ASA ASA foul catch

[cpl40475]

Tonight in League, batter hits the ball deep into left field, had a 2-1 count at the time. Left fielder makes a play on it, catching the ball and running 2 or 3 steps into fence while trying to stop himself. Im guessing fence knocked the ball out of his glove as it went over the fence. One ump says out, other says foul due to it not being dropped on a transition to throw. I cant find it in rule book and wondering what was the right call, foul or out.

 

[BretMan]

Look up the definition of "catch" under Rule 1 (specifically, the section that says when it's NOT a catch).

 

[NCASAUmp]

It depends on whether the umpire believed he had control prior to hitting the fence. If it was clear that the fielder had the ball under his control, then it would be a catch.

So if he clearly had possession, collides with the fence, and loses possession, it would be a ONE-base award from the time the ball went out of play. This is not an overthrow.

 

[BretMan]

I guess that I'm taking a different approach to this one.

First, I have to assume that the ball was first touched in foul ground (the OP doesn't spell that out, but if it was first touched over fair ground then "foul" wouldn't be an option).

So, the fielder "gloves" the ball (again, I assume he does this "on the run" as part of his effort to get to the ball), takes two or three steps (as part of the continuing momentum of his catch attempt), he hits the fence, then loses the ball. To me, this meets the definition of "no catch" under rule 1.

Since it's "no catch", that means the fielder never had control/possession, and that means we can't award a base for him having lost control/possession.

I'm getting a foul ball from all this, same as if the ball had come down and hit him in, say, the head and bounced over the fence.

 

[NCASAUmp]

I guess that I'm taking a different approach to this one.

First, I have to assume that the ball was first touched in foul ground (the OP doesn't spell that out, but if it was first touched over fair ground then "foul" wouldn't be an option).

So, the fielder "gloves" the ball (again, I assume he does this "on the run" as part of his effort to get to the ball), takes two or three steps (as part of the continuing momentum of his catch attempt), he hits the fence, then loses the ball. To me, this meets the definition of "no catch" under rule 1.

Since it's "no catch", that means the fielder never had control/possession, and that means we can't award a base for him having lost control/possession.

I'm getting a foul ball from all this, same as if the ball had come down and hit him in, say, the head and bounced over the fence.

And I understand that, but the way the "no catch" is defined, it describes a fielder who collides with a fence "while gaining control." If he clearly has control prior to hitting the fence, then it's a catch and a one-base award. If he does not have control, it's a foul ball.

I have a hard time calling no catch on this if he caught it, took two or three steps, and THEN hit the fence. I suppose it's one of those "HTBT" (had to be there) plays.

 

[MaverickAH]

Tonight in League, batter hits the ball deep into left field, had a 2-1 count at the time. Left fielder makes a play on it, catching the ball and running 2 or 3 steps into fence while trying to stop himself. Im guessing fence knocked the ball out of his glove as it went over the fence. One ump says out, other says foul due to it not being dropped on a transition to throw. I cant find it in rule book and wondering what was the right call, foul or out.

This is the part that concerns me. Why do you have two umps making the call?

Only one umpire is the primary on this type of play. Now it can be either one but only one is the primary.

• If the BU goes out to see the play, he becomes the primary.
• If the BU stays in, the PU is the primary.

So what were their positions when the call was made & who made what call?

 

[BretMan]

And I understand that, but the way the "no catch" is defined, it describes a fielder who collides with a fence "while gaining control." If he clearly has control prior to hitting the fence, then it's a catch and a one-base award. If he does not have control, it's a foul ball.

I have a hard time calling no catch on this if he caught it, took two or three steps, and THEN hit the fence. I suppose it's one of those "HTBT" (had to be there) plays.

My understanding is that a fielder isn't considered to be "in control" until he gains control of his momentum and his body following the act of making the catch.

Plus, I don't think that you could call this voluntary release.

 

[BretMan]

This is the part that concerns me. Why do you have two umps making the call?

Yeah, that kind of jumped out at me...but I decided to stick with the catch/foul ball question.

