This is really interesting. When I first viewed it in real time I thought he dropped the ball. When I viewed the replays it was obvious he caught it and dropped it on the transfer.
In my opinion that is one of those rare calls that could go either way when one sees it in real time. In slo mo you can see that it seemed to be a catch with a drop on the transfer
I do agree with the commenters who say by standard 2-man mechanics, a fly ball to the left fielder moving towards the line is PU's call. However, PU should be yelling "John, I'm on the ball!" to let his partner know he does in fact have it and that U1 should mind the runners (this works out super well if U1's name is indeed "John"). Live ball communication is a critical skill for the experienced umpire; newer umpires tend to be deaf and mute while the ball is live or they shout things by rote instead of actually communicating. Still a work in progress for me, but I'm getting a lot better in the past few years.
2-man manual says that PU must communicate if he is taking the catch/no-catch toward the foul line. It also say that BU is responsible for the catch if the ball is on the vicinity of LF/RF unless PU communicates otherwise.
@@MwD676 that's more or less what I said ... PU should be taking any ball threatening the line, but technically all fly balls are U1’s until PU calls him off. That doesn't make it ok for PU not to take fly balls he should take, nor does it make U1 wrong to expect PU to take the fly balls that he obviously should.
It is very difficult to say whether or not the LF ever had control of the ball before attempting the transfer. That being said, I can live with either interpretation here. However, even had they ultimately ruled the batter to be out the runner cannot be penalised for an umpires mistake, so it would have been proper to return the runner to first base.
The issue is not the Catch/ No catch. The issue is 2 umpires making different calls. This call should be made by the Plate umpire ONLY. If a coach wants to protest the call then both Blues can get together after the play.
Base umpire has all fly balls in the V position, since the left fielder was going towards the left field line it becomes the plate guys catch/no catch call
@@timbailey3846 correct Tim. How can you guys argue catch/no catch when you don't even know whos call it is lol. The V is the base umpire, but when the LF or RF goes towards the foul line, its the plate umpires call
in all fairness the outfieder was going more backwards than to the line. I'm good with either umpire making the call. That's why you have a thorough pregame with your partner to discuss who takes what
Catch, he dropped on the exchange. Umpires came together which is good and this is their judgment call so I respect that. First time through I had a catch and a drop on the exchange. Watching the following replays confirms catch and drop on the exchange.
Catch requires voluntary release from the glove to be ruled a complete catch. Regardless of the exchange, if it drops out of the glove involuntarily, it is not a catch.
The act of the exchange IS a voluntary release of the ball. Because the fielding muffs the exchange does not change the act from voluntary to involuntary. The entire act is a voluntary act. This is a catch and a drop on the exchange. Again, a judgment call to be made. I have what they had. Catch.
@@baseballumpires6901 Dropping the ball is not considered voluntary. By rule, we use a line parallel to the ground. If a ball pulls back or up from the ground, it is considered a voluntary release from the glove. If it drops to the ground or below that line from the glove, it is considered a drop from the glove and not voluntary. This is a drop and not a catch.
No sir. I have a catch and a drop on the release. Plain and simple. Now you state a rule. I am unaware of this rule and I have trained many umpires in many leagues over the years. Please note the rule and what ruleset this rule is in.
@@baseballumpires6901 by "rule" I meant more guide for determining voluntary release or a drop, not an actual rule from the book. My mistake if that caused confusion. But as for the rule and ruleset for catch: its listed in the definition of the catch for everything from OBR to Little League: the release must be voluntary and intentional. A drop from a glove would not be "on the transfer", but an involuntary drop. This is not a catch.
Truly hard to tell 100%, but I'd say he dropped it on the exchange, so, it was the wrong call to say he dropped it. The field umpire called it a drop and didn't have the benefit of replay to correct his mistake. That said, R1 acted upon that erroneous call and advanced to second base without tagging up. If they were going to say it was a catch and drop on the exchange, then R1 should be awarded first base and the second out should not count. It's unreasonable to consider him out based on the actions he took after a mistaken call.
Part of the problem is you have two umpires ruling differently on the same play. Even if whoever isn't primary on that call sees it for some reason, he shouldn't be ruling on it. Better communication between umpires and with the players, no matter what they call, would have prevented a fiasco. I'm surprised that there weren't ejections after this play...
Only the plate ump has that call between the cones. Base ump had no business ruling on it. It's a no-catch. It is not persistent and secure possession. Period.
The problem is that is where the umpires switch responsibility. Base umpire has catch/no catch in the outfield, but plate has it near the foul line. The catch was made right where they would be switching.
@@keenanramsey1880 there is no switching responsibilities on a baseball field each empire has their own responsibility. The plate umpire makes all the calls to the outfield not just to the line.
Under FED, there are 3 criteria for a catch…secure possession, secure possession through the voluntary release and a voluntary release. If you do not have all 3, you do NOT have a catch. Mechanically, umpires are trained to watch the player through the voluntary release and when a ball drops down, that was not secure possession and when a ball pops upwards AFTER being secured…then THAT was on the transfer. I would also point out that in a 2-man umpire system, U1 starts this play in the B position in the middle of the diamond to the 1B side. Catch/no-catch responsibility is SOLELY U1 here. PU’s responsibility is watching the touches at all bases since U1 has the ball. There should NEVER be two umpires working the same play! Know your responsibilities, pre-game your responsibilities and if you see someone taking a play they shouldn’t be taking you have to call them off, “Joe! I have the ball! Take the runners!”
I could live with either call, whether I agree or not. What I could not live with is the lack of communication between the umpires. Coverage is something that should be reviewed before every game. The best partners I've seen or worked with also communicate during the play, if the coverage responsibility isn't obvious.
Yup. That's a big thing with young umpires. When I have a new partner I always check out of the corner of my eye if he is mirroring my out calls. If he is, I tell him nicely to cut it out. It's only a big deal when it's a big deal, like here.
With the ball dropping straight down, I would call no catch. The ball was not secured in the glove. A ball lost on the transfer/exchange will fall to the rear of the fielder. A bad grip while pulling the arm back to make a throw will still pull the ball back. I agree with all who point out that a "double-call" by an officiating crew shows a lack of clarity on who has responsibility for what. (Yes, the Plate Umpire had the "catch-no-catch", here. The Base Umpire should have been watching the tag-ups.)
Every play, that happens like this is different. A dropped ball doesn't always go to the rear. Sometimes, yes. Not always. Don't ONLY look for this action. Judge each play, or attempted play separately Just use timing. Move to the best spot possible, while the ball is in the air. Then get set, focus.. Ball goes in glove.. Fielder actually squeezes glove Fielder now starts to bring glove down.... voluntarily... Fielder starts to bring his throwing hand into the glove.. voluntarily.. And, as the fielder, either starts to flip the ball to his throwing hand, or hes reaching in to get the ball, THEN it drops. All of this is voluntary actions on the part of the LF. That's a catch.
That was the home plate umpires call , LF going to his left towards the line. It was more probable a catch on the exchange drop... Than it was a clear drop.
Well done by the umpires. When two umpires give conflicting signals, you have to protect the runners and return them to the bases they would have been on had the erroneous signal not been made, and that means returning the runner to first.
Catch and drop on the exchange. He had to turn his glove over for it to fall out on the exchange. But then again, I’m watching on video, not real time as it happened with 1 look only at it.
