Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Josh Donaldson Wants You To Know: This Wasn’t A Catch

Is Donaldson right? Somehow, I don’t think the rule was written with the idea that being hit in the midriff with a batted ball and then grabbing it with the hand would not be a catch.

Hank G. Posted: September 19, 2017 at 12:24 PM | 51 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: baseball rules

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine Posted: September 19, 2017 at 02:11 PM (#5534505)
That's a catch as I understand it. I would argue that the player did "use" his uniform to catch it but the ball hit him.
   2. SoSH U at work Posted: September 19, 2017 at 02:41 PM (#5534528)

That's a catch as I understand it. I would argue that the player did "use" his uniform to catch it but the ball hit him.


He can trap it against his uniform. But if it's being held up by or inside his jersey, that shouldn't be. I couldn't really tell what happened from the video.
   3. eddieot Posted: September 19, 2017 at 02:43 PM (#5534531)
That's a catch. It went from jersey to hand almost immediately. Just my opinion. I am not an umpire nor do I play one on TV.
   4. Batman Posted: September 19, 2017 at 03:00 PM (#5534539)
The rule Donaldson posted says you can't use your own equipment in making the catch, but it seems to be OK if you use somebody else's. If Pivetta had caught the ball in his jersey (or in his "protector"), he could have held it there long enough for the catcher or an infielder to grab it for the out. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
   5. Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine Posted: September 19, 2017 at 03:02 PM (#5534545)
That first comment should have said "did NOT use his uniform."
   6. villageidiom Posted: September 19, 2017 at 03:14 PM (#5534561)
That's a catch as I understand it. I would argue that the player did not "use" his uniform to catch it but the ball hit him.


It is not a catch. However, he didn't need to throw to first because the batter abandoned his opportunity to run to first; so in effect it's as good as a catch.

EDITed Jose's comment in the way he would have loved to do.
   7. BDC Posted: September 19, 2017 at 03:27 PM (#5534579)
I'd agree with Hank G. The spirit of the rule seems to be that you can't deliberately use your equipment as an extension of yourself. Clearly you can't take off your cap and snag the ball with the cap. But it's hard to argue that the pitcher here got the brilliant idea of using his jersey to grab the baseball in that split second.

I'm still having trouble with the rule as written, though, wondering how you would use your "pocket" to help catch a ball, deliberately or not. I think some clarification is needed. Rob Manfred, please consider.
   8. Optimistic Moses Taylor, optimist Posted: September 19, 2017 at 03:36 PM (#5534587)
Regardless of the intent of the rule or the correct interpretation, I do love that Donaldson knew the rule well enough to have this opinion.
   9. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: September 19, 2017 at 03:42 PM (#5534591)
By rule not a catch. He should have been coached to make the toss to 1B regardless.
   10. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 19, 2017 at 03:48 PM (#5534595)
I'd agree with Hank G. The spirit of the rule seems to be that you can't deliberately use your equipment as an extension of yourself. Clearly you can't take off your cap and snag the ball with the cap. But it's hard to argue that the pitcher here got the brilliant idea of using his jersey to grab the baseball in that split second.


That's a catch. He would have made the same catch if he were naked except for his glove. The uniform played no role in making the catch.
   11. DaVoice of DaPeople Posted: September 19, 2017 at 04:03 PM (#5534607)
8- Absolutely. That's incredibly cool!
   12. Hank G. Posted: September 19, 2017 at 05:18 PM (#5534674)
Possibly, Donaldson brushed up on the rules after this happened last year:

http://deadspin.com/joey-rickard-teleports-a-hit-right-through-josh-donalds-1772395642

I can imagine that happening a lot with some of the early gloves that only had a lace between the thumb and forefinger, but I’ve never seen it happen with a modern glove with a pocket.
   13. Walt Davis Posted: September 19, 2017 at 05:40 PM (#5534694)
Eons ago when dinosaurs roamed our ballfields, there was a game against the Dodgers (maybe a Cubs game, maybe a game of the week) in which the Dodgers had (at least) two men on base. A pitch in the dirt, blocked by the C. He flips off his mask as he's trained to do but spots the ball rolling slowly and harmlessly towards the field, maybe a couple of inches out of arm's reach. He reaches out with his mask and nudges it back to where he can reach it.

