I love these videos and they have helped me a lot. Umpiring was one of the most fun and nerve racking thing I've done. One thing that was told to us to do, was to say to our self was "That player is" and then make the call safe or out. This has helped a lot with dropped in transfer calls vs dropped so I'm just making one call. I also did this with pitches, "That pitch was a" strike or ball.
I just wanted to thank you for the videos you make. I learn so much and get entertained by every single one you upload. Thank you for being an amazing Baseball UA-camr.
I love this channel because I always leave knowing more than I did before. You do an awesome job putting these videos together and they’re a big help....Thank you very much for taking the time to create these and for uploading them for us to enjoy. I appreciate it!
When you have a second base umpire working from the outside he’s looking at the second baseman’s back. It’s impossible to see if the fielder has control of the ball.
keep in mind that the rulebook definition of a "Catch" shown in the video is for a catch of a BATTED ball, not a thrown ball. While we can and do use some of that to judge possession and control of a ball when making a tag play (whether its a tag of a base or a player, it's still a tag play), do not confuse the two.
On the point of a closed glove to demonstrate control. I've always taught my middle infielders to recieve the double turn with the back of the closed glove and the throwing hand whenever its possible. It is faster, but if it's not a clean catch and throw the Turner may easily loose the ball. This takes practice and trust.
When I played, I played second base because I didn't have a very strong arm. The mechanic is as you said, trap the ball between your throwing hand and the back of the web to turn a quick double play. The ball never enters the glove. If it's a wild throw where you can't catch it like that, go ahead and give up on the play at first, but make sure you get the lead runner.
3:50 - This play is NOT a Catch/No-Catch play. Again, the term "Catch" applies ONLY to a batted ball in the air. Batted balls that have hit the ground and balls that have been thrown are FIELDED, not caught. Be careful not to confuse rulebook terminology with lay terminology. ("Foul Tip" is a great example - it has a very specific rulebook definition, but most of what fans, announcers and even players call a "Foul Tip" is absolutely not but instead simply a foul ball)
It's likely that you are correct and are more in the know than I am; BUT, the following terms from the rule book led me to my statements. (Little League Rule Book which is based off the ORB.) Catch = "act of a fielder getting secure possession in the hand or glove of a ball IN FLIGHT"... Then later the definition of "In Flight" = describes a batted, THROWN, or pitched ball which has not yet touched the ground or... So while you may be right, the process of determining a catch/no catch in this situation remains the same as far as I am aware. Another example: If the pitched ball hits the dirt and then is fielded by the catcher...did he "catch it?" No, he fielded it because it hit the dirt first. That is why it's called an "Uncaught 3rd Strike" in the book and not a "dropped 3rd strike." But the rule book calls it a catch even though the batter didn't strike the ball.
@@MJHBaseball you're right, there is no shortage of confusion over these terms, and cross-over in usages. you're right also, that the rulebook does use the term "catch" in regards to a pitched ball and the CATCHer. So perhaps it's a bit too much to say "Catch applies ONLY to a batted ball in the air". However, the term "catch/no-catch" always refers to an attempted play on a batted ball in flight, and shouldn't be applied to a thrown ball or a tag play. Note also that when making a tag play, the ball need only be fielded, not caught, as whether the ball was in flight or hit the ground is irrelevant to a tag play.
@@MJHBaseball for Tag plays, stick with the rulebook definition of Tag: *TAG* is the action of a fielder in touching a base with the body while holding the ball securely and firmly in the hand or glove; or touching a runner with the ball or with the hand or glove holding the ball, while holding the ball securely and firmly in the hand or glove. It is not a tag, however, if simultaneously or immediately following his touching a base or touching a runner, the fielder drops the ball. In establishing the validity of the tag, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball. If the fielder has made a tag and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the tag, the tag shall be adjudged to have been made. For purposes of this definition any jewelry being worn by a player (e.g., necklaces, bracelets, etc.) shall not constitute a part of the player’s body.
and note that "Voluntary Release" does not appear in the definition of a Tag. We certainly can and do use judgment of Voluntary Release after a tag as evidence that the fielder was "holding the ball securely and firmly in the hand or glove" immediately prior, and "has complete control of the ball", thus validating the tag, but it's still not part of the definition.
