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

Friday, April 25, 2014

MLB fixes transfer rule, effective immediately

Baseball Fixer…catch it!

Major League Baseball has adjusted the transfer rule, effective immediately, the league has announced. Things will essentially go back to the way they were before this season. Here’s the announcement:

  Major League Baseball announced today that the Playing Rules Committee has provided its official view of how Umpires should apply the Official Playing Rules when a fielder loses possession of a ball when attempting to transfer it to his throwing hand.
  The Committee’s interpretation of the rule has been discussed and agreed upon by MLB, the MLB Players Association and the World Umpires Association. Beginning with games played tonight, Umpires will enforce the rule according to the standards below.
  The Committee has determined that a legal catch has occurred pursuant to OBR 2.00 (Definition of Terms, “Catch”), or a valid force out or tag has occurred pursuant to OBR 2.00 (Definition of Terms, “Tag”), if the fielder had complete control over the ball in his glove, but drops the ball after intentionally opening his glove to make the transfer to his throwing hand. There is no requirement that the fielder successfully remove the ball from his glove in order for it be ruled a catch. If the fielder drops the ball while attempting to remove it to make a throw, the Umpires should rule that the ball had been caught, provided that the fielder had secured it in his glove before attempting the transfer. The Umpires will continue to use their judgment as to whether the fielder had complete control over the ball before the transfer.
  The Official Playing Rules Committee consists of the General Manager of the New York Mets, Sandy Alderson, who serves as Chair of the Committee; Sam Bernabe, the Chairman of the Pacific Coast League; Hall of Famer Rod Carew, a 19-year Major League veteran; Umpire Brian Gorman, a Crew Chief with over 22 years of experience at the Major League level; John McHale, Jr., MLB’s Executive Vice President of Administration and Chief Information Officer; Terry Ryan, the Executive Vice President and General Manager of the Minnesota Twins; John Schuerholz, the President of the Atlanta Braves; Bill Stoneman, former Vice President and General Manager of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim; and Joe Torre, MLB’s Executive Vice President of Baseball Operations.

Repoz Posted: April 25, 2014 at 12:53 PM | 35 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mlb, zzzzz

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. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 01:00 PM (#4694086)
Nice to see them actually make adjustments in-season for a change.
   2. Chris Fluit Posted: April 25, 2014 at 01:37 PM (#4694170)
Hooray!

   3. Chris Fluit Posted: April 25, 2014 at 01:40 PM (#4694173)
I'm delighted that MLB fixed this. This rule was changed concurrently with replay, but it wasn't necessary for replay. Yet too many anti-replay zealots refused to see the distinction and chalked it up as one more reason to slag on replay.

The only downside is that they didn't fix this earlier. The Orioles lost one game because of the temporary transfer rule and I'm sure a few other teams did too.
   4. BDC Posted: April 25, 2014 at 01:44 PM (#4694183)
I saw the Rangers burned on this rule last week, but they lost 7-1 anyway, so it's not like it was crucial.

And indeed, all credit to MLB for making an adjustment on the fly instead of letting the situation grow to 1988-balk-rule proportions.
   5. cardsfanboy Posted: April 25, 2014 at 01:45 PM (#4694184)
Complain all you want about baseball powers that be, but would any of the other sports made a change like this, so quickly?
   6. cardsfanboy Posted: April 25, 2014 at 01:48 PM (#4694191)
I'm delighted that MLB fixed this. This rule was changed concurrently with replay, but it wasn't necessary for replay. Yet too many anti-replay zealots refused to see the distinction and chalked it up as one more reason to slag on replay.


Agree about the anti-replay zealots latching onto this rule. It's weird to see this get called, then to see people complaining about how they hate replay..... that is like watching a homerun and complaining about how you hate strikeouts. A total non-sequitur that people seemed to have thought they were talking about a subject that was currently in the discussion.
   7. Chris Fluit Posted: April 25, 2014 at 01:54 PM (#4694204)
Complain all you want about baseball powers that be, but would any of the other sports made a change like this, so quickly?


Nope, and the NHL has a contentious champion because of it.
   8. Nasty Nate Posted: April 25, 2014 at 02:00 PM (#4694216)
Agree about the anti-replay zealots latching onto this rule. It's weird to see this get called, then to see people complaining about how they hate replay.....A total non-sequitur that people seemed to have thought they were talking about a subject that was currently in the discussion.


