Not a member yet?
Subscribe Now!

Perfect Game Forum

Messages in this topic - RSS

Home » College Baseball Clubhouse » Stupidest Baseball Rule Ever?

Want to make your opinion heard or just chat about college baseball? This is your place.
show rated messages only | you must log in at the top of the page to post
5/11/2012 3:58:52 PM

BeaverBob
BeaverBob
Posts: 1463
In the Oregon State/Utah game today, the Beaver’s center fielder caught a fly ball and collided with the left fielder. The center fielder was hurt, laying on the ground motionless, so the left fielder took the ball out of the center fielder’s mitt and showed the umpire that the ball was caught. The umpire ruled the ball to be dropped and as a result, the Utah hitter earned an in the park homerun.

Does anyone know the purpose of this rule? Seems like a really stupid rule.

I’ve copied the rule below from the College Baseball rulebook as well as the link to the rulebook.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/BA12.pdf

Catch
SECTION 15. The act of a fielder in getting secure possession in the hand or
glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it, providing the fielder does not use
the cap, protector, pocket or any other part of the uniform in getting possession.
In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall demonstrate complete
control of the ball and that the release of the ball is voluntary and intentional.
a. If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of
making a throw (i.e., reaching for the ball in the glove) after the catch, the
ball shall be judged to have been caught.
b. If a fielder falls over or through the fence after making a catch within the
field of play, the batter shall be retired and the ball is dead (see 6-1-d and
8-3-m).
30 RULE 2 / DEFINITIONS
c. It is not a catch if, simultaneously with or immediately after contact with the
ball, the fielder collides with a player or fence or falls down and, as a result,
drops the ball.
d. It is not a catch if a fielder touches a fly ball that then hits a member of the
offensive team or an umpire and then is caught by that fielder or another
defensive player.
e. It is not a legal catch if either foot is touching dead-ball territory when the
catch is made (see 6-1-d-4).
edited by BeaverBob on 5/11/2012
+1 permalink
5/11/2012 4:07:06 PM

BeaverBob
BeaverBob
Posts: 1463
Dodger Matt, I hope you don't mind, but I copied and pasted your post from the Pac12 Thread. Not only did it provide me with my chuckle for the day, it also shows just how absurd this rule is.



Dodger Matt
Bottom of the 9th, Home team is down by 3 runs. Bases loaded. A line drive to the pitcher, rocketing off the aluminum bat at an unbelievable 300 mph. The doomed pitcher catches the line drive, but unfortunately, the impact of the ball kills him. His corpse lies several feet back of the mound, with the ball firmly grasped in his smoldering glove. All the runners raced around the bases, including the batter, for four runs scored. But nobody removes the ball from the dead player's glove. The game is never ended, as the deceased's family decides to bury the pitcher with the ball in his glove.
0 permalink
5/11/2012 6:01:48 PM

Dodger Matt
Dodger Matt
Posts: 2424


Yep. I don't often come across something I think is so totally stupid it is ripe for ridicule. (Wait, no. I OFTEN do, but let's forget that for a moment.) But regardless, that rule is definitely worthy of ridicule and scorn. Would love to hear an umpire's defense of it.
0 permalink
5/12/2012 1:40:27 PM

Riverduck
Riverduck
Posts: 2290
Dodger Matt wrote:


Yep. I don't often come across something I think is so totally stupid it is ripe for ridicule. (Wait, no. I OFTEN do, but let's forget that for a moment.) But regardless, that rule is definitely worthy of ridicule and scorn. Would love to hear an umpire's defense of it.

So the prudent thing to do is have the ump come over, call the out, then tend to the knocked out player? I guess he could grab the mitt, and run over to the umpire.. Brutal. So stupid.. and I usually dislike the beavs, but for a player to get knocked out, and hold onto the ball, they should just call the inning over for the brilliance of the fielder..
Guess That will never happen again on the beaver or utah teams..
edited by Riverduck on 5/12/2012
edited by Riverduck on 5/12/2012
0 permalink
5/14/2012 1:53:27 PM

MiamiBaseball
MiamiBaseball
Posts: 218
I'm sorry to interrupt an Oregon State rant, but where in that rule does it say that you can't take the ball out of another player's glove? It's absurd to even think that is true, and that rule you posted doesn't even address that action. If the ball doesn't hit the ground, it is an out. If a batted ball lands in a player's glove, bounces up, and another guy grabs it, it is an out. If the ball is caught and another player takes it, it is an out. Again, you posted an irrelevant rule.