@@MJHBaseball I just thought of an example to illustrate the difference between a Catch of a batted ball in flight and a Tag where a thrown ball is first caught. Picture a ball thrown to F4, slightly out of his reach; he reaches for the ball, receives it into the glove while off balance, tags 2B with his foot while securely and firmly holding the ball, and then stumbles to the ground; the ball comes loose as he hits the ground. This is an out as long as the umpire the judges the ball was securely held at the time of the tag and that the loss of the ball wasn't immediate; no voluntary release is needed. Picture the same exact action on a batted ball to F4 (say a line drive or a little looper): he appears to catch the ball, takes another step, then falls to the ground and loses the ball during the fall. By rule, this is a No-Catch - he must keep the ball through the fall and release it voluntarily. THIS is why I'm nitpicking you on the difference between a Tag and a Catch.
1:15 - most of the commentary about this video is about the original tag play at 2B. The foul-territory catch is worth discussing. This call hinges on what constitutes voluntary release on a transfer. In the old days, a transfer meant that the throwing hand had to go into the glove and grip the ball enough to begin removing the ball; once that happened it was considered voluntary release, and the ball could be fumbled at that point without invalidating the catch. This is no longer the accepted interpretation, because this is not how real baseball players actually play. Now, voluntary release on a transfer occurs when the throwing hand moves to the glove for the purpose of receivng the ball, and the glove is opened to allow the hand access to the ball OR to allow the ball to pass into the hand either by gravity or momentum (i.e. players often toss the ball from the glove into the the throwing hand). After the catch at 1:15, the latter is what happened - the fielder voluntarily released the ball from his glove, intending for it to drop into his throwing hand; at this point the voluntary release has happened and the catch has been made. That the ball missed the throwing hand and fell to the ground is irrelevant. The trick of course is successfully seeing this in real-time usually with an imperfect angle. Umpire gotta umpire.
I should note thought that the umpire must still be convinced that the ball was firmly held in the glove or hand, and that the fielder had complete control before the ball was released. You can't release what you do not first hold & control.
you are making calls based on the video being slowed down to 25% speed....keep watching it in full speed and that isn't the same call of voluntarily releasing the ball into his throwing hand....not even close
That is interesting because when I went to Joe Brinkman's umpire school back in the 80's, it was taught that there was a good way to see if a ball is dropped from the glove (no catch) or if it is on the transfer to the hand, (good catch). Joe taught that, if the ball, after the drop, goes straight down with no lateral motion, it was not a catch so call the runner safe. If it is moving back, as this one was, most of the time it is on the transfer because pulling the ball out of the glove would make a backward move, therefore, in this case, I would have ruled the runner out but I, and Joe B., would have been wrong because the ball did move backwards of the bag. I think this is one where the glove WAS too big because the second baseman was going to catch it in the web rather than in the pocket.
The additional play alluded to was clearly a catch. The catcher held the ball until he relaxed his glove hand to drop the ball into his throwing hand. The play at second was obviously not a catch. The ball popped out immediately.
sure looks like he held it when you slow down the video to 25% speed....but in realtime, it is clear he didn't have control of the ball and reacted when it popped out of his glove, it wasn't that he relaxed his glove hand, and his motion as you put it dropping it into his throwing hand was not intentional, it all happened too fast, more like a reaction to the fact he didn't have control of the ball and was making a quick move to try and catch it (because he didn't catch and control it to start with)
Its pretty simple..the first one is safe because the kid never had possession of the ball. The 2nd scenario, the player made the catch (ball was dropped during the transfer to toss it to the pitcher’s mound - 3rd out), but the out was still made.
Umpiring 101, you ALWAYS wait a couple seconds to make the call...because in addition to the reason shown in the video, it's less obvious if you make a bad close call if the runner has passed first base or home.
I'm going with no catch. The 2nd baseman's glove continues to close tighter after the ball pops out. This is not the action of a player intentionally releasing the ball.
That play should have been no question whatsoever, and it is a problem with the rule as it stands now that it even was questioned. Baseball got along just fine for a century where no one would have thought twice that that was a dropped ball. If you are rushing to get the throw off to the point where you don't close your glove, well, so be it. That is the risk you take. You might drop it and get no outs. It is baseball's equivalent of football's "he gave himself up" rule that rewards ball carriers who stupidly drop the ball after a catch or run when they were never touched to kill the play.
On the pop up to first, on a batted ball the fielder must exhibit control, usually thought of as making a subsequent move or play common to the game and we are looking for a voluntary release of the ball as a part of that next play if indeed a release is required ( for instance, a fielder may exhibit control by catching the batted ball and holding the glove up so the ump can see the ball is secured in the glove. No release required). On the transfer is considered on a caught thrown ball only.