LaSorda comes storming out of the dugout ranting about this rule (unless there's a similar one) and sure enough the ump awards the runners two bases.
   14. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: September 19, 2017 at 06:10 PM (#5534703)
Looks like a catch to me. He seems to wedge it between his arm and body and secure it that way. From the video it doesn't look like it would've stayed in the shirt without him wedging it with his arm, that to me makes it a catch. If it was in the jersey material and stayed there by itself then I'd say no.
   15. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 19, 2017 at 06:24 PM (#5534710)
It's not a catch until the player secures it in his hand or glove. There is no provision in the rules for that to be a ball in play unless the fielder drops it before securing it in his hand or glove. If he secures it in his hand after the ball lodges in his jersey, and without it touching the ground, it's an out. Where this comes into play is in a throw to first (or any force out base.) If the thrown ball is lodged in the jersey, and the runner reaches before the ball is secured in the hand or glove, the runner is safe. But there is no circumstance where a batted fly ball lodged in the uniform and subsequently secured in the hand before touching the ground is anything other than an out.
   16. BDC Posted: September 19, 2017 at 07:10 PM (#5534720)
Thanks, Misirlou, I was hoping you would rule on this :)
   17. Walt Davis Posted: September 19, 2017 at 09:04 PM (#5534773)
#15 -- you sure about that? For example, as I understand it, you can't catch it in your hat then transfer to hand/glove. I take the issue being debated here as to whether the player "used" his uniform to keep the ball from touching the ground before hand/glove. But yeah, this one is an out. Can you use your foot? Bobbles out of your glove and kick it back up to your hand before it hits the ground? (I'm guessing yes as that's the use of a body part rather than the shoe as equipment.)
   18. Sunday silence Posted: September 19, 2017 at 09:36 PM (#5534791)
the rules provide an exception for the uniform nullifies a catch thing, if you didnt do it deliberately. Hence it would seem like the uniform coming into play wasnt deliberate. I guess that is the basis for Mislou conclusion.

Walt's example of kicking it would seem to be deliberate use of a uniform, I would say no catch and the batters advance what is it? 3 bases?

Nt sure what the basis for Mislou's second sentence. I dont see that addressed about having to drop it.
   19. Sunday silence Posted: September 19, 2017 at 09:38 PM (#5534793)
There is no provision in the rules for that to be a ball in play unless the fielder drops it before securing it in his hand or glove. If he secures it in his hand after the ball lodges in his jersey, and without it touching the ground, it's an out.


I dont get it. HOw can it not be a ball in play and still be an out??
   20. cardsfanboy Posted: September 19, 2017 at 09:52 PM (#5534801)
To me, if a player is "hit by pitch" for his jersey, then I don't see anything wrong here. (and this is less silly than that particular situation, at least a reasonable argument could be made that he would have caught it, if he was naked(as pointed out above)
   21. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 19, 2017 at 09:59 PM (#5534806)
I dont get it. HOw can it not be a ball in play and still be an out??


What I meant is, the ball is still live rather than the batter out. It was poor phrasing.
   22. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 19, 2017 at 10:01 PM (#5534809)
Can you use your foot? Bobbles out of your glove and kick it back up to your hand before it hits the ground? (I'm guessing yes as that's the use of a body part rather than the shoe as equipment.)


Yes, you are correct.

Walt's example of kicking it would seem to be deliberate use of a uniform, I would say no catch and the batters advance what is it? 3 bases?


No, it's an out.

   23. villageidiom Posted: September 20, 2017 at 10:01 AM (#5534956)
He would have made the same catch if he were naked except for his glove. The uniform played no role in making the catch.
I don't know how you can say that when the ball went inside his uniform. The ball would have bounced off his rib cage. His left arm only prevented the ball from going deeper into his uniform. His right hand worked the ball back out of the uniform until he could grab it.