I can't find any story that describes this play, so I'm guessing that you did not get an accurate description of the umpire's ruling. Ten bucks says that the umpire ruled it down because he never saw it in the first player's glove before the second player went over and grabbed it. For all he knew the second guy picked it up off the ground.
-2 permalink
5/14/2012 5:04:51 PM

BeaverBob
BeaverBob
Posts: 1463
This is the second time this year is has happened in an OSU game. Once for the Beavers and once with an opposing team. This also happened several years ago with Jacoboy Ellsbury. The ruling was confirmed by the umpire at the game. The following language from the rule book is what initiated the call:

"the fielder shall demonstrate complete control of the ball and that the release of the ball is voluntary and intentional."

If a player takes he ball out of another player's glove, the release of the ball is not considered voluntary and intentional.



MiamiBaseball wrote:
I'm sorry to interrupt an Oregon State rant, but where in that rule does it say that you can't take the ball out of another player's glove? It's absurd to even think that is true, and that rule you posted doesn't even address that action. If the ball doesn't hit the ground, it is an out. If a batted ball lands in a player's glove, bounces up, and another guy grabs it, it is an out. If the ball is caught and another player takes it, it is an out. Again, you posted an irrelevant rule.

I can't find any story that describes this play, so I'm guessing that you did not get an accurate description of the umpire's ruling. Ten bucks says that the umpire ruled it down because he never saw it in the first player's glove before the second player went over and grabbed it. For all he knew the second guy picked it up off the ground.
0 permalink
5/14/2012 5:48:50 PM

MiamiBaseball
MiamiBaseball
Posts: 218
Again, you simply are providing an incorrect interpretation. Here is where the voluntary release rule applies: an outfielder catches a fly ball securely while on the run, takes three steps, and hits his glove with his knee and knocks the ball out and to the ground. That is involuntary release and no catch, even though he initially caught and secured the ball. The key is that it HIT THE GROUND.

There is not a play in baseball in which a batted ball that does not hit the ground is not a catch. In fact, this exact kind of play is discussed on multiple message boards. The answer from umpires on every single one of them is that it is a catch, no questions asked. As soon as the other fielder grabs the ball cleanly, you have the voluntary release.

I have only seen this absurd interpretation by a handful of Oregon State fans. No post-game comment by the umpire, no discussion by either coach, nothing. It was started by an Oregon State fan on Pure Orange and others have run with it. And all of you are wrong.
-3 permalink
5/14/2012 5:54:06 PM

MiamiBaseball
MiamiBaseball
Posts: 218
Another example, same concept. The guy who caught it and knocked it out with his knee did it while running toward center field, and the center fielder caught it in the air. No voluntary release, but it's still a catch because it never hit the ground. Very simple.
-2 permalink
5/14/2012 9:01:21 PM

BeaverBob
BeaverBob
Posts: 1463
You may or may not be correct about your interpretation of the rule here. I must say your interpration makes good sense to me. However, the simple fact is that you are wrong about how the umpires have interpreted this rule and called these plays.



MiamiBaseball wrote:
Another example, same concept. The guy who caught it and knocked it out with his knee did it while running toward center field, and the center fielder caught it in the air. No voluntary release, but it's still a catch because it never hit the ground. Very simple.
0 permalink
5/15/2012 5:23:10 AM

MiamiBaseball
MiamiBaseball
Posts: 218
BeaverBob wrote:
You may or may not be correct about your interpretation of the rule here. I must say your interpration makes good sense to me. However, the simple fact is that you are wrong about how the umpires have interpreted this rule and called these plays.



Except that I have not seen anyone other than a handful of Oregon State internet fans claim that this was the interpretation of the umpires.
-3 permalink
5/15/2012 7:58:52 AM

Riverduck
Riverduck
Posts: 2290
MiamiBaseball wrote:
BeaverBob wrote:
You may or may not be correct about your interpretation of the rule here. I must say your interpration makes good sense to me. However, the simple fact is that you are wrong about how the umpires have interpreted this rule and called these plays.



Except that I have not seen anyone other than a handful of Oregon State internet fans claim that this was the interpretation of the umpires.

i am a fan down south, and luckily this did not affect the outcome of the game, but almost did. Anyway, barring taking off the glove and showing it to the umpire, what else can you do?
0 permalink
5/15/2012 10:42:58 AM

ASU74
ASU74
Posts: 1045
Kendall:
Do you have any insight as to what rule was applied here & why? In your opinion was it applied correctly?
edited by ASU74 on 5/15/2012

--
Go Devils !!
Fork Off
0 permalink
5/16/2012 5:30:15 AM

CAT
CAT
Posts: 4
Simple response to the umpire that misinterprets this rule: If the ball never touched the ground, the guy that took the ball out of the other player's glove "caught" the ball and had the voluntary release.
edited by CAT on 5/16/2012
+1 permalink
5/16/2012 5:50:52 AM

MiamiBaseball
MiamiBaseball
Posts: 218
CAT wrote:
Simple response to the umpire that misinterprets this rule: If the ball never touched the ground, the guy that took the ball out of the other player's glove "caught" the ball and had the voluntary release.
edited by CAT on 5/16/2012


Precisely. This has nothing to do with a "stupid rule" as mentioned in the title of this thread. The rule is fine. And I still haven't seen any evidence that the umpires actually told someone that this was their interpretation.
-3 permalink
5/21/2012 8:45:35 AM

MiamiBaseball
MiamiBaseball
Posts: 218
What???? You are so anxious to get personal that you fouled up your whole post. I would be surprised if this is the kind of post that Kendall wants around here. Then again, maybe this is why this site is a ghost town.