3:06 - about the umpire's mistake: If you are U2 in this play, much better to get to the open-glove side of F4. It's not going to be a banger, you don't need a right-angle view of the front of the bag to see exactly when the runner's foot hits the bag. Instead, all the action you will be judging is the receipt & firm possession of the ball, the tag of the bag by F4's foot, the transfer and release of the ball by F4, and finally any potential interference by R1. That's all better viewed from the shortstop side of 2B; where U2 went here gives him the best view of the 6th most important aspect of the play, and the worst view of the top 5. Being in the right position can help your timing too, because you are seeing more of the play so you naturally wait for more action. In this video, U2 moves in completely the wrong direction and is looking at F4's back so as soon as the ball disappears and the foot is on the bag, U2's mind says "well I've seen it" and he starts making his call. Sure, in the end, timing is the issue, but good position and proper use of eyes _results_ in good timing. That all said, it is true that almost all plays at 2B are better viewed from inside, so the small field means U2 starts with a handicap but good movement appropriate to the play will get the umpire the best view possible.
@Black Bear I agree, I much prefer being on the inside, but on the 60' field it just doesn't work. I tried it once for an inning, there wasn't enough room, went right back outside. On the 70' field it's ok but I work on those pretty rarely. The solution of course is to work the fewest games possible on smaller fields.
@Black Bear it's all a matter of what you're used to I guess... I first started on the small field, so I'm fine with working outside and prefer it on the small 60' field. as soon as the field size goes up to 70' though, I'm on the inside. really, whether you're inside or outside doesn't make on lick of difference if you're not willing to move to get to the right position for the play.
everyone thinks its so easy making calls the whole game or maybe this was the 4th or 5th game of the day for you and you missed something or didn't let it breath long enough before making your call. I'm not saying I haven't or anyone in these videos didn't make a bad call. I had a batter do a hard shot down 3rd base line. by the time i got around the batter and the catcher it just pasted 3rd base. to me at the split second moment it looked like it didn't cross any of 3rd base. I called it foul. afterwards i asked someone in the stands and he said it crossed the edge of the base. i felt bad for blowing it but it is what it is and you stick to what you called.
Kid catching the foul ball that was a catch , he dropped it trying to get his hand on the ball to toss back to the mound. Batter out. The second baseman did drop the ball. You can see it from the field camera Runner safe.
When playing basketball as a teen, for a time I was injured, and ended up for a while I'm actually working as a referee in the basketball. And I was one of the few people ever allowed to referee my own teams basketball games. Because if you didn't want the foul called. You shouldn't have committed it. And I would call it exactly that way. That said, that gives me very little patience for umpires who get very simple calls wrong. I also have very little patience for rules that are too heavily worded. Because when you have too heavily word a rule. You make it not a simple rule. A runner running to first base who gets hit in the back by a thrown ball is called out for interference, is one of the stupidest calls I have ever witnessed. If you can't throw to the first baseman without hitting the runner, that's not the runners fault unless he intentionally moves into the path of the ball. Which is almost impossible to do if the ball is being thrown from behind you. Another one is calling a batter out we're standing in the batter's box and not moving while the catcher throws the ball to second base. The batter's box is exactly where the batter is supposed to be. If the catcher can't throw around him. That's not the batter's fault. And the non-call that I cannot seem to get over since I learned about it. Is if you're on first base and the ball is batted and you slide into second base and lose contact with the bag you are automatically out. As well as the person going to first base is also out. It's an automatic double play. It isn't even a judgement call. It should be plain to see whether or not the person lost contact with the bag or not. When I first saw this infraction called, Al Kaline was one of the commentators for the game, and he had never heard of the rule. And he played his entire career directly out of high school in Detroit. He's one of the greatest outfielders that ever played the game. Yet he had never heard of it. Three Innings later he actually word-for-word explain the rule. And I was in full agreement with the rule. It made absolute sense. Baseball is not intended to be a contact sport the mechanisms of contact are actually not very great in baseball. Yet that is still almost never called to this day. One other observation. A few years ago Calvin Johnson of the Detroit Lions caught a ball in the end zone clearly had control of it. Came down with both feet in Fair territory. Completing the process of catching the ball by coming down in bounds. But because he let go of the ball after the touchdown was called one of the referees claimed that he didn't have control of the ball. Saying that he had never put the ball in both hands. And that's not the criteria. In football all you have to do is be in possession of the ball and the ball make it into the endzone it doesn't even require the person to get into the endzone. Yet now we're actually reviewing every single touchdown. Because these guys don't even know what a catch is anymore. Just last season I saw a catch and as B man who intercepted the ball was transitioning it to run, he dropped the ball. But he had clearly caught the ball. And it was clearly he had lost control of ball as he was handling the ball to get it into a position he could run with it when he got here and dropped the ball. That actually happened twice in the game. Yet for some reason the team that intercepted the ball was not given possession of the ball because of the idiot calls that were being perpetrated. And now they're talking about removing the replay from football altogether. And I think that that is a function of these same referees who are intentionally making these bad calls but only in cases where the call is not reviewable. Such as whether or not a player that intercepts the ball actually ever had possession of the ball. Which is a stupid rule in the first place if you're going to allow review, it should be on all calls. And it should be more than two reviews in a game. Because I'm seeing a lot more bad calls today than I ever did in the past.