Here are the pertinent rules, edited down to the relevant parts:

5.09(a)(1) A batter is out when his fair or foul fly ball (other than a foul tip) is legally caught by a fielder. 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. Catch Comment: A catch is legal if the ball is finally held by any fielder, even though juggled, or held by another fielder before it touches the ground.
My translation: if it lodges in his uniform, the uniform was used in getting possession, and thus it's not a catch. If it hits his glove, then it drops, then he hacky-sacks it back in the air, then catches it, then per the juggling comment it's a catch.
5.06(b)(3)(E) Each runner, other than the batter, may without liability
to be put out, advance one base when a fielder deliberately touches a pitched ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play, and the award is made from the position of the runner at the time the ball was touched.
My interpretation: they say "pitched" not "batted", so while it seems like it's relevant to this case it isn't. But note the use of the terms "deliberately" and "detached".
5.06(b)(4)(A) Each runner including the batter-runner may, without liability
to be put out, advance to home base, scoring a run, if a fair ball goes out
of the playing field in flight and he touched all bases legally; or if a fair ball which, in the umpire’s judgment, would have gone out of the playing field in flight, is deflected by the act of a fielder in throwing his glove, cap, or any article of
his apparel;

5.06(b)(4)(B) Each runner including the batter-runner may, without liability
to be put out, advance three bases, if a fielder deliberately touches a fair
ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play and the batter may advance to home base at his peril.

5.06(b)(4)(C) Each runner including the batter-runner may, without liability
to be put out, advance three bases, if a fielder deliberately throws his
glove at and touches a fair ball. The ball is in play and the batter may advance to home base at his peril.

5.06(b)(4)(D) Each runner including the batter-runner may, without liability
to be put out, advance two bases, if a fielder deliberately touches a thrown ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play.

5.06(b)(4)(E) Two bases, if a fielder deliberately throws his glove at and touches a thrown ball. The ball is in play.

Rule 5.06(b)(4)(B) through (E) Comment: In applying the above, the umpire must rule that the thrown glove or detached cap or mask has touched the ball. There is no penalty if the ball is not touched. Under (C-E) (c-e) this penalty shall not be invoked against a fielder whose glove is carried off his hand by the force of a batted or thrown ball, or when his glove flies off his hand as he makes an obvious effort to make a legitimate catch.
My interpretation: Even where the rules state penalties for deliberately using equipment in an improper way to catch or block a ball, in all cases the equipment is detached or thrown.


So in total, it seems that in this case, per the rules:

(a) It's not a catch.

(b) Although there are places in the rules where it refers to equipment deliberately being used to catch or block a ball in flight, all of them reference cases where the equipment is detached. That's not the case here.

(c) Intent of the uniform prohibitions in 5.09(a)(1) is unclear from the rule. It could be that deliberate use was not intended to be allowed. It could be that the ball getting lodged in any part of the uniform (other than glove) is not intended to constitute a catch; and in that case, it's still unclear whether the hand or glove subsequently extricating the ball was intended to constitute a catch.

(d) There are no provisions in the rules otherwise for how to deal with it, so if by rule it's not a catch, and the ball is not dead, then it's a live ball and play proceeds normally.

(e) Given (c) there's likely a gap in the rule.

If you think that was an overly pedantic exercise, you ain't seen nothin'. I was wrong on the abandonment thing earlier. There are no rules that state a batter can be out for abandoning the bases. Only a runner who has already reached first base can be out for abandonment. So if it's a live ball per the rule, and the batter can't be out for abandonment per the rule, and the defense has done nothing to get him out at first... Then has the rest of the game been invalidated? Aren't we still awaiting the outcome of that play? Can't the losing team drive back to the stadium this morning, complete the play, then protest the outcome of the game? That would be both irritating and awesome.
   24. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 20, 2017 at 10:11 AM (#5534960)
My translation: if it lodges in his uniform, the uniform was used in getting possession, and thus it's not a catch.


It's not a catch until he gains possession of the ball with his hand or glove prior to the ball hitting the ground. The fact that the ball lodges in his uniform does not negate the ability to turn that into a catch.

Then has the rest of the game been invalidated? Aren't we still awaiting the outcome of that play? Can't the losing team drive back to the stadium this morning, complete the play, then protest the outcome of the game? That would be both irritating and awesome.


No, because it was a catch.
   25. PepTech Posted: September 20, 2017 at 12:32 PM (#5535077)
VI: You have it right there, in perfect alignment with Misirlou.
(d) There are no provisions in the rules otherwise for how to deal with it, so if by rule it's not a catch, and the ball is not dead, then it's a live ball and play proceeds normally.
Unlike deliberate detachment, inadvertent lodging in the uniform is not expressly forbidden (or penalized), therefore while the ball is lodged, it's live. When the pitcher firmly grasped it before the ball touched the ground, *then* it was a catch. So you're exactly right, it was a live ball and "play proceeded normally" for the half-second or whatever it took to grab it with the other hand - think of the time lodged in the uniform as "juggling" and you'll be fine.

