What is a catch?

[ScottT]

MLB has gone nuts.  You thought the call on Hamilton's catch was bad?  This one is ten times worse.

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/63817564/v31940799/sdcle-francona-challenges-call-in-outfield-in-1st/?source=MLB&c_id=mlb&tcid=facebook_embedded_player&gid=2014_04_09_sdnmlb_clemlb_2

 

I heard this wacky interpretation applies to infielders and outfielders.... not catchers?  

[NrM]

What the **** is going on. Is the league being run by children?

[Spencer]

Can somebody find and post the actual rule?

 

I cannot remotely understand how that is not a catch.

[Vladfan]

Turrible call!!

[Richard]

Can't wait until a critical game is ruined by something stupid like this.

[sneaky_flute]

There's been some weird revision of the "transfer" rule that I don't quite understand. A runner was called safe after Elvis Andrus made a perfectly good catch and then dropped the ball after a transfer. The same thing happened to one of the Rays players. 

[bloodbrother]

even in replay, umps won't want to admit they are wrong

[NrM]

There's been some weird revision of the "transfer" rule that I don't quite understand. A runner was called safe after Elvis Andrus made a perfectly good catch and then dropped the ball after a transfer. The same thing happened to one of the Rays players. 

 

Seems like a player can make a catch, hold onto the ball for 5 minutes and then drop it on the transfer and it wouldn't be a ruled a catch.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Poozy

[HaloFan85]

One of the Indians players mentioned that the umps were stressing all spring that going forward (I'm assuming because of the expansion of instant replay), any ball dropped during transfer was going to be ruled no catch.

[The God of Runs]

This clearly discriminates players like Jim Abbott

[AngelsFaninGA]

Absurd call. That's like overturning a touchdown because a player didn't hand the ball cleanly to the referee afterwards. 

[jsnpritchett]

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/definition_terms_2.jsp

 

"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 is not a catch, however, if simultaneously or immediately following his contact with the ball, he collides with a player, or with a wall, or if he falls down, and as a result of such collision or falling, drops the ball. It is not a catch if a fielder touches a fly ball which then hits a member of the offensive team or an umpire and then is caught by another defensive player. If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch, the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught. In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional.

Rule 2.00 (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. Runners may leave their bases the instant the first fielder touches the ball. A fielder may reach over a fence, railing, rope or other line of demarcation to make a catch. He may jump on top of a railing, or canvas that may be in foul ground. No interference should be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing, rope or into a stand to catch a ball. He does so at his own risk.
If a fielder, attempting a catch at the edge of the dugout, is held up and kept from an apparent fall by a player or players of either team and the catch is made, it shall be allowed."

 

I think the bolded part is where some of the confusion is coming in.  It seems like the umpires are now interpreting that sentence pretty broadly.  Maybe the argument is that Hamilton wasn't actually "in the act of making a throw" when the ball came loose?

[NrM]

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/definition_terms_2.jsp

 

"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 is not a catch, however, if simultaneously or immediately following his contact with the ball, he collides with a player, or with a wall, or if he falls down, and as a result of such collision or falling, drops the ball. It is not a catch if a fielder touches a fly ball which then hits a member of the offensive team or an umpire and then is caught by another defensive player. If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch, the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught. In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional.

Rule 2.00 (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. Runners may leave their bases the instant the first fielder touches the ball. A fielder may reach over a fence, railing, rope or other line of demarcation to make a catch. He may jump on top of a railing, or canvas that may be in foul ground. No interference should be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing, rope or into a stand to catch a ball. He does so at his own risk.

If a fielder, attempting a catch at the edge of the dugout, is held up and kept from an apparent fall by a player or players of either team and the catch is made, it shall be allowed."

 

I think the bolded part is where some of the confusion is coming in.  It seems like the umpires are now interpreting that sentence pretty broadly.  Maybe the argument is that Hamilton wasn't actually "in the act of making a throw" when the ball came loose?

 

What? it seems perfectly clear to me.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Poozy

[jsnpritchett]

What? it's seems perfectly clear to me.

 

Ok.  Doesn't seem that way for umpires, though.

 

My point is that there now seems to be a different or in flux interpretation of what "in the act of making a throw" means.  Does that mean when a fielder is "transferring" the ball from glove to hand?  Does it mean when the ball is actually IN the bare hand, and some throwing motion has begun?  Etc...I've heard a lot of people referring to "the transfer rule," but the rule doesn't actually refer to a transfer at all.

[Chuck]

I was there and saw the catch perfectly. The ball came out as he was transferring to throw it.

 

F'n dumbass call. 

[NrM]

Ok.  Doesn't seem that way for umpires, though.

 

My point is that there now seems to be a different or in flux interpretation of what "in the act of making a throw" means.  Does that mean when a fielder is "transferring" the ball from glove to hand?  Does it mean when the ball is actually IN the bare hand, and some throwing motion has begun?  Etc...I've heard a lot of people referring to "the transfer rule," but the rule doesn't actually refer to a transfer at all.

 

Look. If a player catches the ball and then pauses, it's a catch.

 

I would understand what you're saying if the player tried catching the ball and transferring at the same time, but both replays clearly show them catching the ball, pausing, and then transferring.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Poozy

[Lhalo]

I wonder if the umps are trying to sabotage replay in order to get rid of it? Either way, some of these calls are pathetic.

[DW711]

This play happens probably 500-1,000 times a year. Kurt Suzuki did basically the same thing today and it was obviously a catch.

[HaloFan85]

I was there and saw the catch perfectly. The ball came out as he was transferring to throw it.

 

F'n dumbass call. 

Like I mentioned above, an Indians player mentioned that umps stressed all spring long that balls dropped during 'transfer' were going to be ruled 'no catch'.

 

I thinks umps are just interpreting "the act of making a throw" literally now, as in you probably have to have actual possession of the ball in the throwing hand before dropping the ball and it still being ruled a catch.

[Brent Maguire]

That is terrible. I didn't realize they were making this change this year. You basically have to catch the ball and make the throw cleanly or it's not a catch.

 

Stupid. 

[HaloFan85]

I can only assume that with instant replay, there's no more need for 'benefit of the doubt' being given by umps.  I think I heard the same thing for the second baseman neighborhood foot swipe at 2nd base.

[eaterfan]

I'm a catch.

[AngelsLakersFan]

Like I mentioned above, an Indians player mentioned that umps stressed all spring long that balls dropped during 'transfer' were going to be ruled 'no catch'.

 

I thinks umps are just interpreting "the act of making a throw" literally now, as in you probably have to have actual possession of the ball in the throwing hand before dropping the ball and it still being ruled a catch.

 

This reeks of bullshit.

 

Apparently all of MLB along with all of the fans must've missed the memo where they entirely rewrote the rule on what the definition of a catch is...

[NrM]

I was actually curious about the double play and how the player rarely actually touches 2nd base. Players literally don't even have to touch the bag and it's all fine and dandy. I understand it's to protect from injury, but I thought the umps would actually enforce that with replay, but instead they're focusing on this bullshit?

[disarcina]

man that 'no catch' call in the Cleveland/ San Diego game was worse than the one by Hamilton in Seattle.......

 

all these replays are doing is giving the umps a second opportunity to get it wrong and they DO !!

 

man, what terrible calls -- the Seattle no catch call and then this one.

 

I think we need the NHL guys from Toronto to review these calls not the MLB guys from New York.