was "simultaneous or immediate"...it could be a drop that occurred several seconds later. I'm clear on that now, and I wasn't before; thanks to everyone who taught me something I didn't know, I realy to appreciate it.

But Jimmy please don't say I misread; the words were there plain as day. And on a board where those of us who are not umpires, but are folks looking for clarification, maybe you could just address the point instead of parsing words and being, ohhhh I don't know,.....a little officious? Just sayin'......