The ball was no where near the foul line, watch the video again. The ball was a good 20-30 feet away from the foul line. I wasn't the plate umpire's call to make, it was the field umpire's call. The plate umpire shouldn't have over ruled the field umpire's call.
Plate umpire should only call off the Base Umpire, if the ball is hit down the lines, or either the LF or RF is moving quickly, or rapidly etc towards the lines. As this is now potentially not only a catch-no catch, but also a possible fair/foul call will be needed. In this play, the ball is basically a "can of corn", routine, the LF initially moves back, no urgency. Then, he follows the ball, and moves to his right a few yards. Again, no urgency. There should be no reason for the PU to call off the base umpire on this. Despite the LF moving a bit to his right, towards the line, doesn't now make it a trouble ball, or fair foul. The only thing, still, is for the BU to get set, watch for the catch.. and voluntary release (which I have)
I would call that a catch and the batter is out but I would return the runner to 1st base on the basis that because of the one umpire calling it a dropped ball he had to advance to second. If it was clear from the umpire's call that it was a caught ball he would have returned to 1st base ahead of the throw.
@@prsguitars42 he did secure possession. He lost it on the exchange. I can live with an out on the catch, but since both umpires made different calls, it put the runners in jeopardy. Out on the catch, keep the runners where they were, play on
@@mptr1783Your're right. It was a catch. My association used this vid as a training video. There were many things this crew did wrong from the initial call all the way to it's conclusion.
@@prsguitars42 You’ve cited NFHS 2.6.9 a couple places w/o actually stating the rule. I searched nfhs from 2023 back to 2012, and I only see 4 articles in rule 2.6-where are you finding art.9??
The argument here is HP umpire signals safe no catch.....base umpire signals catch, drop on transfer.....the argument is who's call do we go with, because the confusion put runners in jeopardy. Ball hit to LF towards foul line should be HP umpire, so if he feels no-catch(wrongly in my opinion), then gotta kill it and move players up one base. Common sense did NOT prevail on this play.
This call, all day long, is the base umpire. Base umpire inside, 2 man mechanics, has fly ball coverage, LF over to the RF. Just because either the LF or the RF starts moving towards either line, doesn't automatically switch the responsibility to the PU. This is basically a routine fly ball. LF backs up at first, then , moves about 9 steps towards his right. Still not threatening the LF line. PU should "call off" the BU, on this play (ball hit basically to straight-away left) only if the LF (or RF) is moving with urgency towards either line. Because on this one, not only a potential catch/no-catch, but also possible fair/foul. The play in this video, in this example, wouldn't call for the PU to take it. As the LF, though moving towards his right, is not moving anywhere close to the LF line. So, in this the PU shouldn't call off the BU Or... If when the ball is hit, and the PU sees that its right down either line, he should call off the BU "John, I got the ball" m "John I got the line" The BU hears this, then focuses on base touches and any tag-ups. And, if possible, keep an eye on the play, and offer help, later, if needed. And only in this scenario would the PU call of the BU, as the ball , from the get, is threatening the line Or, if the PU DID want to take it, and this should be pre-gamed, if he did want to take it, shout it, "I got the ball". This way, right or wrong, only one umpire is making a call.
ift probably is a catch and drop on exchange for one out, BUT with one ump calling safe you cant have a double play, he should have safe conduct back to first.
I think you have to go back to definitions on this. We get hung up on the whole 'exchange' part. "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". The word 'exchange' isn't part of the rule at all: "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" So you have to ask, did he demonstrate complete control of the ball and was his release voluntary. Was he in the act of making a throw following the catch? Its borderline, but to me, only using the real time view and not the replays, I'm going with no catch. It was not a voluntary release, and he wasn't in the act of making a throw following the catch (yet). But this is definitely a grey area call, so nothing but respect to those who don't agree.
Taking the ball out of the glove is part of making the throw, which is why it's referred to as "lost on the exchange." Making the throw (in the eyes of the rulebook, as noted by the phrase "act of making the throw") isn't just having the ball in your throwing hand; this includes a crow hop and shuffle as well.
TIMING is an umpire's best friend. You wait just a little and you can make a more confident call. This one is very close. I think it is a catch and a drop on the transfer, but the umpire has to use the "Godzilla" signal with emphasis to communicate to all players.
I have a catch. But in real time, no replay, I can see how they seconded guessed themselves. I looks like it's close enough to the line that it's the plate umpires call to make. Tough call.
I'll give my two cents before reading the comments...First of all, the field umpire has this call. The home plate umpire should be watching for legal tag ups. If the umpires had followed proper two-man mechanics, they never would have found themselves in this predicament. The field umpire would have made the call and that is it. This situation was self-inflicted by the umpires. If I am the field umpire, I have a catch with a drop on the exchange; double play.
The glove was closed with the ball in it. He then voluntarily opened the glove to transfer the ball to his right hand. Worse though is the PU asking his partner to reconsider his call without the BU asking for his help. Almost as bad is BU not telling PU to STFU and get the FV
I view this as a catch, but what more important lesson for Umpires is in this case it sounded like both umpires made different calls. This ball is in the Plate Umpire part of the V. The Base Umpire should not be making a call. This play is close enough if you get the mechanics right on who is making the call it cut out more than half of the craziness. Also, never a good idea to address both coaches like they did.
Thomas Naeger It's a no catch.Plain and simple , you have to have a voluntary release.I'm a carded umpire for high school and this is one of the first things I learned.
@@roccomanucci The reason he dropped it was because (after catching it) he released it voluntarily. He just did not successfully release it into his throwing hand.
The catch is complete once he reaches into the glove to retrieve the ball. Same principle as the transfer on the pivot at second base on a DP. The problem here is only one umpire should be making the ruling on catch o catch. In the two man system I worked in years ago the plate umpire made the ruling when the base umpire was inside with runners on.
That is incorrect. By FED high school rule, you have to have 3 things for a catch. 1) secure possession 2) secure possession through to the voluntary release and 3) voluntary release. If you don’t have all three, it’s not a catch.
OP’s description satisfies all 3 of the requirements you list. You are over complicating things to say it’s 3 things. It’s simply 2 things that happen in succession.
@@MwD676 Again, that is not how FED defines it in their book. For example...2 umpires, nobody on base, fly ball to left, this is the plate umpire's call as the base umpire is responsible for the runner. F7 is running in full-tilt, dives and the plate umpire sees the ball go into his glove. F7 rolls around on the ground and comes up with the ball...in his bare hand and he throws it in to F6. We have secure possession, the ball went into F7's glove. We have voluntary release, F7 throws it to F6. What happened in between? The plate umpire lost sight of the ball. He does not know for certain that F7 maintained secure possession through the catch to the voluntary release. It's possible the ball could have been on the ground at some point. By FED definition, this is NOT a catch and the batter/runner is safe. And yes, the defense's coach is coming out to the umpires on this and no, it is not a fun night at the ballpark.