The runner is safe because he never had control of the ball in his glove. The catch for the third out was a catch because he secured possession of the ball and when he reached and turned his glove down the ball was released. Catch
it only appears it was secured if you have the video slowed down 25% like in this video...watch it full speed you can see the ball jumbling around in the glove which is why he missed it when it fell to the ground, he was also acting surprised because if he had control he wouldn't have fumbled the transfer to his throwing hand.
I almost don't want to watch the rest of the video because that is so obviously not a catch it should not even be a question. But I will watch the rest now...
A technique I learned (the hard way) at WR: at first base or any place where the fielder is stretched out, if the ball goes straight down, it’s not a catch. If it comes out at an angle, it was moved by the throwing hand and was a drop on transfer.
I've heard that one too, and have found that guidance to be largely useless now. If you apply that to the two plays in this video, you'd have both wrong.
There was the smallest kid for his age that I ever saw and his glove was some adult glove his dad used to use. The glove literally looked like it was almost half the size of the kid. He was a good player, but line drives to him would literally knock his glove off his hand.
MJH-Baseball you can't just make up terms and call them the rules....there is no reference to dropped in transfer as you put it in the rulebook....only an intentional movement...and him dropping the ball was not intentional....it is hard to make a judgement as to whether it was dropped or he was transferring as none of us can really say what was on the players mind when the ball dropped, the appearance he was transferring it is yet another made up issue you created in your mind when you saw and posted this. He very well may have been just trying to make sure he caught the ball because he felt it moving out of his glove and didn't want to lose the out....but hey you know exactly what the player was thinking and doing so it must have been a dropped in transfer, even though that appears nowhere in the rulebook. The player did not have control of the ball in my opinion and did not meet the point in the rule of intentionally getting rid of the ball, no he dropped it because he didn't have control....plain as day.
you can tell in the video he didn't have control by the way his glove is fumbling about, the ball was moving around in the glove before he attempted to take it out of the glove...so that means per the rule he didn't have control and it wasn't an intentional transfer, no different than the play at 2nd base.
The ball immediately came out of the glove no control, the runner is safe.
I Agree drop ball.
I agree but I don't know if the ball even went into the glove
it was a foul ball so the runner wouldn't be safe....it would be a dead ball and strike called and returned to the plate to finish his at bat.
@@jamesw71 No
I love these videos and they have helped me a lot. Umpiring was one of the most fun and nerve racking thing I've done. One thing that was told to us to do, was to say to our self was "That player is" and then make the call safe or out. This has helped a lot with dropped in transfer calls vs dropped so I'm just making one call. I also did this with pitches, "That pitch was a" strike or ball.
I just wanted to thank you for the videos you make. I learn so much and get entertained by every single one you upload. Thank you for being an amazing Baseball UA-camr.
Excellent MJH. Loved this one. Liked the brutal honesty about the 2b umpire pulling the trigger too soon. Thanks for telling it like it is.
I love this channel because I always leave knowing more than I did before. You do an awesome job putting these videos together and they’re a big help....Thank you very much for taking the time to create these and for uploading them for us to enjoy. I appreciate it!
I"m 100% in the "no firm possession" camp on this one. everybody safe
When you have a second base umpire working from the outside he’s looking at the second baseman’s back. It’s impossible to see if the fielder has control of the ball.
keep in mind that the rulebook definition of a "Catch" shown in the video is for a catch of a BATTED ball, not a thrown ball. While we can and do use some of that to judge possession and control of a ball when making a tag play (whether its a tag of a base or a player, it's still a tag play), do not confuse the two.
what?