So your (a) is correct, for a half second or whatever. Your (b), (c), and (e) don't apply because there was no deliberate detachment. It was a "wait and see" situation until the ball was firmly grasped. Another example of "wait and see" that happens more often is when a sliding runner misses the plate while the catcher misses the tag, and they all stare at the ump, who (if alert) makes no call at all, because the runner's not out, but he's not safe yet either.

So Donaldson is pedantically correct for a second or so, but then it most certainly was a catch.
   26. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 20, 2017 at 01:48 PM (#5535149)
think of the time lodged in the uniform as "juggling" and you'll be fine.


Right, and thus the only time this rule has any practical effect is on throws to first (or any force play). If a throw is lodged in the fielder's uniform, or under his armpit, or anywhere other than his hand or glove, and the runner reaches the base before he grasps it with his hand or glove, the runner is safe. The rule is never applied on flyballs or line drives, provided the fielder grasps it before it touches the ground.

OK, it could also apply on strike 3, when the pitch is not caught but rather lodged in the catcher's equipment or uniform.
   27. PepTech Posted: September 20, 2017 at 03:29 PM (#5535273)
OK, it could also apply on strike 3, when the pitch is not caught but rather lodged in the catcher's equipment or uniform.
I can imagine a scenario where a third-pitch slider bounces in the dirt, is swung at, lodges in a shinguard or chest protector, and the runner scampers to first while the catcher is hopping around trying to find the ball. Safe at first. But if it doesn't bounce first, it's back to being a "catch" once it's firmly grasped.

Even more amusing is the hypothetical where a pitched ball gets lodged in the *umpire's* equipment. The ump in this case would be considered in play, and runners could steal. Couldn't happen on a foul tip, though, those must go "directly" into the catcher's glove by definition.
   28. BDC Posted: September 20, 2017 at 04:35 PM (#5535334)
the pitch is not caught but rather lodged in the catcher's equipment

Didn't a baseball stick to Yadier Molina a couple of years ago? But I forget the context.
   29. villageidiom Posted: September 20, 2017 at 05:23 PM (#5535370)
Seems a bridge too far if you're saying "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 uniform in getting possession, except if he does that's OK, too, because a ball getting lodged inside his uniform is the same as juggling it."

That might be the correct interpretation. OTOH, the correct interpretation might be that "juggling" and "secure possession in the uniform" are two different things, and that the rule was deliberately written to be intent-agnostic on the use of the uniform in getting secure possession. A ball gets lodged in a player's uniform on the fly, and rather than have the umpire make an instant judgment call on a live ball on whether there was intent by the player to catch the ball in his uniform perhaps they wrote it the way they intended it: without any reference to intent.

I am not stating a case, nor a preference, for either. I'm just saying from the rule we can infer neither of these. The rule simply states "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 uniform in getting possession." And the plainest interpretation of this is that the play in question would not be a catch, because he plainly used his uniform in getting possession. Without using his hand or his glove, and only with use of his uniform, he got secure possession of the ball. It doesn't get plainer. For this case to be a catch by the rule we have to be far less plain: secure possession equals juggling, or getting possession in the uniform is not using the uniform to get possession.

Yeah he eventually got it to his hand, but that's only relevant if he did not have control of the ball prior to that (such as juggling or lost control by another player, as expressed in the rule). And yeah he didn't intend to catch the ball in his uniform, but the rule does not address intent.

Unlike deliberate detachment, inadvertent lodging in the uniform is not expressly forbidden (or penalized)
Is deliberate lodging in the uniform expressly forbidden or penalized? Not any more than inadvertent lodging in the uniform. So we agree this rule has nothing to do with intent. They used intent in other rules, but didn't do so here, which seems an odd choice if intent was supposed to matter here.
   30. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 20, 2017 at 05:41 PM (#5535379)
Is deliberate lodging in the uniform expressly forbidden or penalized? Not any more than inadvertent lodging in the uniform.


Yes it is. There is a specific penalty for you deliberately using your hat to catch a ball. There is none if your hat flies off and the ball falls into it. There is a specified penalty for throwing your glove at a ball. There is none if your glove inadvertantly falls off and the ball subsequently hits it.