In your hypothetical diving/rolling catch, I would still rule that a catch unless I saw the ball on the ground. I’m not sure why you are trying to judge something you didn’t see. But if you are convinced that the ball is dropped simply because you could not see it the entire time, then that is your judgment to make. (Maybe the reason you did see it was because the fielder actually maintained possession.) This all seems unrelated to the play in the video. FED: When the fielder signifies the initial action is completed by removing the ball from his glove and then drops it, he will be judged to have made a catch. OBR: If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw, the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught. FED is worded slightly differently than OBR, but has same meaning and standard for catch as it relates to making a play (throw) following a catch. Intentionally opening the glove (to make a transfer) is the start of the next play. If you are judging that he bobbed the catch before dropping the transfer, then you have no catch. But if the action of the catch is complete and he is starting the next play (transfer/throw), then it is a catch.
This is a terrible call! As an umpire, I saw the exchange right away! If anything, out to the batter/runner and the runner from first goes back due to the confusion. Easy umpiring situation here.
Unfortunately, the NFHS rules prescribe that one must catch the ball and retain possession of it in order to record an out. I believe the rule is different in the majors. The rule is written in a way that is dumb: for example if a fielder catches the ball and then voluntarily throws it straight up in the air, it's an out. Go figure.
Depends on which set of rules your following. We follow major league, defender needs to have a clear possession and transfer. Because he dropped it on the transfer, no catch.
The key in determining this catch/no catch is: did the fielder voluntarily release the ball? You may also understand this as "on the transfer." In this instance, after only watching the play in real-time, I have a catch, based on the outfielder voluntarily releasing, and then subsequently dropping, the ball. This is not a play where is necessarily a definite correct answer. Reasonable people can disagree on the correct ruling with this play, provided they can offer rules-based evidence to back up their ruling.
This is a catch. Because his throwing hand enters his glove this is considered voluntary release. After conferring with each other U1 rightly took the call and the correct call was ruled.
Umpires had to make the call WITHOUT REPLAY and ZOOM! In real time and at a distance. The right call was made even though replay overturns it. How would this call, and its review, be made in the days of no video?
Ball does not need to make it to other hand. Other hand does not need to make it to glove/ball. Only thing that is judged: was the ball held securely? And, was it released intentionally??
@@MwD676 Was it released intentionally? And you are wrong. A few years ago an outfielder from the Astros in the world series caught a shallow fly ball and flipped it out of his glove to Altuve who dropped it. It was later determined it should have been ruled a catch by rule.
This is not a catch by rule. As an NCAA umpire, what we would look for on a "On the transfer" call is not present. The ball falls straight down indicating he was not transferring the ball from one hand to the other. If he was, there would typically be a more lateral trajectory on the ball when falling. His hands did come together, but for the ball to fall straight down as it did indicates that the other hand did not have the ball. As well, I note that there are only two umpires working this game. With the LF going towards the foul line, this is the PU call all the way. If the BU made a call he did so in error, which likely helped lead to the confusion. The officials did the right thing getting together. NCAA is very rigid on getting the call right with the best information available. Don't believe the announcers in these situations.
@@prsguitars42 no, i didn't see the ball in his right hand. it's the *act* of the exchange that completes the catch. not the completion of the exchange, but the act of the exchange. fielder was in the act of (attempting to) transfer the ball from glove to the hand. Now he failed at that exchange, but the very act completes the catch.
The annoucers got at least 1 thing wrong! When they said that "We've got 2 of the best umpires here." If that were true then there would not have been 1 calling safe and 1 calling out. Anytime you have 2 umpires making simultaneous calls (especially if they disagree) is a sign of poor mechanics, poor umpiring! 2 man mechanics, Runner on 1st, BU should be in "B" position, he should only be calling flies to center or flies taking left or right fielders toward center, plate umpire has the flies toward the lines. This hit took the Left Fielder toward the left field line, therefore the base umpire screwed up by making a call at all... Now you have legimate arguments from either coach on whichever call is upheld... BTW: I see it a catch, dropped on transfer.
The field ump has that call, he is located in the infield position and is responsible for the call. Only time the plate ump should be involved is if the ball is close to the fair/foul line and he calls the field umpire off the play. There is NO catch on the play by rule. A catch on a batted ball requires the fielder to have control throughout the action of the play, which is different than a catch of a thrown ball. To catch a batted ball the fielder must catch and then show control by successfully completing another baseball play. Ie: hold the glove up showing clear control, tuck the glove and ball towards the body and maintain control, take the ball out of the glove successfully showing clear control or some other subsequent play that shows control. That is why a batted ball that enters a fielders glove who runs 3 or 4 steps then falls down or runs into a wall and drops the ball is not a catch. Broadcasters rarely get rules calls correct and should be mostly ignored. However, these umps clearly failed royally by not doing a parking lot pre-game meeting before going on the field to remind each other of proper ump mechanics.
No rule set requires “successfully completing another baseball play.” The rule requires firm possession, and release that is voluntary. That is all. So simply opening the glove after demonstrating possession is plenty enough for a catch.
In our rules (peibua) it has to be voluntary release of the ball if he catches it and then drops is on the transfer no catch. He didn't have secure hold on the ball. He droped it. I would rule. No catch
Don't pick the shitty end of the stick. He catches it, the glove even closes, brings the glove down, and either he is kinda flipping the ball out to the throwing hand, or reaching in, (after gloving it), the ball THEN drops , thats a catch, and dropped on the transfer. That Is "voluntary", as his actions doing that were voluntarily, transferring the ball to the throwing hand. It was an intentional act the glove now opening (voluntary), so he can grab the ball, and throw it in.. Because the ball dropped, doesn't mean it wasn't voluntary. And yes, in real time, one has to process all of this. So understandable how their could be confusion on the field. This just reinforces a critical and important part of any officiating..... Timing.. Timing... If your the umpire inside, and its your call, gain as much ground as you can towards the play, stop, get set, and watch how it plays out Fielder reaches up, ok.. fielder gloves ball, mitt closes. Fielder starts bringing glove down.. all "normal" parts of a catch happening now Fielder brings glove down, as throwing arm reaches into glove to retrieve ball.. still , at this point, all good. So if we stop everything right here.. and had to make the call to this point.. we have a "catch". So, the only thing left, is completing the play, however the fielder decides. Reaches in, to retrieve the ball, THEN the ball comes out. That is a catch. As pretty much most everyone on here sees also The voluntary release you mention, and looking for ? His action to bring the glove down, glove closed (after catching the ball), and bring his throwing arm to meet the glove and ball, is voluntary. That action itself.. makes it so. Timing..
If you are judging that he drops it “on the transfer,” then you are judging that he “voluntarily released” the ball to make a transfer. Voluntary release is satisfied here. Only question is if he initially demonstrated secure possession.
this one came back up in my recommends again, and I see I've even already commented on it. still a very interesting play. I doubt I've ever seen one closer to the (admittedly fuzzy) borderline between catch/no-catch. There is a newer interpretation of transfer/voluntary release (not newer than this play, but newer than how almost all umpires (including me) were trained): The new interpretation says that the act of reaching into the glove for the ball IS the voluntary release action - the hand doesn't have to remove the ball nor even touch it to count as a transfer/voluntary release. This negates the old judgment that a ball that falls straight down out of the glove was dropped, while one that flies backwards was transferred. I don't know that this interpretation has been accepted by NFHS or not; there's always danger in taking an MLB/MiLB interpretation and applying it to NFHS, but this is more about evolving judgment among umpires about what constitutes voluntary release than it is about any specific rule or ruleset.