On the point of a closed glove to demonstrate control. I've always taught my middle infielders to recieve the double turn with the back of the closed glove and the throwing hand whenever its possible. It is faster, but if it's not a clean catch and throw the Turner may easily loose the ball. This takes practice and trust.
When I played, I played second base because I didn't have a very strong arm. The mechanic is as you said, trap the ball between your throwing hand and the back of the web to turn a quick double play. The ball never enters the glove. If it's a wild throw where you can't catch it like that, go ahead and give up on the play at first, but make sure you get the lead runner.
and that does meet the definition of a Tag. when you catch it that way, the ball is held "securely and firmly in the hand..."
3:50 - This play is NOT a Catch/No-Catch play. Again, the term "Catch" applies ONLY to a batted ball in the air. Batted balls that have hit the ground and balls that have been thrown are FIELDED, not caught. Be careful not to confuse rulebook terminology with lay terminology. ("Foul Tip" is a great example - it has a very specific rulebook definition, but most of what fans, announcers and even players call a "Foul Tip" is absolutely not but instead simply a foul ball)
It's likely that you are correct and are more in the know than I am; BUT, the following terms from the rule book led me to my statements. (Little League Rule Book which is based off the ORB.) Catch = "act of a fielder getting secure possession in the hand or glove of a ball IN FLIGHT"... Then later the definition of "In Flight" = describes a batted, THROWN, or pitched ball which has not yet touched the ground or...
So while you may be right, the process of determining a catch/no catch in this situation remains the same as far as I am aware.
Another example: If the pitched ball hits the dirt and then is fielded by the catcher...did he "catch it?" No, he fielded it because it hit the dirt first. That is why it's called an "Uncaught 3rd Strike" in the book and not a "dropped 3rd strike." But the rule book calls it a catch even though the batter didn't strike the ball.
@@MJHBaseball you're right, there is no shortage of confusion over these terms, and cross-over in usages. you're right also, that the rulebook does use the term "catch" in regards to a pitched ball and the CATCHer. So perhaps it's a bit too much to say "Catch applies ONLY to a batted ball in the air". However, the term "catch/no-catch" always refers to an attempted play on a batted ball in flight, and shouldn't be applied to a thrown ball or a tag play. Note also that when making a tag play, the ball need only be fielded, not caught, as whether the ball was in flight or hit the ground is irrelevant to a tag play.
@@MJHBaseball for Tag plays, stick with the rulebook definition of Tag:
*TAG* is the action of a fielder in touching a base with the body while holding the ball securely and firmly in the hand or glove; or touching a runner with the ball or with the hand or glove holding the ball, while holding the ball securely and firmly in the hand or glove. It is not a tag, however, if simultaneously or immediately following his touching a base or touching a runner, the fielder drops the ball. In establishing the validity of the tag, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball. If the fielder has made a tag and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the tag, the tag shall be adjudged to have been made. For purposes of this definition any jewelry being worn by a player (e.g., necklaces, bracelets, etc.) shall not constitute a part of the player’s body.
and note that "Voluntary Release" does not appear in the definition of a Tag. We certainly can and do use judgment of Voluntary Release after a tag as evidence that the fielder was "holding the ball securely and firmly in the hand or glove" immediately prior, and "has complete control of the ball", thus validating the tag, but it's still not part of the definition.
@@MJHBaseball I just thought of an example to illustrate the difference between a Catch of a batted ball in flight and a Tag where a thrown ball is first caught. Picture a ball thrown to F4, slightly out of his reach; he reaches for the ball, receives it into the glove while off balance, tags 2B with his foot while securely and firmly holding the ball, and then stumbles to the ground; the ball comes loose as he hits the ground. This is an out as long as the umpire the judges the ball was securely held at the time of the tag and that the loss of the ball wasn't immediate; no voluntary release is needed. Picture the same exact action on a batted ball to F4 (say a line drive or a little looper): he appears to catch the ball, takes another step, then falls to the ground and loses the ball during the fall. By rule, this is a No-Catch - he must keep the ball through the fall and release it voluntarily. THIS is why I'm nitpicking you on the difference between a Tag and a Catch.
1:15 - most of the commentary about this video is about the original tag play at 2B. The foul-territory catch is worth discussing. This call hinges on what constitutes voluntary release on a transfer.