You are misreading the rule. The rule says that the act of stopping the progress of the ball by having it lodge in your uniform is not sufficient for it to be a catch, ie, it is not a catch. It does not say it can never be a catch. As an example, see the foul tip rule, which specifies what actions make it not able to be a catch.

If the rule makers intended that a ball once lodged in the uniform or equipment other than the glove to never be able to be turned into a catch, they would have written it that way, they way they did the foul tip rule. The players, coaches, managers, umpires, and game administrators all understand this. Except Josh Donaldson apparently. I don't know why you think you found something so profound here.
   31. PepTech Posted: September 20, 2017 at 06:37 PM (#5535401)
I'm not sure it's so much "intent" as active vs. passive, which may be just another way of saying the same thing. The pitcher didn't "intend" to "use" his uniform - it just ended up there. He immediately grabbed it with his free hand -> Catch.

I suppose that *IF* he'd turned kinda sideways as some kind of reflex, and the ball sort of went in there and untucked his jersey, *AND* then he held his jersey shut with one hand to keep it from falling out, that *MIGHT* make a case for some kind of deliberate, intentional "use" of the uniform. But this split-second act? It's a catch. Don't overthink it. But to yours and Donaldson's credit, it's not a catch right away, only after the hand firmly grasps it. Just like juggling.
   32. Sunday silence Posted: September 20, 2017 at 07:06 PM (#5535413)
The rules make use of several concepts that dont necessarily work together with one another. Namely: the concept of "deliberate use" and the concept of "he doesnt use...any part of his uniform." With the seminal case being:

"What happens if someone doesnt deliberately use their uniform but the uniform is nonetheless used?" (as is the case here)

VI (and I guess one of my posts) have pointed this out in several posts and you (Misirlou) havent addressed that. Other than to say "You are misreading the rule."


It just may be that the phrase (5.09a1) (uses his uniform) really means DELIBERATELY using your uniform, equipment etc.

If so, that would square the circle and address all of our concerns. Namely post 23 which begins: "I dont know how you can say that..."


You may indeed be correct in how this rule is interpreted, it would not surprise me and I am sure you have much more practical experience in officiating. BUt you havent explained the logic entirely and I think that's what I find frustrating.

***

Juggling is also prohibited, as in jugging a flyball. But perhaps that is pedantic on my part; still its a confusing analogy.
   33. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 20, 2017 at 07:19 PM (#5535418)
The rules make use of several concepts that dont necessarily work together with one another. Namely: the concept of "deliberate use" and the concept of "he doesnt use...any part of his uniform." With the seminal case being:

"What happens if someone doesnt deliberately use their uniform but the uniform is nonetheless used?" (as is the case here)

VI (and I guess one of my posts) have pointed this out in several posts and you (Misirlou) havent addressed that. Other than to say "You are misreading the rule."


It just may be that the phrase (5.09a1) (uses his uniform) really means DELIBERATELY using your uniform, equipment etc.

If so, that would square the circle and address all of our concerns. Namely post 23 which begins: "I dont know how you can say that..."


You may indeed be correct in how this rule is interpreted, it would not surprise me and I am sure you have much more practical experience in officiating. BUt you havent explained the logic entirely and I think that's what I find frustrating.


Well 2 things. The word use most definitely implies deliberate use in the context of assigning penalties, as in deliberately using your cap to catch a ball. But in the other sense, use means that trapping the ball in your uniform is not sufficient for a catch. Saying it is not a catch is in no way in conflict with the concept that it could be turned into a catch. Once again, a ball trapped in your uniform is not a catch, but it could eventually be converted into a catch.
   34. Sunday silence Posted: September 20, 2017 at 07:35 PM (#5535422)
Well except that your repeated use of the idea

Saying it is not a catch is in no way in conflict with the concept that it could be turned into a catch.


is not a definitive answer even though you seem to think it is. Look at this part of the rule:


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 seems to suggest that using the cap, pocket etc would invalidate a catch yes?

EDIT: to use the phrase "definitive"
   35. PreservedFish Posted: September 20, 2017 at 07:40 PM (#5535423)
Once again, a ball trapped in your uniform is not a catch, but it could eventually be converted into a catch.


So can you catch the ball in your hat and then run around with it, causing havoc with baserunners?
   36. Sunday silence Posted: September 20, 2017 at 07:43 PM (#5535426)
well that would be deliberate, I suppose.