That said, there are still requirements to be met to make a legal Catch of a batted ball in flight. NFHS 2-9-1: "A catch is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a live ball in flight and firmly holding it, provided he does not use his cap, protector, mask, pocket or other part of his uniform to trap the ball. The catch of a fly ball by a fielder is not completed until the continuing action of the catch is completed. A fielder who catches a ball and then runs into a wall or another player and drops the ball has not made a catch. A fielder, at full speed, who catches a ball and whose initial momentum carries him several more yards after which the ball drops from his glove has not made a catch. When the fielder, by his action of stopping, removing the ball from his glove, etc., signifies the initial action is completed and then drops the ball, will be judged to have made the catch..." (the rule continues, but that's the important part for this video) As I read through all of that and try to apply each part to the video, I alternate between catch and no-catch a couple of times.... the rule is clearly asking for something beyond the ball merely being in the glove for a moment. To me it comes down to where the burden of proof is: does the ball have to be proven caught, else it's dropped, or does the ball have to be proven dropped, else it's caught? The rule seems to be asking for proof of a catch. In the end, I still say "No Catch", I don't believe the fielder demonstrated "secure possession" nor "firmly holding it" before the ball dropped; had it dropped into his hand, fine, THAT would've been the catch, but with it falling so quickly and directly to the ground I don't see proof.
NO CATCH: ........ NFHS Rule 2.9.1: ".....when the fielder, by his action of stopping, REMOVING THE BALL FROM HIS GLOVE, etc......will be judged to have made the catch"...........that didnt happen...........
He most certainly “removed the ball from his glove.” You can see it right there on the ground after he opens his glove intentionally. He just didn’t successfully transfer the ball to his throwing hand.
How in the world can you screw up that call it is not a catch if it comes out of his glove unintentionally. Especially if you still in the act of trying to control the ball. But I am actually seen a player who got injured catching a ball and Fung the ball out of his glove and it was called a no catch. Because he didn't intentionally take the ball out of his glove with his other hand.
Transfer/Exchange applies to a tag or force out, not to a catch of a Batted ball. You need to have control with the hand or glove AND voluntary release. From what I saw, the ball did not release voluntarily from the fielder's glove. No catch and good on Blues for coming together to get it right..
Snapped Twig, you’re wrong. On the transfer. If a fielder drops the ball "while in the act of making a throw following the catch," this is a legitimate catch. This is often referred to as dropping the ball "on the transfer." This is a judgment call, but is typically called pretty liberally if it appears there was the intention to throw the ball.
@@bmcorc1 I disagree. The term used for a catch of a batted ball is Voluntary Release - and, in my judgement, the release was involuntary. So, really there's nothing to be wrong about.
The transfer/exchange is the same when turning a double play or when transferring the ball to the throwing hand after a catch (and the rule even says "the same definition of a catch would apply" Here is the relevant section of NFHS 2-9-1: "When the fielder, by his action of stopping, removing the ball from his glove, etc., signifies the initial action is completed and then drops the ball, will be judged to have made the catch. The same definition of a catch would apply when making a double play. "
after reading most of the comments on this catch/no catch the one thing that is lost in most of the comments is the act of the fielder having possession. the definition in NFHS is “SECTION 9 CATCH, CATCHER, CATCHER’S BOX ART. 1 . . . A catch is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a live ball in flight and firmly holding it, provided he does not use his cap, protector, mask, pocket or other part of his uniform to trap the ball. The catch of a fly ball by a fielder is not completed until the continuing action of the catch is completed” Excerpt From 2019 NFHS Baseball Rules Book NFHS itunes.apple.com/us/book/2019-nfhs-baseball-rules-book/id1441466888?mt=11 This material may be protected by copyright.
Damnit Umpires only 1 of you should be watching this. And THIS is WHY only 1 of you should be watching this. If just 1 of you calls this no matter which call it is you can claim it is your judgement and we can support the call and move on. But 1 of you... BASE UMP... made this a difference between a Double Play end of Inning and Runners on 1st and 2nd still just 1 out. BTW I am not arguing what the right call was. I'm not saying it is CORRECT both ways. Just that we could all live with it either way. Either we get 1 Umps GOOD Judgement of the call or 1 Umps BAD Judgement of the call... and that is better than 2 judgements any day. Because now the CREW looks bad period... everybody knows 1 of you was wrong. Plenty of people would agree with whatever call and some wold still disagree... now you are both suspect to everybody.
Спорт
This is really interesting. When I first viewed it in real time I thought he dropped the ball. When I viewed the replays it was obvious he caught it and dropped it on the transfer.
Unfortunately, the umpires have one shot in real time. Two calls is what makes it confusing.
I would call it a catch, drop on the exchange
I would agree with you. If they want to argue is tell them to tell the conference to fund replay then.
Yup
Nope....that's a dropped ball.
NHFS rulebook says not just on the transfer, but "voluntary release" after having full, secured control in glove....Rule 2.9. (1)
Voluntary release is a necessary condition of a transfer. So all transfers begin with a voluntary release to the hand you're transferring to.
In my opinion that is one of those rare calls that could go either way when one sees it in real time. In slo mo you can see that it seemed to be a catch with a drop on the transfer
I do agree with the commenters who say by standard 2-man mechanics, a fly ball to the left fielder moving towards the line is PU's call. However, PU should be yelling "John, I'm on the ball!" to let his partner know he does in fact have it and that U1 should mind the runners (this works out super well if U1's name is indeed "John"). Live ball communication is a critical skill for the experienced umpire; newer umpires tend to be deaf and mute while the ball is live or they shout things by rote instead of actually communicating. Still a work in progress for me, but I'm getting a lot better in the past few years.
2-man manual says that PU must communicate if he is taking the catch/no-catch toward the foul line. It also say that BU is responsible for the catch if the ball is on the vicinity of LF/RF unless PU communicates otherwise.
@@MwD676 that's more or less what I said ... PU should be taking any ball threatening the line, but technically all fly balls are U1’s until PU calls him off. That doesn't make it ok for PU not to take fly balls he should take, nor does it make U1 wrong to expect PU to take the fly balls that he obviously should.
It is very difficult to say whether or not the LF ever had control of the ball before attempting the transfer. That being said, I can live with either interpretation here. However, even had they ultimately ruled the batter to be out the runner cannot be penalised for an umpires mistake, so it would have been proper to return the runner to first base.
Good for the coaches for staying cool and not going MLB nuts for the show.
The issue is not the Catch/ No catch. The issue is 2 umpires making different calls. This call should be made by the Plate umpire ONLY. If a coach wants to protest the call then both Blues can get together after the play.
Josh Gottschalk that is the field umpires call. Not the home plate
Who told you its the plate umpires call, its the feild umpires call
Base umpire has all fly balls in the V position, since the left fielder was going towards the left field line it becomes the plate guys catch/no catch call
@@timbailey3846 correct Tim. How can you guys argue catch/no catch when you don't even know whos call it is lol. The V is the base umpire, but when the LF or RF goes towards the foul line, its the plate umpires call
in all fairness the outfieder was going more backwards than to the line. I'm good with either umpire making the call. That's why you have a thorough pregame with your partner to discuss who takes what
On the transfer out
Catch, he dropped on the exchange. Umpires came together which is good and this is their judgment call so I respect that. First time through I had a catch and a drop on the exchange. Watching the following replays confirms catch and drop on the exchange.
