MLB Fixing Transfer Rule

[Amazing Larry]

Effective immediately.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24538973/report-mlb-fixes-transfer-rule-effective-immediately

 

[arch stanton]

As far as I'm concerned having the ball inside a closed glove is positive control.

[disarcina]

what needs to be fixed?

 

the umps seemed to have gotten the 'transfer rule' mostly right until they 'changed it' this year.

 

if it ain't broke............

 

the call on the Hamilton 'catch/transfer' vs. Seattle was ridiculous only to followed by a worse example in an MLB game that someone posted a link to here.

 

oh well.

[Stradling]

I don't like the ever changing strike zone but I have no problem with the neighborhood call at second

[Eric]

The Transfer rule was exposing the problems with having such widespread instant replay, so let's get rid of the Transfer rule instead of focusing on the negative effect instant replay is having on the game.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Eric

[Blarg]

I don't like the ever changing strike zone but I have no problem with the neighborhood call at second

 

I am pretty much the opposite. If an umpire defines a strike zone and is consistent then I'm ok with it and both sides can take advantage of it.

 

The neighborhood play is truly breaking the spirit of the rules in order to facilitate a double play. If only a force play at second is possible without receiving the ball off of the bag then that is all you get. The first baseman is required to have his foot on the bag so it would be logical that the 2nd baseman or shortstop should have to as well. And please spare me the injury risk crap, just don't take the risk and get one out.

[HaloFan85]

Just sucks that some teams lost games because of all this.

[ScottT]

Nice job fixing this so quickly.  Never should have happened, though.  Umpire judgement is fine 99% of the time on this play.  

[Brandon]

I don't like changing rules midseason because, as someone posted above, it impacted results for teams. They should just keep the dumb rule going for the rest of the season so everyone is on the same playing field.

 

Hopefully the rule change doesn't impact someone's playoff chances or costs them a job. Doubtful, but you never know until the end of the season.

[Taylor]

back to players not having to demonstrate positive control of the ball on the first out when going for a bonus out. 

 

yet another idiosyncrasy that makes baseball a joke of a sport.  

 

it's right up there with having a different strike zone every night and fake double plays from 2nd to 1st. 

 

i like the game, but there is a lot of silliness to it.

 

[sneaky_flute]

I think the transfer rule that was recently enacted is actually the official one, but the de facto rule that had been observed for 100 years was fine. I don't remember the interpretation of a catch being such a problem so I have no idea why they changed things. 

 

I'm happy with replay and the new home plate rules, but MLB needs to address the neighborhood play and attempts to break up the double play. Those have never made much sense to me. 

[Stradling]

Basically the catch rule before was "you know it when you see it".

[greginpsca]

I believe the play where Hamilton supposedly dropped the fly ball while transferring it cost us a win.

[Guest]

I believe the play where Hamilton supposedly dropped the fly ball while transferring it cost us a win.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/ana/scioscia-seeks-change-to-transfer-rule?ymd=20140419&content_id=72648116&vkey=news_ana

 -- here's the Hamilton play

 

the following is the play that got Ron Washington ejected from a game: 

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/sea/rangers-manager-ron-washington-ejected-after-call-is-overturned-monday?ymd=20140414&content_id=72085396&vkey=news_sea

 

 

Both of these would have always been ruled catches in the past. 

[tomsred]

Interesting that Stoneman and Carew are part of the Playing Rules Committee, I didn't know that.

[AngelsLakersFan]

the glove around the ball argument is my favorite.  if that were all that were needed to rule a ball a catch, then instant replay would make this a catch:

 

 

The glove was all the way around the ball.  He dropped it because he ran into a wall.  It's still a drop, and doesn't count.  Why on earth should it count if the player drops it a split second after going for the transfer?  Hitting a wall is a much better excuse for dropping the ball, but only an idiot would say that it should be ruled a catch.  

 

Herp derp.  

 

I know people will respond with nonsense.  Carry on. 

 

This is not the problem. The problem was that they decided to define a catch based on an outfielder removing the ball from his glove. The other night Mike Trout made a sliding catch, lifted the glove up to show the umpire and no one made the out or safe call for a second or too until they realized Mike just wasn't going to take the gal out, he was just going to job back to the dugout.

 

Tying a catch to the removal of the ball from the glove makes it impossible for base runners to know how to properly react on plays to the outfield, and in theory could've lead to the need for some kind of 'out field fly rule' to prevent players from turning easy outs into double plays.

 

This was a cluster****.

[ukyah]

cezero doesn't care to discuss it, so his thoughts are moot, and that's fine. personally, i'm absolutely fine with the initial runner being out on the transfer. i think replay is working tremendously well so far, and am happy it's here.