I haven't been following these issues very closely, but wasn't the new bad transfer rule coupled with the replay? I was under the impression that w/o replay being implemented, the new transfer rule would not have existed.
   9. Chris Fluit Posted: April 25, 2014 at 02:15 PM (#4694238)
They were coupled but they didn't have to be. You could have introduced replay without changing the transfer rule. Or, you could have changed the transfer rule without introducing replay. The fact that they were done together doesn't mean they were necessary to each other. And it gave the anti-replay crowd an extra reason to complain.
   10. Gary Truth Serum Posted: April 25, 2014 at 02:29 PM (#4694255)
Complain all you want about baseball powers that be, but would any of the other sports made a change like this, so quickly?

It's an old example, but in 1983 NCAA basketball changed the bonus rule to automatically allow two shots (instead of a one and one) for fouls committed in the last two minutes of regulation. What they didn't foresee was that, since the intentional foul rule back then was identical (also two shots but no possession afterwards), there was now no reason to avoid committing an intentional foul. The unforeseen consequence of this was for teams behind in the last two minutes to sloppily hack players on every possession without making any attempt at the ball, resulting in second halves that took about forty minutes to play the first 18 clock minutes, and a half hour to play the last two. The NCAA rescinded that change by the end of December, effective immediately.

Nowadays it's two shots after ten team fouls are committed, but since the intentional foul rule had previously been changed to two shots plus possession, the 1983 situation did not repeat.
   11. cardsfanboy Posted: April 25, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4694257)
I haven't been following these issues very closely, but wasn't the new bad transfer rule coupled with the replay? I was under the impression that w/o replay being implemented, the new transfer rule would not have existed.


The other day, the Nationals got screwed by this rule(against the Cardinals) but in the sequence of events, no replay was used, yet people complained about the new replay rule.
   12. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: April 25, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4694263)

I haven't been following these issues very closely, but wasn't the new bad transfer rule coupled with the replay? I was under the impression that w/o replay being implemented, the new transfer rule would not have existed.


The new transfer rule was implemented as a result of replay. They wanted a clearer standard to make replay possible. It is highly unlikely this new rule would not have come into being without replay being implemented. It's to MLB's credit that they've fixed it so promptly.
   13. Hank G. Posted: April 25, 2014 at 02:45 PM (#4694267)
I thought the new interpretation of transfer actually made sense at second base. Considering that the player receiving the ball is trying to get the ball to first as quickly as possible, it’s very hard to determine control. Any ball that hits the ground should result in the runner being safe (unless the player picks it back up in time for the force).
   14. cardsfanboy Posted: April 25, 2014 at 02:55 PM (#4694274)
I thought the new interpretation of transfer actually made sense at second base. Considering that the player receiving the ball is trying to get the ball to first as quickly as possible, it’s very hard to determine control. Any ball that hits the ground should result in the runner being safe (unless the player picks it back up in time for the force).


I had a problem with it, because it required control to be maintained until after the completed transfer. That was a very high and impractical standard. I understand if the rule said ball must be controlled at some point in time, but to require the control to last until the transfer was complete was overboard.

If you saw the play the Nationals made in the game against the Cardinals, the fielder clearly caught the ball and had control, it wasn't one of those plays where the ball was rolled out of the glove to the hand, but an actual catch and transfer attempt, then the ball was lost.

I'm all for eliminating giving the call to the fielder for the rolling the ball to the hand and then dropping it, that play has always bothered me, but there is a reasonable way to look at it, and the new rule went too far overboard the other way.


here is a video(not the best) on the play I'm talking about.
   15. vortex of dissipation Posted: April 25, 2014 at 03:06 PM (#4694285)
MLB fixes transfer rule, effective immediately


How does this affect Barcelona?
   16. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4694304)
Nope, and the NHL has a contentious champion because of it.


You refer to the 1999 Stars, I presume?
   17. Hank G. Posted: April 25, 2014 at 03:21 PM (#4694309)
I'm all for eliminating giving the call to the fielder for the rolling the ball to the hand and then dropping it, that play has always bothered me, but there is a reasonable way to look at it, and the new rule went too far overboard the other way.


here is a video(not the best) on the play I'm talking about.


Yeah, I would call the runner out on that play. I’m thinking more of plays where the catch, transfer, and throw are basically all in one motion. Sometimes the receiver barehands the ball and it never touches the glove. If he doesn’t get a clean throw off, how can one say that he ever had control?
   18. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: April 25, 2014 at 03:36 PM (#4694321)
Nowadays it's two shots after ten team fouls are committed, but since the intentional foul rule had previously been changed to two shots plus possession, the 1983 situation did not repeat.