Catch requires voluntary release from the glove to be ruled a complete catch. Regardless of the exchange, if it drops out of the glove involuntarily, it is not a catch.
The act of the exchange IS a voluntary release of the ball. Because the fielding muffs the exchange does not change the act from voluntary to involuntary. The entire act is a voluntary act. This is a catch and a drop on the exchange. Again, a judgment call to be made. I have what they had. Catch.
@@baseballumpires6901 Dropping the ball is not considered voluntary. By rule, we use a line parallel to the ground. If a ball pulls back or up from the ground, it is considered a voluntary release from the glove. If it drops to the ground or below that line from the glove, it is considered a drop from the glove and not voluntary. This is a drop and not a catch.
No sir. I have a catch and a drop on the release. Plain and simple. Now you state a rule. I am unaware of this rule and I have trained many umpires in many leagues over the years. Please note the rule and what ruleset this rule is in.
@@baseballumpires6901 by "rule" I meant more guide for determining voluntary release or a drop, not an actual rule from the book. My mistake if that caused confusion. But as for the rule and ruleset for catch: its listed in the definition of the catch for everything from OBR to Little League: the release must be voluntary and intentional. A drop from a glove would not be "on the transfer", but an involuntary drop. This is not a catch.
Truly hard to tell 100%, but I'd say he dropped it on the exchange, so, it was the wrong call to say he dropped it. The field umpire called it a drop and didn't have the benefit of replay to correct his mistake. That said, R1 acted upon that erroneous call and advanced to second base without tagging up.
If they were going to say it was a catch and drop on the exchange, then R1 should be awarded first base and the second out should not count. It's unreasonable to consider him out based on the actions he took after a mistaken call.
Part of the problem is you have two umpires ruling differently on the same play. Even if whoever isn't primary on that call sees it for some reason, he shouldn't be ruling on it. Better communication between umpires and with the players, no matter what they call, would have prevented a fiasco. I'm surprised that there weren't ejections after this play...
Only the plate ump has that call between the cones. Base ump had no business ruling on it. It's a no-catch. It is not persistent and secure possession. Period.
Yeah what happened to the V or the U. Plate umpire has to the foul lines. So I'm going to say the field guy shit the bed on this one.
The problem is that is where the umpires switch responsibility. Base umpire has catch/no catch in the outfield, but plate has it near the foul line. The catch was made right where they would be switching.
@@keenanramsey1880 there is no switching responsibilities on a baseball field each empire has their own responsibility. The plate umpire makes all the calls to the outfield not just to the line.
@@mariocanales4735 as an umpire that works a lot in the two umpire mechanics, I can tell you that is not true.
Under FED, there are 3 criteria for a catch…secure possession, secure possession through the voluntary release and a voluntary release. If you do not have all 3, you do NOT have a catch. Mechanically, umpires are trained to watch the player through the voluntary release and when a ball drops down, that was not secure possession and when a ball pops upwards AFTER being secured…then THAT was on the transfer. I would also point out that in a 2-man umpire system, U1 starts this play in the B position in the middle of the diamond to the 1B side. Catch/no-catch responsibility is SOLELY U1 here. PU’s responsibility is watching the touches at all bases since U1 has the ball. There should NEVER be two umpires working the same play! Know your responsibilities, pre-game your responsibilities and if you see someone taking a play they shouldn’t be taking you have to call them off, “Joe! I have the ball! Take the runners!”
I could live with either call, whether I agree or not. What I could not live with is the lack of communication between the umpires. Coverage is something that should be reviewed before every game. The best partners I've seen or worked with also communicate during the play, if the coverage responsibility isn't obvious.
Yup. That's a big thing with young umpires. When I have a new partner I always check out of the corner of my eye if he is mirroring my out calls. If he is, I tell him nicely to cut it out. It's only a big deal when it's a big deal, like here.
With the ball dropping straight down, I would call no catch. The ball was not secured in the glove. A ball lost on the transfer/exchange will fall to the rear of the fielder. A bad grip while pulling the arm back to make a throw will still pull the ball back.
I agree with all who point out that a "double-call" by an officiating crew shows a lack of clarity on who has responsibility for what. (Yes, the Plate Umpire had the "catch-no-catch", here. The Base Umpire should have been watching the tag-ups.)
Every play, that happens like this is different. A dropped ball doesn't always go to the rear. Sometimes, yes. Not always. Don't ONLY look for this action. Judge each play, or attempted play separately
Just use timing. Move to the best spot possible, while the ball is in the air.
Then get set, focus..
Ball goes in glove..
Fielder actually squeezes glove
Fielder now starts to bring glove down.... voluntarily...
Fielder starts to bring his throwing hand into the glove.. voluntarily..
And, as the fielder, either starts to flip the ball to his throwing hand, or hes reaching in to get the ball, THEN it drops. All of this is voluntary actions on the part of the LF. That's a catch.
It would have dropped backwards as you suggest. The except LF stopped that momentum with his own hand.
WOW this is a hard one to call. These Umps are doing the best with what they have. At least there was no helicopters attacking them.
That was the home plate umpires call , LF going to his left towards the line. It was more probable a catch on the exchange drop... Than it was a clear drop.
Well done by the umpires. When two umpires give conflicting signals, you have to protect the runners and return them to the bases they would have been on had the erroneous signal not been made, and that means returning the runner to first.
Thats a catch, dropped on the transfer.
Catch, dropped on exchange.
Catch and drop on the exchange. He had to turn his glove over for it to fall out on the exchange. But then again, I’m watching on video, not real time as it happened with 1 look only at it.
However in HS, with the ball going to the foul line in Left field is the Plate Umpire's call not the field ump.
The ball was no where near the foul line, watch the video again. The ball was a good 20-30 feet away from the foul line. I wasn't the plate umpire's call to make, it was the field umpire's call. The plate umpire shouldn't have over ruled the field umpire's call.
Plate umpire should only call off the Base Umpire, if the ball is hit down the lines, or either the LF or RF is moving quickly, or rapidly etc towards the lines.
As this is now potentially not only a catch-no catch, but also a possible fair/foul call will be needed. In this play, the ball is basically a "can of corn", routine, the LF initially moves back, no urgency. Then, he follows the ball, and moves to his right a few yards. Again, no urgency. There should be no reason for the PU to call off the base umpire on this. Despite the LF moving a bit to his right, towards the line, doesn't now make it a trouble ball, or fair foul. The only thing, still, is for the BU to get set, watch for the catch.. and voluntary release (which I have)
I would call that a catch and the batter is out but I would return the runner to 1st base on the basis that because of the one umpire calling it a dropped ball he had to advance to second. If it was clear from the umpire's call that it was a caught ball he would have returned to 1st base ahead of the throw.
NFHS Rule 2.6.9: "....in getting S.E.C.U.R.E. possession....".........that stated: that was a no catch.
Quoting 4 words of the rule does not constitute a proper application of this rule...or any rule for that matter.
@@michaelhorsey5871 ic....so just make up or embellish the rules as we go along, correct?............
