Why do they do this to me?

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:
Batter hits line drive that the short stop leaps high for. As he leaps for the ball his glove accidentally slips off of his hand. Ball enters glove and ball stays in it. Glove with ball in it descends and short stop catches it.

Is it:
a) A catch
b) no catch, play on
or
horror of horrors
c) the short stop, after catching the glove with the ball in it, is now guilty of touching a batted ball with detached equipment (glove is "held" rather than "worn" on the hand) and award the B/R three bases.

d) Three-base award when the ball touches the detached glove.

quote:

d) Three-base award when the ball touches the detached glove.

This is the part of the rule that doesn't apply. If the glove accidentally slips off of the fielders hand (Ump judgement) there is no violation. Case book 8.3.3.F

In your example, I consider the glove thrown at the ball. Three bases.

I put a glove on my hand and leaped as high as I could several times. I could not get the glove to come off by leaping alone. I had to throw it off.

If the ball took the glove off the hand, that would be very different.

In the scenario I presented, the glove was not pulled off by the ball. That was neither stated nor implied.
I also understand that you couldn't get the glove to slip off of you hand. That's irrelevant.
Although I highly respect your opinion, you didn't answer the original question I posed.

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:
...you didn't answer the original question I posed.

My answer was (and is): d) Three-base award when the ball touches the detached glove.

OK dash, I get it. Ease of administration.

PIAA, MST, anyone; care to take a shot at this one?
I really don't have a legit answer.

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:
In the scenario I presented, the glove was not pulled off by the ball. That was neither stated nor implied. .

Pils......this sentence alone leaves me no choice but to agree with Dash..if the glove is not pulled off by the ball then the glove must have been propelled into the ball.....

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:
OK dash, I get it. Ease of administration.

No, not ease of administration, Rule 8-3-3-b.

Although, with respect to ease of administration, when the coach comes out and says: "He threw his glove and it hit the ball. That's three bases." Are you going to tell him it was an accident? That reminds me of an old Saturday Night Live skit where Claudine Longet "accidentally" shot 6 alpine skiers.

OK, I will defer to your judgement and inform the trainee that Case Book 8.3.3F can't be true. I'll stop teaching that and inform people that they should disregard it. Thanks for your help.

And as an aside dash. I don't appreciate your "Claudine Longet" comment. It's uncalled for.

If it was intentional, three bases. If not, no catch--play on.

Thanks Matt.

Any reference for that?

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:
Thanks Matt.

Any reference for that?

You cited the reference four posts ago pilsner. And I am not disregarding it, as you claim.

Take a step back. We have a problem. A batted ball has touched a detached glove over fair territory. 8.3.3.f makes it very clear that the ump fixes the problem by applying, or not applying, a penalty to the defense. It is up to us to get it right.

The batter hit a line drive over the head of the shortstop. He leaped high but he couldn't reach it. The only reason the ball didn't go into the outfield was the shortstop's detached glove. To me, that makes it automatically an intentionally thrown glove.

Instead of nitpicking the rule and trying to determine whether or not the fielder threw the glove on purpose, sometimes you just have to umpire a baseball game. Three bases.

One of the results of this call is ease of administration. If the D coach comes out and tells me the detached glove was an accident. I give him a YGBSM look. I doubt there is an ejection. If I keep the ball in play and give the D an out or two, the O coach will probably have to go.

I can't imagine a glove coming off accidently, nor do I see any way to decide the difference. If it is obvious that it is not thrown then don't enforce the three bases but unless the the ball takes the glove off I would go with intentional.
I had a protest the other week. I enforced a BI on a batter on strike three. Since he is out then you call the runner out. The problem is Fed adds a caveat that says that if you don't think there would be additional outs to just send him back. Unless the runner is almost there at the time of interference, stole on the pitcher, then get the out.
This is the same thing, they give you the out but it highly unlikely.

Matt, Dash, and Michael are all saying the same thing and I agree they have it right.

I do not believe the act of jumping will propel a glove off the hand. If the ball didn't remove it, the fielder did. Three bases.

OK, guys, I get it.

So, change the scenario from the glove accidentally came off the short stops hand to the glove was "pulled" off the short stops hand. How would you proceed from there.

The shortstop reaches for the ball, which hits the pocket of the glove, tears the glove off his hand but stays in the glove, and then the shortstop catches the glove with the ball in it?

As long as F6 can subsequently voluntarily release the ball, this is a catch. It meets the definition of one.

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
The shortstop reaches for the ball, which hits the pocket of the glove, tears the glove off his hand but stays in the glove, and then the shortstop catches the glove with the ball in it?

As long as F6 can subsequently voluntarily release the ball, this is a catch. It meets the definition of one.

Compare this to FED, unlike the pros, not allowing a fielder to toss a glove with the ball inside to another fielder for an out.

I believe pilsner is referring to FED, and before posting I considered the FED ruling you mention. The key to 5.1.1R is that ball is lodged in the fielder's glove. 5.1.1Q is closer to pilsner's scenario, with a line drive knocking the glove to the ground with the ball still in the glove. Again the rationale is the idea that the ball is lodged in the glove.

For the revised scenario which pilsner posted, I don't consider the ball to be lodged in the glove.