Who said that I have never seen the play? I'm telling you that the original poster and/ or the umpire messed up the interpretation. And considering that I still haven't seen anyone confirm that the umpire actually said this, I'm addressing the original poster. When a play like this happens as described, it is an out. There is zero debate over that. There is nothing wrong with the rule. And you are so disgusted that someone would dare come to the Pac-12 prediction board to correct you that your only response is to act like a junior high kid.

Is that out of your system? Would you care to actually discuss the topic?
-2 permalink
5/21/2012 3:17:58 PM

Florida Beaver
Florida Beaver
Posts: 1218
[font=Helvetica, arial] [/font]
[font=Helvetica, arial]MiamiBaseball said:[/font]
[font=Helvetica, arial]When a play like this happens as described, it is an out. There is zero debate over that. There is nothing wrong with the rule.[/font]
[font=Helvetica, arial]Gee Miami...I guess no one is allow to say it is the stupidest rule ever because you said there is zero debate? [/font][font=Helvetica, arial]If the umpire or original poster messed up the interpretation, then please enlighten us less fortunate fans with your extremely accurate knowledge of what the rule is.[/font] [font=Helvetica, arial]No, I am not disgusted that a fan of another conference would come on this thread and correct me....I am just unhappy that a troll like you found this board. Go back to Rivals. [/font]It has actually been very nice this year not having to deal with kids like you trying to jack threads and fans of teams other than SEC and ACC can talk and trade viewpoints without the trash talk from "people" like you. Us Pac-12 fans have been very happy without you, ghost town or not.


And I AM surprised that you are the kind of poster that Kendall allows to post here.


But please, do enlighten us with something other than you not getting a confirmation of the call. We know you didn't. But as I said above...what IS the rule and why would he be out...and why can't it be the stupidest rule ever?
edited by Florida Beaver on 5/21/2012
edited by Florida Beaver on 5/21/2012
-1 permalink
5/21/2012 6:40:41 PM

MiamiBaseball
MiamiBaseball
Posts: 218
Having a little trouble posting?

How am I a "troll"? I haven't posted much, so you should be able to go through and find the posts that make a me a "troll". And explaining baseball rules to people doesn't fall into that category. Again, why the personal hatred? I haven't insulted a single person here.

You want the rule? Sure. The ball did not hit the ground. It is an out. The original poster is incorrectly interpreting the "voluntary release" part of the rule. That part comes into play when a fielder catches it, takes two steps, and then drops the ball, even though he initially had secure possession. That is an involuntary release, and it is in play, WHEN IT HITS THE GROUND. A ball that is cleanly handled without touching the ground is an out, no matter how many people are unconscious or how many people handle the ball. When the second fielder grabbed it and threw it, that was "voluntary release", and the batter is out.

I wrote this earlier, but I would be willing to wager that the umpire's ruling was that he himself did not see where the ball was when the second outfielder grabbed it, therefore he had no choice but to rule it down. I have had five games since this thread started, and I've asked every umpire crew what they would do, and it is 100% unanimous that they would rule the batter out IF THEY SAW THE BALL IN THE FIRST FIELDER'S GLOVE WHEN IT WAS TAKEN OUT.
0 permalink
5/21/2012 7:08:20 PM

Dodger Matt
Dodger Matt
Posts: 2424
That is most probably what happened. I admit I did not hear that play at the time it occurred, and I would bet it was something like that. Surmising that that is what must have happened is the only way to reach the conclusion that you have, and perhaps that is exactly what happened. But I have heard more than once the involuntary release rule used as the explanation for the "dropped" ball. I don't know why it would be brought up if the ump said he just never saw it in the fielder's glove. Could be bad reporting on the announcer's part or that he didn't hear the ruling correctly. I'm just glad we can finally bury that dead pitcher and call the game a victory for the home team.

The ironic thing is that Wazzu's outfielder in this last Saturday's game apparently caught a ball and held it for less than a second before he hit the wall and dropped it, but the umps ruled that a catch.
0 permalink
show rated messages only | you must log in at the top of the page to post

Home » College Baseball Clubhouse » Stupidest Baseball Rule Ever?





Powered by AspNetForum 6.9.9.0 © 2006-2010 Jitbit Software