Possibly, the call was reversed by the other umpire or one umpire asked his partner for help. We don't know that they made two simultaneous opposite calls.

 

[NCASAUmp]

My understanding is that a fielder isn't considered to be "in control" until he gains control of his momentum and his body following the act of making the catch.

Plus, I don't think that you could call this voluntary release.

That's a good question. I think I know where to post this.

 

[BretMan]

There's an ASA case play (under "catch"/rule 1) that says if, while attempting a catch, a fielder collides with another player or the ground and loses possession, that it isn't voluntary release.

I'm sure that a fence is treated the same way since a fence, the ground, another player, and an umpire are all lumped under the same definition of things that a fielder might crash into under "no catch".

 

[NCASAUmp]

There's an ASA case play (under "catch"/rule 1) that says if, while attempting a catch, a fielder collides with another player or the ground and loses possession, that it isn't voluntary release.

I'm sure that a fence is treated the same way since a fence, the ground, another player, and an umpire are all lumped under the same definition of things that a fielder might crash into under "no catch".

I'm reading what I think is the case play you're referring to. In it, they say it's not a catch "if the umpire feels [the fielder] did not have control of the ball. The fielder must show control and/or voluntary release of the ball prior to the ball coming lose because of contact with the ground or other fielder."

It makes no mention of having control over their body, only the ball. So based on what I'm reading, if the fielder clearly has control of the ball, it is a catch.

 

[BretMan]

It makes no mention of having control over their body, only the ball.

I didn't mean to imply that the case play itself mentioned "control of the body". I mentioned those two in two different posts.

The case play is what it is. The "control of the body" is a standard that I've had others explain to me when discussing catches.

The bottom line is that catch/no catch can be a judgment call. We have to frame our judgment within the rules and definitions, and maybe you and I are interpreting this a little bit differently.

I will say that if I watch a fielder running after a ball, he gets his glove on it, then keeps running another 2-3 steps, as a continuation of his effort to field the ball, then he crashes into a fence, and the ball pops out, I'm strongly leaning toward a no catch.

My reasoning:

- 2-3 steps at running speed isn't enough time to demonstrate control.

- If he did have control of the ball, he wouldn't have lost it.

- I don't consider this a voluntary release.

 

[bndawgs]

I would liken this scenario to the same possession rule in the NFL, where the receiver has to make a football type move in order to show possession of the ball. I would have ruled no catch and foul ball.

 

[baldgriff]

Using the football-esque interpretation - a fumble is certainly not voluntary release - however, there was demonstrated possession prior to the release. We have to be careful trying to use other sports to explain softball rules. There are no "possession is determined by X" rules. Yes you have to use your judgement.

Possession is control of the ball in the glove. If he has demonstrated control of the ball, then its a catch. What happens after that - happens after that. The OP says he caught the ball, not juggled the ball - caught the ball. So I would say - I have a catch and then a 1 base award.

The umpire who said its not a catch because he didnt drop it in the midst of transition to throwing is pulling crap out is a$$. Using that logic, I could catch a ball run in from the outfield, trip, fall and lose the ball and now its not a catch.... A catch is possession of the ball in the glove.

 

[BretMan]

The OP says he caught the ball, not juggled the ball - caught the ball.

Getting the ball in the glove is just the first part of making a catch, not the final definition of a catch for an out.

A catch is possession of the ball in the glove.

The word "possession" doesn't even appear in the rule, thus it has no definition in relation to a catch. But the word "control" does. A catch requires control of the ball, or as the rule puts it, the ball must be "securely held in the hand or glove".

If the ball flew out a second after it hit the glove (the time it took for a running fielder to take 2-3 steps) then it obviously wasn't "securely held".