@@prsguitars42 he did secure possession. He lost it on the exchange. I can live with an out on the catch, but since both umpires made different calls, it put the runners in jeopardy. Out on the catch, keep the runners where they were, play on
@@mptr1783Your're right. It was a catch. My association used this vid as a training video. There were many things this crew did wrong from the initial call all the way to it's conclusion.
@@prsguitars42
You’ve cited NFHS 2.6.9 a couple places w/o actually stating the rule. I searched nfhs from 2023 back to 2012, and I only see 4 articles in rule 2.6-where are you finding art.9??
The argument here is HP umpire signals safe no catch.....base umpire signals catch, drop on transfer.....the argument is who's call do we go with, because the confusion put runners in jeopardy. Ball hit to LF towards foul line should be HP umpire, so if he feels no-catch(wrongly in my opinion), then gotta kill it and move players up one base. Common sense did NOT prevail on this play.
This call, all day long, is the base umpire.
Base umpire inside, 2 man mechanics, has fly ball coverage, LF over to the RF. Just because either the LF or the RF starts moving towards either line, doesn't automatically switch the responsibility to the PU. This is basically a routine fly ball. LF backs up at first, then , moves about 9 steps towards his right. Still not threatening the LF line.
PU should "call off" the BU, on this play (ball hit basically to straight-away left) only if the LF (or RF) is moving with urgency towards either line. Because on this one, not only a potential catch/no-catch, but also possible fair/foul. The play in this video, in this example, wouldn't call for the PU to take it. As the LF, though moving towards his right, is not moving anywhere close to the LF line. So, in this the PU shouldn't call off the BU
Or...
If when the ball is hit, and the PU sees that its right down either line, he should call off the BU "John, I got the ball" m "John I got the line"
The BU hears this, then focuses on base touches and any tag-ups. And, if possible, keep an eye on the play, and offer help, later, if needed. And only in this scenario would the PU call of the BU, as the ball , from the get, is threatening the line
Or, if the PU DID want to take it, and this should be pre-gamed, if he did want to take it, shout it, "I got the ball". This way, right or wrong, only one umpire is making a call.
ift probably is a catch and drop on exchange for one out, BUT with one ump calling safe you cant have a double play, he should have safe conduct back to first.
I would say he dropped it on the exchange, so this is a catch.
I think you have to go back to definitions on this. We get hung up on the whole 'exchange' part. "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". The word 'exchange' isn't part of the rule at all: "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" So you have to ask, did he demonstrate complete control of the ball and was his release voluntary. Was he in the act of making a throw following the catch? Its borderline, but to me, only using the real time view and not the replays, I'm going with no catch. It was not a voluntary release, and he wasn't in the act of making a throw following the catch (yet). But this is definitely a grey area call, so nothing but respect to those who don't agree.
Taking the ball out of the glove is part of making the throw, which is why it's referred to as "lost on the exchange." Making the throw (in the eyes of the rulebook, as noted by the phrase "act of making the throw") isn't just having the ball in your throwing hand; this includes a crow hop and shuffle as well.
That's PU's call since it's outside the cone, and to me it looks like an out since there was voluntary release before the ball was dropped
TIMING is an umpire's best friend. You wait just a little and you can make a more confident call. This one is very close. I think it is a catch and a drop on the transfer, but the umpire has to use the "Godzilla" signal with emphasis to communicate to all players.
I think eyes are an umpire’s best friend.
If you're going to try to "exchange" while you're "catching", ya kinda gotta actually do BOTH at the same time. I call this a "drop".
I have a catch. But in real time, no replay, I can see how they seconded guessed themselves.
I looks like it's close enough to the line that it's the plate umpires call to make.
Tough call.
I'll give my two cents before reading the comments...First of all, the field umpire has this call. The home plate umpire should be watching for legal tag ups. If the umpires had followed proper two-man mechanics, they never would have found themselves in this predicament. The field umpire would have made the call and that is it. This situation was self-inflicted by the umpires. If I am the field umpire, I have a catch with a drop on the exchange; double play.
That was a double play all day long. Drop during the process of getting ready to throw is after the catch.
The glove was closed with the ball in it. He then voluntarily opened the glove to transfer the ball to his right hand. Worse though is the PU asking his partner to reconsider his call without the BU asking for his help. Almost as bad is BU not telling PU to STFU and get the FV
LF moving towards the line is the PU's call in a 2-man crew.
Out all day. The drop was on the exchange.
I view this as a catch, but what more important lesson for Umpires is in this case it sounded like both umpires made different calls. This ball is in the Plate Umpire part of the V. The Base Umpire should not be making a call. This play is close enough if you get the mechanics right on who is making the call it cut out more than half of the craziness. Also, never a good idea to address both coaches like they did.
Thomas Naeger It's a no catch.Plain and simple , you have to have a voluntary release.I'm a carded umpire for high school and this is one of the first things I learned.
@@roccomanucci
The reason he dropped it was because (after catching it) he released it voluntarily.
He just did not successfully release it into his throwing hand.
I like catch on the transfer here...
Yeah, the announcer says "exchange" but umpires usually call it the transfer.
And the rule book calls it “voluntary release.”
The catch is complete once he reaches into the glove to retrieve the ball. Same principle as the transfer on the pivot at second base on a DP. The problem here is only one umpire should be making the ruling on catch
o catch. In the two man system I worked in years ago the plate umpire made the ruling when the base umpire was inside with runners on.
That is incorrect. By FED high school rule, you have to have 3 things for a catch. 1) secure possession 2) secure possession through to the voluntary release and 3) voluntary release. If you don’t have all three, it’s not a catch.
OP’s description satisfies all 3 of the requirements you list.
You are over complicating things to say it’s 3 things. It’s simply 2 things that happen in succession.
@@MwD676 Again, that is not how FED defines it in their book. For example...2 umpires, nobody on base, fly ball to left, this is the plate umpire's call as the base umpire is responsible for the runner. F7 is running in full-tilt, dives and the plate umpire sees the ball go into his glove. F7 rolls around on the ground and comes up with the ball...in his bare hand and he throws it in to F6. We have secure possession, the ball went into F7's glove. We have voluntary release, F7 throws it to F6. What happened in between? The plate umpire lost sight of the ball. He does not know for certain that F7 maintained secure possession through the catch to the voluntary release. It's possible the ball could have been on the ground at some point. By FED definition, this is NOT a catch and the batter/runner is safe. And yes, the defense's coach is coming out to the umpires on this and no, it is not a fun night at the ballpark.
In your hypothetical diving/rolling catch, I would still rule that a catch unless I saw the ball on the ground. I’m not sure why you are trying to judge something you didn’t see. But if you are convinced that the ball is dropped simply because you could not see it the entire time, then that is your judgment to make. (Maybe the reason you did see it was because the fielder actually maintained possession.) This all seems unrelated to the play in the video.
FED:
When the fielder signifies the initial action is completed by removing the ball from his glove and then drops it, he will be judged to have made a catch.
OBR:
If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw, the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught.
FED is worded slightly differently than OBR, but has same meaning and standard for catch as it relates to making a play (throw) following a catch. Intentionally opening the glove (to make a transfer) is the start of the next play.
If you are judging that he bobbed the catch before dropping the transfer, then you have no catch. But if the action of the catch is complete and he is starting the next play (transfer/throw), then it is a catch.