Is this sarcastic? Because the "1983 situation" of "about forty minutes to play the first 18 clock minutes, and a half hour to play the last two" has absolutely repeated because the refs have refused to consider anything short of tackling an opposing player and pummeling him with closed fists to be an intentional foul.
   19. Sunday silence Posted: April 25, 2014 at 03:52 PM (#4694341)
two questions to further clarify all this:

THe rule makes no distinction between Outfielders and Infielders correct? Was there ever a distinction either official or as practiced.

2. How exactly did the new rule, now rescinded, come about? Was there some sort of outcry? Was it thought to help replay? What was the rationale advanced?
   20. cardsfanboy Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:06 PM (#4694360)
THe rule makes no distinction between Outfielders and Infielders correct? Was there ever a distinction either official or as practiced.



As practiced, on the double play the fielder didn't have to get possession of the ball, if they touched the ball with the glove, and made any movement in a throwing motion, it was called a catch. The outfield doesn't have that need for the quick transfer, and rarely had a play come up that would have been in debate.

2. How exactly did the new rule, now rescinded, come about? Was there some sort of outcry? Was it thought to help replay? What was the rationale advanced?


Jose seems to think it came about because they wanted to avoid replay arguments about the ball transfer, I have no clue why it came about, it just kinda popped up in spring training. It's a rule that needed to be fixed(and still does) but the fix was worse than the original rule/interpretation by the refs.

   21. dave h Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:33 PM (#4694400)
As practiced, on the double play the fielder didn't have to get possession of the ball, if they touched the ball with the glove, and made any movement in a throwing motion, it was called a catch.


Tell that to Pete Kozma.
   22. Gary Truth Serum Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:42 PM (#4694408)
Nowadays it's two shots after ten team fouls are committed, but since the intentional foul rule had previously been changed to two shots plus possession, the 1983 situation did not repeat.

Is this sarcastic? Because the "1983 situation" of "about forty minutes to play the first 18 clock minutes, and a half hour to play the last two" has absolutely repeated because the refs have refused to consider anything short of tackling an opposing player and pummeling him with closed fists to be an intentional foul.

It wasn't sarcastic. I may have been underestimating by saying "about a half hour" because I seem to recall it was a lot worse in 1983.

And I didn't write it clearly enough either. The scenario that didn't repeat was constant fouling without any attempt to go for the ball. There's a lot of fouling now, of course, but the refs will call it intentional if there's no attempt at the ball, so players have to be a little more discriminating about who they foul and how. And there are additional factors lengthening games now, namely replay stoppages to determine time on the clock, and teams taking a free organized time out when a player fouls out of the game. Those weren't really an issue back then.

So maybe it is as bad now, but it would be even worse if that 1983 rule was in effect.
   23. Chris Fluit Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:05 PM (#4694434)
You refer to the 1999 Stars, I presume?


Correct. I happen to think it was a good school, but it's certainly contentious.
   24. Ulysses S. Fairsmith Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:11 PM (#4694442)
. . . the refs will call it intentional if there's no attempt at the ball . . .


They don't do that where I live.

I live on Earth, by the way.
   25. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:12 PM (#4694443)
Well, we'll always have Dustin Ackley's Night of 1,001 Catches That Were Ruled Non-Catches.

Just like that pitcher who started committing five balks every game, when they changed that rule and then changed it back. Who was that, Bob Welch? Terry Mulholland?
   26. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:28 PM (#4694470)
Just like that pitcher who started committing five balks every game, when they changed that rule and then changed it back. Who was that, Bob Welch? Terry Mulholland?

Hey, that reminds me. Are the Orioles dominating the league in stolen bases, or just comfortably ahead? Showalter said that teams would run wild now that the fake-to-third-fake-to-first move was abolished. Well, either way, stolen base numbers must be up significantly this year.
   27. Moeball Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:31 PM (#4694474)
It's a good thing double play legend Bill Mazeroski wasn't playing during this brief period of "the ball must clearly be in possession from the glove to the throwing hand or it's considered an error" interpretation.

On double plays, Maz used to receive the throw from the shortstop and relay it along to first base so quickly that it almost looked like the throw from the shortstop was ricocheting off of Maz and going to first. He got the nickname "no hands" because of this.

If a player today did this under the recently enacted interpretation(and who knows, maybe someone has and I just haven't seen it?) - the umps would have called it an error just about every time.
   28. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:32 PM (#4694475)
The transfer call was and now again is a rule that wasn't/isn't broke.
   29. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:42 PM (#4694484)
I haven't been following these issues very closely, but wasn't the new bad transfer rule coupled with the replay? I was under the impression that w/o replay being implemented, the new transfer rule would not have existed.