 

[cpl40475]

Yes, he caught it in foul area, sorry I didnt add that in. The reason for both ump's being in was due to the fact that after the fielder hit the fence the plate umpire didnt see him drop the ball over the fence and the 3rd base coach stated he had dropped it which then caused the questions to arise

 

[baldgriff]

BretMan - thanks for the correction related to the actual word in the rule. I was just using the term in the thread. Control is something that we have to make a judgment of. I doesnt seem based on the OP's post that there is much doubt that there was a catch. The umpire calling no catch used some weird application of "ball transfer" to deem it not caught.

Anyway - I likely have a catch and 1 base award.

 

[jsam21238]

The biggest problem with this is the "and/or" in the rule... I know the baseball OBR only says "and" when it comes to the voluntarily release. I think the "and/or" adds an unnecessary grey area into the rule.

 

[MaverickAH]

Yes, he caught it in foul area, sorry I didnt add that in. The reason for both ump's being in was due to the fact that after the fielder hit the fence the plate umpire didnt see him drop the ball over the fence and the 3rd base coach stated he had dropped it which then caused the questions to arise

Even with that being the case, you should know nothing regarding the differing opinions of the umpires.

Once the 3B coach expressed his concerns, the umpires should have huddled away from everyone else with each umpire expressing what they saw. Once they came to a consensus, the umpire that originally made the call would either keep or change his call. No one else should have any intimate knowledge of what was discussed.

 

[BretMan]

The biggest problem with this is the "and/or" in the rule... I know the baseball OBR only says "and" when it comes to the voluntarily release. I think the "and/or" adds an unnecessary grey area into the rule.

I noticed that too, and also thought that the "and/or" muddied up the rule.

ASA has another case play where an outfielder makes a catch, then as he's jogging back to the dugout he trips and falls and drops the ball. The ruling is that he had control of the ball long before the trip, fall, and drop, so the "voluntary release" part didn't apply.

High school baseball, which I also work, is like the OBR rule- it just says "and", not "and/or". To cover a play like the case play above, they explain that the voluntary release applies during and immediately after the catch. So, once the fielder has completed the catch and demonstrated control, if he drops the ball well after that point it's still a catch.

Same ruling, just a tiny bit different wording in the actual rule. Stuff like this always makes me wonder: Somebody, somewhere, had to purposely add the "and/or" to the ASA rule. I wonder what their intent was? I can only imagine that it was to cover a play like the sample play above, in reaction to some "what if..." that was brought up.

 

[BretMan]

Even with that being the case, you should know nothing regarding the differing opinions of the umpires.

Once the 3B coach expressed his concerns, the umpires should have huddled away from everyone else with each umpire expressing what they saw. Once they came to a consensus, the umpire that originally made the call would either keep or change his call. No one else should have any intimate knowledge of what was discussed.

Sounds good...at least in theory.

But I've had this happen to me quite a few times: My partner makes a call, the coach asks him to check with me, he does, I give him what I got, quietly, in-private, away from the coaches, then my partner steps away and reverses his call...all just like you outlined above.

Then...the coach comes to me just because he assumes that I must have "reversed" the call, even though I didn't. I just told my partner what I saw. He can ignore that if he wants to, or if he had something different. But it's still his call and it's still his decision to change it or not.

So, I could see how to the untrained eye it might seem like the other umpire changed the call, even if he didn't.

Now, if these two guys were openly discussing this in front of players and coaches, bickering back and forth about what the call should be, or if one umpire just stepped in and changed it without being asked...they screwed up!

 

[USA All the wAy]

I have no catch foul ball.

 

[irishmafia]

The biggest problem with this is the "and/or" in the rule... I know the baseball OBR only says "and" when it comes to the voluntarily release. I think the "and/or" adds an unnecessary grey area into the rule.

While I don't believe there is a need for the and/or, I wholeheartedly disagree there is a grey area. It is real simple, did the fielder have control of the ball, end of story.

 

[cpl40475]

they got together, out of everyones hearing and the OF ump said he seen the ball fall over the fence. Im sure Im not explaining all the way, as I didnt see it exactly happen either. Thats whats got me most curious as to what call was right and it seems 50/50 to me right now

 

[jsam21238]

While I don't believe there is a need for the and/or, I wholeheartedly disagree there is a grey area. It is real simple, did the fielder have control of the ball, end of story.