@@MwD676 I don't have secure possession through to the voluntary release. I have no catch. We disagree. I'll get over it...
Catch dropped while transferring the ball for a throw
It’s hard to argue with a routine fly ball. Maybe it wasn’t on the transfer (I think it was) but he didn’t deserve a hit. Lol
If the outfielder woulda used two hands on the catch, like he was taught in little league, the fundamentals, we wouldn't be having this discussion!
True, but once you get comfortable in the outfield you don’t waste time with two hands
This is a terrible call! As an umpire, I saw the exchange right away! If anything, out to the batter/runner and the runner from first goes back due to the confusion. Easy umpiring situation here.
At 2x speed I thought he dropped it. At normal speed it and a couple replays later, it’s a catch.
Unfortunately, the NFHS rules prescribe that one must catch the ball and retain possession of it in order to record an out. I believe the rule is different in the majors. The rule is written in a way that is dumb: for example if a fielder catches the ball and then voluntarily throws it straight up in the air, it's an out. Go figure.
For both NFHS and OBR(mlb), the rule is the same: firm possession, plus voluntary release equals a catch.
Looked to me like he caught it and dropped it while trying to throw before it was in his hand
He caught it, he dropped it on the transfer.
Depends on which set of rules your following.
We follow major league, defender needs to have a clear possession and transfer.
Because he dropped it on the transfer, no catch.
its a HS game, so NFHS rules apply. CAtch and transfer
OBR & FED have same standard for catch and voluntary release.
If he dropped it on the transfer, then he must have caught it first.
It was a catch. Fumbled in the transfer but had control initially.
The key in determining this catch/no catch is: did the fielder voluntarily release the ball? You may also understand this as "on the transfer." In this instance, after only watching the play in real-time, I have a catch, based on the outfielder voluntarily releasing, and then subsequently dropping, the ball.
This is not a play where is necessarily a definite correct answer. Reasonable people can disagree on the correct ruling with this play, provided they can offer rules-based evidence to back up their ruling.
No catch. Announcers need to learn what voluntary release means
This is a catch. Because his throwing hand enters his glove this is considered voluntary release. After conferring with each other U1 rightly took the call and the correct call was ruled.
Umpires had to make the call WITHOUT REPLAY and ZOOM! In real time and at a distance. The right call was made even though replay overturns it. How would this call, and its review, be made in the days of no video?
I think it is the right call. The ball came out of his glove before he got his hand in there to take it out so can't be called a transfer.
Ball does not need to make it to other hand. Other hand does not need to make it to glove/ball.
Only thing that is judged: was the ball held securely? And, was it released intentionally??
@@MwD676 Was it released intentionally? And you are wrong. A few years ago an outfielder from the Astros in the world series caught a shallow fly ball and flipped it out of his glove to Altuve who dropped it. It was later determined it should have been ruled a catch by rule.
Catch
I've got a catch & out.
Lost on the transfer from the glove to the hand.⚾️
This is not a catch by rule. As an NCAA umpire, what we would look for on a "On the transfer" call is not present. The ball falls straight down indicating he was not transferring the ball from one hand to the other. If he was, there would typically be a more lateral trajectory on the ball when falling. His hands did come together, but for the ball to fall straight down as it did indicates that the other hand did not have the ball. As well, I note that there are only two umpires working this game. With the LF going towards the foul line, this is the PU call all the way. If the BU made a call he did so in error, which likely helped lead to the confusion. The officials did the right thing getting together. NCAA is very rigid on getting the call right with the best information available. Don't believe the announcers in these situations.
Don't believe the announcers in any sport. They are wrong almost all the time.
I disagree. Drop happens on the exchange. Announcers were correct.
You actually saw the ball in his right hand??.....
@@prsguitars42 no, i didn't see the ball in his right hand. it's the *act* of the exchange that completes the catch. not the completion of the exchange, but the act of the exchange. fielder was in the act of (attempting to) transfer the ball from glove to the hand. Now he failed at that exchange, but the very act completes the catch.
Read NFHS Rule 2.9.1 then tell us if you still think that was a catch...…..
By the rules, that is a no catch. Remember, what constitute a catch? Did the fielder completed all the steps of a catch? That is your answer.
ummmm, yes he did. What rules are you looking at lol? HS game, NFHS rules, he caught it,then lost it on the exchange. Pretty simple
He dropped it. No out.
The annoucers got at least 1 thing wrong! When they said that "We've got 2 of the best umpires here." If that were true then there would not have been 1 calling safe and 1 calling out. Anytime you have 2 umpires making simultaneous calls (especially if they disagree) is a sign of poor mechanics, poor umpiring! 2 man mechanics, Runner on 1st, BU should be in "B" position, he should only be calling flies to center or flies taking left or right fielders toward center, plate umpire has the flies toward the lines. This hit took the Left Fielder toward the left field line, therefore the base umpire screwed up by making a call at all...
Now you have legimate arguments from either coach on whichever call is upheld...
BTW: I see it a catch, dropped on transfer.
Dez Bryant said it was a catch!
It was a catch all the way even without replay.
It’s a catch the fielder dropped it on the exchange from glove to hand.
The field ump has that call, he is located in the infield position and is responsible for the call. Only time the plate ump should be involved is if the ball is close to the fair/foul line and he calls the field umpire off the play. There is NO catch on the play by rule. A catch on a batted ball requires the fielder to have control throughout the action of the play, which is different than a catch of a thrown ball. To catch a batted ball the fielder must catch and then show control by successfully completing another baseball play. Ie: hold the glove up showing clear control, tuck the glove and ball towards the body and maintain control, take the ball out of the glove successfully showing clear control or some other subsequent play that shows control. That is why a batted ball that enters a fielders glove who runs 3 or 4 steps then falls down or runs into a wall and drops the ball is not a catch. Broadcasters rarely get rules calls correct and should be mostly ignored. However, these umps clearly failed royally by not doing a parking lot pre-game meeting before going on the field to remind each other of proper ump mechanics.
No rule set requires “successfully completing another baseball play.” The rule requires firm possession, and release that is voluntary. That is all.
So simply opening the glove after demonstrating possession is plenty enough for a catch.
Batter should be out I could see putting runner back on first if umpire signaled no catch
As an umpire I have catch and then loss on transfer.
In our rules (peibua) it has to be voluntary release of the ball if he catches it and then drops is on the transfer no catch. He didn't have secure hold on the ball. He droped it. I would rule. No catch
Don't pick the shitty end of the stick.
He catches it, the glove even closes, brings the glove down, and either he is kinda flipping the ball out to the throwing hand, or reaching in, (after gloving it), the ball THEN drops , thats a catch, and dropped on the transfer. That Is "voluntary", as his actions doing that were voluntarily, transferring the ball to the throwing hand. It was an intentional act the glove now opening (voluntary), so he can grab the ball, and throw it in.. Because the ball dropped, doesn't mean it wasn't voluntary.
And yes, in real time, one has to process all of this. So understandable how their could be confusion on the field.
This just reinforces a critical and important part of any officiating..... Timing..
