That's where my question comes from. The fielder had possession of the ball, took prob 2-3 steps back and then got tripped. I thought it would be almost thr same type of call when a fielder makes a catch but drops it in the transfer.
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.
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.
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 guidelines for a catch? It doesn't sound like it to me, but the judgment of the umpire actually watching the play and making the call is the variable here.
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 an error charged against the fielder that tripped the one trying to catch the ball.
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.