Well with the way that it is written, if the fielder can demonstrate a voluntary release ONLY is could also be determined a catch.

This is going tl be far fetched but hear me out...

Say a player is juggling the ball as they move towards dead ball territory. They then throw the ball backwards back into play and it falls to the ground. Do you have a catch there? They released the ball voluntarily but didn't demonstrate control. Or do you have control the instant the ball stops moving in the bare hand?

The wording leads one to believe either one can happen and you have a catch, but wouldn't that contradict the case book when a player has control of the ball then crashes into a player or wall and drops it and that is no catch?

 

[Comp]

If they drop the ball after crashing into another fielder or falling to the ground "while gaining control". Key words, "while gaining control". If the fielder has demonstrated control of the ball prior to colliding with someone or something or falling to the ground it is a catch.

There is an ASA case play about a line drive to F6 who catches it for the 3rd out and while running off the field trips over 3rd base, falls and looses the ball when hitting the ground. The fielder has demonstrated control of the ball and it is a catch even though voluntary release of the ball was not made.

 

[BretMan]

If they drop the ball after crashing into another fielder or falling to the ground "while gaining control". Key words, "while gaining control". If the fielder has demonstrated control of the ball prior to colliding with someone or something or falling to the ground it is a catch.

There is an ASA case play about a line drive to F6 who catches it for the 3rd out and while running off the field trips over 3rd base, falls and looses the ball when hitting the ground. The fielder has demonstrated control of the ball and it is a catch even though voluntary release of the ball was not made.

That's the difference I'm picturing here. The time lapse between catching the ball, stopping your momentum, changing your direction, then running off the field is significantly longer than the ball hitting the glove while the fielder is on the run, then hitting the fence 2-3 steps later, which is going to be about one second later.

I think that the first example gives us adequate time to determine if the ball was securely held/in control. The latter doesn't.

Plus, the fact that the ball popped out seems to be evidence that it wasn't securely held.

Thats whats got me most curious as to what call was right and it seems 50/50 to me right now

I think that you're getting varying opinions because a "catch/no catch" is a judgment call and without seeing the actual play it's kind of hard to judge what exactly happened. It could really depend on how much time elapsed between ball hitting glove and fielder hitting fence, how the fielder reacted, how the ball popped out, was the fielder in control of his body when he hit the fence, or was he out of control?

What I'm picturing is a guy running full speed, ball hits glove, then he hits the fence a second later. But I wasn't there, so that's just a guess!

 

[sjury]

Bret man just said it.... We are all arguing the judgment of a catch and control with a play we didn't see. A lot of the rules are judgment calls, and that could change from umpire to umpire. The example in the rule book is supposed to be so obvious that there is little room for differing interpretation. What they are trying to get across is don't split hairs because he technically wasn't voluntarily transferring the ball. So many times people try to get so super technical with rules, when common sense goes a long way. The outfielder hits the fence and the ball goes out of play, I'd call no catch.

 

[cpl40475]

I can agree with both side as to catch or no catch aslo, I didnt even see full play so I cant say myself. I just brought up some questions and I wasnt sure on exactly how to answer them either. THanks for the input though

 

[irishmafia]

Well with the way that it is written, if the fielder can demonstrate a voluntary release ONLY is could also be determined a catch.

Which is why I stated the wording is unnecessary.

This is going tl be far fetched but hear me out...

Say a player is juggling the ball as they move towards dead ball territory. They then throw the ball backwards back into play and it falls to the ground. Do you have a catch there? They released the ball voluntarily but didn't demonstrate control. Or do you have control the instant the ball stops moving in the bare hand?

The wording leads one to believe either one can happen and you have a catch, but wouldn't that contradict the case book when a player has control of the ball then crashes into a player or wall and drops it and that is no catch?

How can you voluntarily release something of which you never had control? This is why the ONLY portion of the rule that matters is the judgement of the umpire as it pertains to control of the ball.