I have another question: I thought you couldnt catch a ball that bounces off another player? At least you cant call that a catch of a fly ball.
   37. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: September 20, 2017 at 07:46 PM (#5535428)
I have another question: I thought you couldnt catch a ball that bounces off another player? At least you cant call that a catch of a fly ball.


Yes you can (see Pete Rose, 1980 World Series). The only thing that matters (and how it answers PF's 34) is that once the ball is touched by a fielder, the runners can legally tag. And if the player dropped the ball under those circumstances, it would be ruled an out and the runners would not be required to run.

As for the primary question, I trust Misirlou is right given his experience in blue, but the rule, at least as presented here, isn't well written (like many of them). It doesn't give a clear-cut answer to the question of whether a ball that is trapped by the uniform can be turned into a catch.
   38. Sunday silence Posted: September 20, 2017 at 07:51 PM (#5535431)
yes, I am sure Msl is correct. Its just that there's some ambiguity in the writing. Its typical where someone writes a rule and everyone reading it knows what is meant (uses= deliberate use) and then when an outsider like us reads it in a vaccuum, its like, well what do you mean "uses?"
   39. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 20, 2017 at 07:53 PM (#5535432)
It seems to suggest that using the cap, pocket etc would invalidate a catch yes?


No. Look, there is no provision in the rulebook for a batted fly ball that does not touch the ground, runner, fence, or any part of the ballpark structure, and is eventually controlled by a fielder in his hand or glove, to be anything other than an out, unless it is determined to be a deliberate use of uniform or detached equipment, in which case a 3 base penalty applies. So in this case it is either an out, or everyone is awarded 3 bases. Nothing inbetween. If the rulemakers intended for this situation to be ruled a bounding ball, they would so state.

It is not sufficient to use your uniform to secure a catch. Further action must be taken. Just like it is not sufficient for a ball hit out of the playing field in fair territory to score a run. Further action must be taken.
   40. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 20, 2017 at 07:54 PM (#5535434)
So can you catch the ball in your hat and then run around with it, causing havoc with baserunners?


No. I have addressed this multiple times.
   41. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 20, 2017 at 08:00 PM (#5535439)
Its just that there's some ambiguity in the writing. Its typical where someone writes a rule and everyone reading it knows what is meant (uses= deliberate use) and then when an outsider like us reads it in a vaccuum, its like, well what do you mean "uses?"


Many rules are written to be interpreted in conjunction with others, and it's probably the case with this one, though I can't be sure. It's possible than another, seemingly unrelated rule, addresses this when read in conjunction with this rule. I don't feel like looking it up. Others can if they wish, and maybe they will find something that shows this play should have been ruled a bounding ball. I doubt it, but who knows.
   42. Sunday silence Posted: September 20, 2017 at 08:03 PM (#5535442)
its a weird circle we keep running around in. I say "using your uniform would invalidate a catch" and you say no yadda yadda. No idea why.


Using your uniform in deliberate fashion would never result in a catch. Correct?
   43. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 20, 2017 at 08:07 PM (#5535445)
Using your uniform in deliberate fashion would never result in a catch. Correct?


Correct. And there is a specified penalty for doing so.
   44. Sunday silence Posted: September 20, 2017 at 08:08 PM (#5535448)
thats kind of what I thought.

So lets say the guy catches it in his hat. As an umpire you'd be ready to rule that as a three base penalty. If the guy just stood there with the ball in his hat, you wouldnt have to wait for him to pull it out right?
   45. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 20, 2017 at 08:10 PM (#5535452)
Correct
   46. Sunday silence Posted: September 20, 2017 at 08:32 PM (#5535469)
ok thanks for all that.
   47. PreservedFish Posted: September 20, 2017 at 10:31 PM (#5535534)
What if the ball fell into your uniform inadvertently, as you were trying to catch a homerun ball, and you went over the fence, and only transferred the ball into your glove (thus completing the catch) as you were standing on firm ground behind the wall?
   48. villageidiom Posted: September 21, 2017 at 01:49 AM (#5535603)
Many rules are written to be interpreted in conjunction with others, and it's probably the case with this one, though I can't be sure. It's possible than another, seemingly unrelated rule, addresses this when read in conjunction with this rule. I don't feel like looking it up.
I already did this, and provided it in 23, and cited reasons why 5.06(b)(4) does not apply to this situation, even though you seem to believe it does for reasons you have failed to justify. If I've reviewed the rules and have one conclusion, and you don't feel like looking at the rules and have a different conclusion, I guess we're done here.