The weird transfer change intersected with replay a few times, because managers would ask for replay reviews for catches that were clearly outs since the Civil War and challenge the "safe" call, then the umps would review it and still say "safe" which made people say they "still got it wrong on review." Even though by the 2014-to-date rules, they got it right both times.
   30. cardsfanboy Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:55 PM (#4694498)
It's a good thing double play legend Bill Mazeroski wasn't playing during this brief period of "the ball must clearly be in possession from the glove to the throwing hand or it's considered an error" interpretation.

On double plays, Maz used to receive the throw from the shortstop and relay it along to first base so quickly that it almost looked like the throw from the shortstop was ricocheting off of Maz and going to first. He got the nickname "no hands" because of this.


If a player today did this under the recently enacted interpretation(and who knows, maybe someone has and I just haven't seen it?) - the umps would have called it an error just about every time.


If he makes the throw, it doesn't matter how he transfers it. It only matters if he drops the ball.

The entire purpose of this rule was for the quick transfer in which the fielder dropped the ball on the transfer, and where it was called an out at second, even though the fielder never actually had possession of the ball.

The transfer call was and now again is a rule that wasn't/isn't broke.


It was a rule that needed to be made, they just went too far with the implementation of the rule.
   31. Hank G. Posted: April 25, 2014 at 06:02 PM (#4694501)
If he makes the throw, it doesn't matter how he transfers it. It only matters if he drops the ball.

The entire purpose of this rule was for the quick transfer in which the fielder dropped the ball on the transfer, and where it was called an out at second, even though the fielder never actually had possession of the ball.


Agreed. If the player makes a successful throw to first, he had control by definition. It he is trying to do it that quickly and drops the ball, it’s less clear that he ever had control.
   32. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: April 25, 2014 at 06:22 PM (#4694512)
On double plays, Maz used to receive the throw from the shortstop and relay it along to first base so quickly that it almost looked like the throw from the shortstop was ricocheting off of Maz and going to first. He got the nickname "no hands" because of this.

I thought the nickname was "Ricochet."
I keep hoping, now that MLB has allowed much better access to game action film with Youtube, that somebody will put together a Maz fielding highlight reel showing this amazing quick transfer I've been hearing about for so long. Not as of today, though.
   33. Ulysses S. Fairsmith Posted: April 25, 2014 at 06:44 PM (#4694527)
I've only been watching baseball since 1976, so I didn't see Mazeroski either. The fastest I've seen at getting rid of the ball is Jose Iglesias. I'm not really talking about relays; I've just never seen anyone get rid of a ground ball anywhere near as quickly as he does.
   34. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: April 25, 2014 at 09:21 PM (#4694556)
Is there a new rule prohibiting paragraph breaks?
   35. Bhaakon Posted: April 26, 2014 at 03:21 AM (#4694651)

Is there a new rule prohibiting paragraph breaks?


No, there's just a finite number of them and someone has to make up for Bill Plaschke.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
phredbird
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(19 - 12:52am, Oct 22)
Last: Mike Emeigh

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(316 - 12:38am, Oct 22)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogMike Scioscia, Matt Williams voted top managers
(15 - 12:36am, Oct 22)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogAs Focus Faded and Losses Piled Up, Royals Change Their Game
(6 - 12:33am, Oct 22)
Last: Roger McDowell spit on me!

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(112 - 12:30am, Oct 22)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 1 OMNICHATTER
(599 - 12:25am, Oct 22)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2898 - 11:11pm, Oct 21)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogDombrowski told that Iglesias 'will be fine' for 2015
(21 - 10:22pm, Oct 21)
Last: fra paolo

NewsblogRoyals’ James Shields passed kidney stone during ALCS but is ready for World Series | The Kansas City Star
(39 - 9:32pm, Oct 21)
Last: rlc

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(852 - 8:40pm, Oct 21)
Last: Biff, highly-regarded young guy

NewsblogBaseball's hardest throwing bullpen - Beyond the Box Score
(10 - 8:02pm, Oct 21)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogMorosi: Could Cain’s story make baseball king of sports world again?
(107 - 7:04pm, Oct 21)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogFan Returns Home Run Ball to Ishikawa; Receives World Series tickets
(55 - 6:26pm, Oct 21)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogBaseball Prospectus | Pebble Hunting: An Illustrated Guide to the People of Kauffman Stadium
(10 - 6:00pm, Oct 21)
Last: Perry

NewsblogCardinals proud of fourth straight NLCS appearance | cardinals.com
(58 - 5:44pm, Oct 21)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

Page rendered in 0.4832 seconds
52 querie(s) executed