Other Question on catch
- Thread starter mihklo
- Start date
gotigersgo
Addicted to Softballfans
Not an out. Fielder must maintain possession. I would think it would be scored as a hit, though. However, IANAU.
guzzler2209
The Veteran
Huh? Pretty hard to say based on a short description. It would be the umpires judgement on whether he had control or not. If he caught the ball and hung on to it showing possession before being tripped and losing control i'd say most umpires would call it an out.
NCASAUmp
Un-Retired
If that's the case, then it's possible that this could have been a catch. The fielder has to hold onto the ball long enough "to prove control of the ball." Taking a few steps with the ball held securely in the glove COULD be enough for an umpire to determine that the catch was made, and that the loss of the ball was completely irrelevant to the catch.
Determining whether a fielder had control of the ball, of course, is a judgment call.
gotigersgo
Addicted to Softballfans
He changed his story. Initially. it was "in the process." Now, it's "2 or 3 steps back." I'd say the second is a catch.
NCASAUmp
Un-Retired
Yeah, I always take things with a grain of salt on here. If people are honest AND thorough in their explanations, I'll give them the best answer that I can. If they fudge some of the details (and I'm NOT implying that the OP is fudging the details), then they're only going to hear what they want to hear. That becomes their problem, not mine.
mihklo
Active Member
Thanks guys. Got the answers I was looking for. As long as the fielder shows possession of the ball it is an out.
And I guess I didn't clarify enough about "in the process". I knew that if fielders collided before possession was made and the ball was dropped that it would not be an out.
And I guess I didn't clarify enough about "in the process". I knew that if fielders collided before possession was made and the ball was dropped that it would not be an out.
BretMan
Addicted to Softballfans
Here's one part of the definition of a catch from one rule book (you'll find the same or similar wording in most all rule books):
"It is not a catch...If a fielder, while gaining control, collides with another player, umpire or a fence, or falls to the ground and drops the ball as a result of the collision or falling to the ground."
That is the guideline an umpire must use in determining the catch/no catch on this play. Of course, we didn't see the play. If you did, then in your opinion did the play meet the requirements for a catch? It doesn't sound like it to me. The judgment of the umpire actually watching the play and making the call is the variable here.
I will note that "gaining control" is generally interpreted to mean that the fielder has total control of the the ball AND his body. If a fielder is on the run and collides with something, and that collision causes him to drop the ball, he hasn't really demonstrated control of either. If the had control of the ball, he would not have dropped it. If he had control of his body, he would have been able to avoid the collision.
Mihklo, you might have "got the answer you wanted to hear" if you're trying to justify in your mind that this should have been a catch...but I'm really not seeing a strong enough case to say that this play should be ruled a catch.
"It is not a catch...If a fielder, while gaining control, collides with another player, umpire or a fence, or falls to the ground and drops the ball as a result of the collision or falling to the ground."
That is the guideline an umpire must use in determining the catch/no catch on this play. Of course, we didn't see the play. If you did, then in your opinion did the play meet the requirements for a catch? It doesn't sound like it to me. The judgment of the umpire actually watching the play and making the call is the variable here.
I will note that "gaining control" is generally interpreted to mean that the fielder has total control of the the ball AND his body. If a fielder is on the run and collides with something, and that collision causes him to drop the ball, he hasn't really demonstrated control of either. If the had control of the ball, he would not have dropped it. If he had control of his body, he would have been able to avoid the collision.
Mihklo, you might have "got the answer you wanted to hear" if you're trying to justify in your mind that this should have been a catch...but I'm really not seeing a strong enough case to say that this play should be ruled a catch.
Last edited:
NCASAUmp
Un-Retired
And the highlighted portion is what really matters here. If the fielder has already gained control of the ball (umpire's judgment), then this part does not apply. If the fielder has yet to gain control at the time of the collision, then it is not a catch.
mihklo
Active Member
honestly it was close enough that it could have been argued both ways. no one argued about the ruling and it really didnt have an effect on the outcome of the game. i just wanted to know for the future.
RDD15
Addicted to Softballfans
Not often that I can disagree with BretMan in this section, but....
I don't think you would ever see an official scorer that knows what he is doing charge an error to the LC fielder here. He screwed up and caused RC to drop the ball, but LC himself did not mis-play the ball.
I think most scorers here would roll their eyes at the fielders and rule a base hit. I have a friend that is the scorer for a single-a minor league baseball team. I work a few games per year operating the scoreboard, and will ask him on Saturday when I see him what he thinks for sure.
BretMan
Addicted to Softballfans
I consulted two different scoring guides before stating this would be an error charged to the fielder that collided with the other one and prevented the catch. Neither guide was specifically for slow pitch softball. If anybody can find one just for slow pitch, feel free to post it!
Guide #1 is the Official Baseball Rules (OBR)- the rules used in Major League Baseball. You can see it yourself here (See Rule 10.12(1)(a) Comments, last paragraph): http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2010/official_rules/2010_OfficialBaseballRules.pdf
Guide #2 is a guide for fastpitch softball, put together by college coaches (See Defense-Errors (1)(x): http://nfca.org.ismmedia.com/ISM2/MultimediaManager/ATEC.pdf
To me, this makes perfect sense. If it is assumed that the fielder attempting the catch would have made it, had the other fielder not collided with him, then why would you credit the batter with a hit? Generally, the rules for scoring are based on what should have happened on the play. If a batter reaches base when he should not have, and an out was the likely outcome, somebody gets charged with an error.
But I'll be open minded to anyone posting something from another actual scoring guide that says differently.
Guide #1 is the Official Baseball Rules (OBR)- the rules used in Major League Baseball. You can see it yourself here (See Rule 10.12(1)(a) Comments, last paragraph): http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2010/official_rules/2010_OfficialBaseballRules.pdf
Guide #2 is a guide for fastpitch softball, put together by college coaches (See Defense-Errors (1)(x): http://nfca.org.ismmedia.com/ISM2/MultimediaManager/ATEC.pdf
To me, this makes perfect sense. If it is assumed that the fielder attempting the catch would have made it, had the other fielder not collided with him, then why would you credit the batter with a hit? Generally, the rules for scoring are based on what should have happened on the play. If a batter reaches base when he should not have, and an out was the likely outcome, somebody gets charged with an error.
But I'll be open minded to anyone posting something from another actual scoring guide that says differently.
RDD15
Addicted to Softballfans
You appear to have a valid point there. Further discussion with my friend is needed here I guess.