The thing I'm still amazed at is your contention on 5.09(a)(1). The rule says, in effect, "We'll have Z if you do Y, provided you don't do X". My interpretation of the rule as written is that if you do X we won't have Z regardless of whether you eventually do Y. Your interpretation is that we can have Z as long as you eventually do Y, regardless of whether you do X beforehand. Forget the specific meanings of X, Y, and Z. Why is yours a sound interpretation of such a rule, and mine is not?
   49. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 21, 2017 at 09:02 AM (#5535658)
I think you are getting hung up on an overly broad definition of use. Given the wording of the rule, and given the way the rule has always been interpreted, use means deliberate use. If you attack me, and I pick up a baseball bat to defend myself, I used the bat. If you attack me and a bolt of lightning strikes you down, I did not use the lightning to defend myself. Your interpretation of use would indicate that I used the lightning.

How do I know this? Aside from my umpire training and experience, it's the fact that no one in professional baseball, no player, manager, coach, umpire, or leage official, has ever expressed a contrary opinion. Except for Donaldson.
   50. Sunday silence Posted: September 21, 2017 at 09:16 AM (#5535674)
Given the wording of the rule, and given the way the rule has always been interpreted, use means deliberate use


you could have said this a little earlier, it might have made things clearer.
   51. PepTech Posted: September 21, 2017 at 07:22 PM (#5536235)
Just got here - yes, regarding 5.09(a)(1), "use" in this context means "deliberately use". If the pitcher had opened his jersey to capture the ball inside, that would incur the three-base penalty. He didn't, so it doesn't.

The intent thing is relevant in several situations. You can turn a DP (or TP) on an infield liner if and only if you're clever enough to drop it without it SEEMING like you're dropping it. If the ump even thinks you're doing it on purpose, he can call you on it. Intent (supposedly) comes into play when sliding to break up a DP, and getting out of the way of a HBP. It's all the judgment of the ump on those, though, can't be reviewed or protested.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
HowardMegdal
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogLCS OMNICHATTER for October 17, 2017
(309 - 11:59pm, Oct 17)
Last: Voodoo

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(290 - 11:55pm, Oct 17)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-17-2017
(9 - 11:47pm, Oct 17)
Last: KJOK

NewsblogOTP 16 October 2017: Sorry, Yankee fans: Trump’s claim that he can ensure victory simply isn’t true
(780 - 11:46pm, Oct 17)
Last: Shredder

NewsblogYankees even ALCS with late rally vs. Astros | MLB.com
(3 - 11:39pm, Oct 17)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogThe Cubs could really use 2016 Javier Baez right about now - Chicago Cubs Blog- ESPN
(40 - 10:59pm, Oct 17)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

NewsblogOT Gaming: October 2015
(682 - 10:31pm, Oct 17)
Last: PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina

NewsblogPerrotto: Managerial Rumors and Rumblings
(18 - 8:50pm, Oct 17)
Last: PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina

NewsblogAstros' Lance McCullers will start Game 4 of ALCS - Houston Chronicle
(36 - 8:10pm, Oct 17)
Last: Walt Davis

Gonfalon CubsFive minute Los Angeles Dodgers Preview
(49 - 7:24pm, Oct 17)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogEXPANSION COULD TRIGGER REALIGNMENT, LONGER POSTSEASON
(106 - 6:39pm, Oct 17)
Last: catomi01

NewsblogOT: New Season August 2017 Soccer Thread
(1146 - 5:40pm, Oct 17)
Last: Nose army. Beef diaper? (CoB)

NewsblogfrJohn Manuel - Leaves BA and Joins the Twins Organization
(16 - 5:20pm, Oct 17)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogNick Cafardo: Brian Cashman and the Yankees followed the Red Sox’ blueprint — and may have done it better
(70 - 5:14pm, Oct 17)
Last: jmurph

NewsblogOT - 2017 NFL thread
(138 - 5:13pm, Oct 17)
Last: Dog on the sidewalk

Page rendered in 0.5791 seconds
47 querie(s) executed