Timing... If your the umpire inside, and its your call, gain as much ground as you can towards the play, stop, get set, and watch how it plays out
Fielder reaches up, ok.. fielder gloves ball, mitt closes. Fielder starts bringing glove down.. all "normal" parts of a catch happening now
Fielder brings glove down, as throwing arm reaches into glove to retrieve ball.. still , at this point, all good. So if we stop everything right here.. and had to make the call to this point.. we have a "catch". So, the only thing left, is completing the play, however the fielder decides. Reaches in, to retrieve the ball, THEN the ball comes out.
That is a catch.
As pretty much most everyone on here sees also
The voluntary release you mention, and looking for ? His action to bring the glove down, glove closed (after catching the ball), and bring his throwing arm to meet the glove and ball, is voluntary. That action itself.. makes it so.
Timing..
If you are judging that he drops it “on the transfer,” then you are judging that he “voluntarily released” the ball to make a transfer.
Voluntary release is satisfied here. Only question is if he initially demonstrated secure possession.
this one came back up in my recommends again, and I see I've even already commented on it. still a very interesting play. I doubt I've ever seen one closer to the (admittedly fuzzy) borderline between catch/no-catch.
There is a newer interpretation of transfer/voluntary release (not newer than this play, but newer than how almost all umpires (including me) were trained): The new interpretation says that the act of reaching into the glove for the ball IS the voluntary release action - the hand doesn't have to remove the ball nor even touch it to count as a transfer/voluntary release. This negates the old judgment that a ball that falls straight down out of the glove was dropped, while one that flies backwards was transferred. I don't know that this interpretation has been accepted by NFHS or not; there's always danger in taking an MLB/MiLB interpretation and applying it to NFHS, but this is more about evolving judgment among umpires about what constitutes voluntary release than it is about any specific rule or ruleset.
That said, there are still requirements to be met to make a legal Catch of a batted ball in flight. NFHS 2-9-1:
"A catch is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a
live ball in flight and firmly holding it, provided he does not use his cap, protector, mask, pocket or other part of his uniform to trap the ball. The catch of a fly ball by a fielder is not completed until the continuing action of the catch is completed. A fielder who catches a ball and then runs into a wall or another player and drops the ball has not made a catch. A fielder, at full speed, who catches a ball and whose initial momentum carries him several more yards after which the ball drops from his glove has not made a catch. When the fielder, by his action of stopping, removing the ball from his glove, etc., signifies the initial action is completed and then drops the ball, will be judged to have made the catch..." (the rule continues, but that's the important part for this video)
As I read through all of that and try to apply each part to the video, I alternate between catch and no-catch a couple of times.... the rule is clearly asking for something beyond the ball merely being in the glove for a moment. To me it comes down to where the burden of proof is: does the ball have to be proven caught, else it's dropped, or does the ball have to be proven dropped, else it's caught? The rule seems to be asking for proof of a catch.
In the end, I still say "No Catch", I don't believe the fielder demonstrated "secure possession" nor "firmly holding it" before the ball dropped; had it dropped into his hand, fine, THAT would've been the catch, but with it falling so quickly and directly to the ground I don't see proof.
... but I won't argue with anyone who comes to an honest judgment of "Catch" either.
@@davej3781 Lets say it was the 3rd out of the inning and no throw needed to be made. He wouldnt have dropped it
@@mptr1783watching it again now, more years of training and experience later, I've got a drop-on-transfer
NO CATCH
No question it was a catch then he dropped it on the transfer
Catch. The problem is that they didn’t talk about whose call it was.
Catch. Dropped on transfer.
catch. on the transfer
No catch !
NO CATCH: ........ NFHS Rule 2.9.1: ".....when the fielder, by his action of stopping, REMOVING THE BALL FROM HIS GLOVE, etc......will be judged to have made the catch"...........that didnt happen...........
He most certainly “removed the ball from his glove.” You can see it right there on the ground after he opens his glove intentionally.
He just didn’t successfully transfer the ball to his throwing hand.
@@MwD676 Yea....I slowed it down, that was the correct call. Catch.
Catch, all the way.
Big V little v that is all i gotta say in 2 man mechanics
Catch.
Easily a catch and then drop on the transfer
Legal catch, he is losing the baseball when in transition
How in the world can you screw up that call it is not a catch if it comes out of his glove unintentionally. Especially if you still in the act of trying to control the ball. But I am actually seen a player who got injured catching a ball and Fung the ball out of his glove and it was called a no catch. Because he didn't intentionally take the ball out of his glove with his other hand.
Tough one in real time, especially that deep in the outfield. Definitely a caught ball that was dropped on the exchange.
That's a simp;le one. Catch.
Catch batter is out, Outfielder deliberately released the ball
Might be on the exchange but it was messy, doesn't deserve to be a catch and an out.
A catch...but he won't make the minors with that exchange
transfer...not exchange
Sorry...don't drop it!!
I would call this a catch
Transfer/Exchange applies to a tag or force out, not to a catch of a Batted ball. You need to have control with the hand or glove AND voluntary release. From what I saw, the ball did not release voluntarily from the fielder's glove. No catch and good on Blues for coming together to get it right..
Snapped Twig, you’re wrong.
On the transfer. If a fielder drops the ball "while in the act of making a throw following the catch," this is a legitimate catch. This is often referred to as dropping the ball "on the transfer." This is a judgment call, but is typically called pretty liberally if it appears there was the intention to throw the ball.
@@bmcorc1 I disagree. The term used for a catch of a batted ball is Voluntary Release - and, in my judgement, the release was involuntary. So, really there's nothing to be wrong about.
The transfer/exchange is the same when turning a double play or when transferring the ball to the throwing hand after a catch (and the rule even says "the same definition of a catch would apply"
Here is the relevant section of NFHS 2-9-1:
"When the fielder, by his action of stopping, removing the ball
from his glove, etc., signifies the initial action is completed and then drops the ball, will be judged to have made the catch. The same definition of a catch would apply when making a double play.
"
Drop on the exchange it's an out
No catch
No catch….field umps call not the plate
Catch. Lost in exchange
catch
after reading most of the comments on this catch/no catch the one thing that is lost in most of the comments is the act of the fielder having possession. the definition in NFHS is “SECTION 9 CATCH, CATCHER, CATCHER’S BOX
ART. 1 . . . A catch is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a live ball in flight and firmly holding it, provided he does not use his cap, protector, mask, pocket or other part of his uniform to trap the ball. The catch of a fly ball by a fielder is not completed until the continuing action of the catch is completed”
Excerpt From
2019 NFHS Baseball Rules Book
NFHS
itunes.apple.com/us/book/2019-nfhs-baseball-rules-book/id1441466888?mt=11
This material may be protected by copyright.
It was a catch
E-7 all the way.
Damnit Umpires only 1 of you should be watching this. And THIS is WHY only 1 of you should be watching this.
If just 1 of you calls this no matter which call it is you can claim it is your judgement and we can support the call and move on.
But 1 of you... BASE UMP... made this a difference between a Double Play end of Inning and Runners on 1st and 2nd still just 1 out.
BTW I am not arguing what the right call was. I'm not saying it is CORRECT both ways. Just that we could all live with it either way.
Either we get 1 Umps GOOD Judgement of the call or 1 Umps BAD Judgement of the call... and that is better than 2 judgements any day.
Because now the CREW looks bad period... everybody knows 1 of you was wrong.
Plenty of people would agree with whatever call and some wold still disagree... now you are both suspect to everybody.
No catch .
Catch, bad exchange.