What is a catch?

[disarcina]

even if they do tighten up on the 'transfer' rule -- you can still tell a catch and transfer from a drop.

 

the issue in that Cleveland 'no catch' may have been that they felt the 'fence' helped keep the ball in the glove -- but even with that, when the OF'er turns to throw is when the ball drops out,

 

it's clearly the transfer that creates the drop.........

 

geez, what terrible calls.

[jsnpritchett]

even if they do tighten up on the 'transfer' rule -- you can still tell a catch and transfer from a drop.

 

the issue in that Cleveland 'no catch' may have been that they felt the 'fence' helped keep the ball in the glove -- but even with that, when the OF'er turns to throw is when the ball drops out,

 

it's clearly the transfer that creates the drop.........

 

geez, what terrible calls.

 

As I'll say for the 37th time   There is NO mention of a "transfer" in the rule.  Read it again.  HaloFan85 and I agree that this simply comes down to a stricter reinterpretation of the "act of throwing" part of the rule.  Is what most people call a "transfer" an "act of throwing?"  There's at least an argument to be made for it not to be.

[jsnpritchett]

Maybe this part of the rule is related to the reinterpretation, as well:

 

"that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional."

[Homebrewer]

The consensus of the discussions I have heard on MLB network suggest the review umps are calling this by the "letter" of the rule, and therefore the rule needs to be re-written/amended.

[arch stanton]

Great. Now even baseball has a tuck rule.

[gotbeer]

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?

 

The problem with the highlighted statement, is that the ball is not dropped due to the throw, but the transfer.  So if you strictly look at the definition, what we as fans and as umpires were used to as a catch was actually wrong.  And that now they are enforcing the catch rule by the book.  

 

This is no different than the NFL.  Rules in the NFL are constantly changed when replay shows the small flaws in them.  Remember the ole critical Charger game where a fumble wasn't a fumble?  

 

As for this particular play.  I agree no catch with the way they are calling it.

 

 

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. 

 

He collided with the wall and dropped the ball.  

 

The definition that needs to be clarified is "firmly holding it".  Because the umpires are now ruling that if you drop the ball, you have never firmly held the ball.  Going the NFL terms.  The Umps are saying you have to have 2 feet down, instead of 1 foot down for a completion.

[Keener]

Great. Now even baseball has a tuck rule.

Exactly. Later, it will be amended to say these really are catches, but probably not until someone is screwed over. Much like the tuck rule reversal must bring Raiders fans plenty of satisfaction.