jsnpritchett

Exactly. Sosh and Kendrick are whining about how "obvious" the call should have been, and people on here are acting like he was safe by 20 feet. It was a bang-bang play.

Wow. Close call! Could have gone either way.

I would be willing to be a substantial amount of money that if Stewart is given significant playing time, he'll find a way to massively disappoint.

Came in here to post the same thing. Probably just an odd quirk at this point.

...and you were better off because of that.

Those numbers were put up while he played for the Rockies. His OPS+ (compared to league average and adjusted for park factors) from 2008-10 was 98--so slightly below average. His recent major league and minor league numbers have been atrocious--as in catastrophically awful. That, coupled with numerous instances of him pretty much just being a jackass and having a bad attitude, makes me need a lot more than a few scattered ABs before I'm onboard with him.

Ha. Nice dive, Young! Angels definitely brought the bats today.

How 'bout a 3-run HR here? Put it out of reach.

1-2-3 inning! A few more of those, please. Thanks.

Have I mentioned how frustrating CJ is to watch?

And now Stewart! What's going on here?

The old man is coming through!

TROUT TROT!

1 batter in, CJ being CJ. Get a double play, please. Holy crap: Ibanez hasn't started a game at 1st since 2005...

Maybe this part of the rule is related to the reinterpretation, as well: "that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional."

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.

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.

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?

3rd time this has been posted, actually.

Why don't we chill just a bit and find out how serious Hamilton's injury is?

I would rather have Vernon Wells than Ibanez.

If he had 16 more hits last year, he would have hit .300. If he had 10 more hits in 2012, he would have hit .300. Point is, he doesn't have more hits this year, and he didn't have those hits then--even if you're assuming that a .300 BA is symbolic of something good, in and of itself.

My post was in jest. From what I've seen, he's absoutely brutal in the field.

Prediction: Ibanez hits 2 HR and makes a diving catch in left to save a run.

It would be more like having a kidney transplant on a malfunctioning lung.