In the old days, a transfer meant that the throwing hand had to go into the glove and grip the ball enough to begin removing the ball; once that happened it was considered voluntary release, and the ball could be fumbled at that point without invalidating the catch. This is no longer the accepted interpretation, because this is not how real baseball players actually play.
Now, voluntary release on a transfer occurs when the throwing hand moves to the glove for the purpose of receivng the ball, and the glove is opened to allow the hand access to the ball OR to allow the ball to pass into the hand either by gravity or momentum (i.e. players often toss the ball from the glove into the the throwing hand). After the catch at 1:15, the latter is what happened - the fielder voluntarily released the ball from his glove, intending for it to drop into his throwing hand; at this point the voluntary release has happened and the catch has been made. That the ball missed the throwing hand and fell to the ground is irrelevant.
The trick of course is successfully seeing this in real-time usually with an imperfect angle. Umpire gotta umpire.
I should note thought that the umpire must still be convinced that the ball was firmly held in the glove or hand, and that the fielder had complete control before the ball was released. You can't release what you do not first hold & control.
you are making calls based on the video being slowed down to 25% speed....keep watching it in full speed and that isn't the same call of voluntarily releasing the ball into his throwing hand....not even close
That is interesting because when I went to Joe Brinkman's umpire school back in the 80's, it was taught that there was a good way to see if a ball is dropped from the glove (no catch) or if it is on the transfer to the hand, (good catch). Joe taught that, if the ball, after the drop, goes straight down with no lateral motion, it was not a catch so call the runner safe. If it is moving back, as this one was, most of the time it is on the transfer because pulling the ball out of the glove would make a backward move, therefore, in this case, I would have ruled the runner out but I, and Joe B., would have been wrong because the ball did move backwards of the bag. I think this is one where the glove WAS too big because the second baseman was going to catch it in the web rather than in the pocket.
The additional play alluded to was clearly a catch. The catcher held the ball until he relaxed his glove hand to drop the ball into his throwing hand. The play at second was obviously not a catch. The ball popped out immediately.
sure looks like he held it when you slow down the video to 25% speed....but in realtime, it is clear he didn't have control of the ball and reacted when it popped out of his glove, it wasn't that he relaxed his glove hand, and his motion as you put it dropping it into his throwing hand was not intentional, it all happened too fast, more like a reaction to the fact he didn't have control of the ball and was making a quick move to try and catch it (because he didn't catch and control it to start with)
Its pretty simple..the first one is safe because the kid never had possession of the ball. The 2nd scenario, the player made the catch (ball was dropped during the transfer to toss it to the pitcher’s mound - 3rd out), but the out was still made.
Who’s this umpire instructor? Seems like someone that’s very beneficial to watch
John Gallante - Tri-State Elite Umpires Association. He has some videos on his UA-cam channel worth watching.
Love your videos
I had to learn to slow down while calling bases and also while refereeing high school basketball . Make sure before anticipating the call
Umpiring 101, you ALWAYS wait a couple seconds to make the call...because in addition to the reason shown in the video, it's less obvious if you make a bad close call if the runner has passed first base or home.
I'm going with no catch. The 2nd baseman's glove continues to close tighter after the ball pops out. This is not the action of a player intentionally releasing the ball.
Obviously safe there, my dad was old school and sometimes on an easy flip like that would just use the back of his glove and bare hand.
To avoid a "double call," my advice is simple: SLOW DOWN. LET THE PLAY HAPPEN IN ITS' ENTIRETY. ⚾️
I would have called the runner going into second safe. The ball was not in full control by the second baseman.
That play should have been no question whatsoever, and it is a problem with the rule as it stands now that it even was questioned. Baseball got along just fine for a century where no one would have thought twice that that was a dropped ball. If you are rushing to get the throw off to the point where you don't close your glove, well, so be it. That is the risk you take. You might drop it and get no outs. It is baseball's equivalent of football's "he gave himself up" rule that rewards ball carriers who stupidly drop the ball after a catch or run when they were never touched to kill the play.
as that umpiring training from a place called zoned?
Safe on the error to second baseman
I lost it when you said it was a mistake using a big glove. That second basemans glove was as big as his head smh
Thanks for this bro
On the pop up to first, on a batted ball the fielder must exhibit control, usually thought of as making a subsequent move or play common to the game and we are looking for a voluntary release of the ball as a part of that next play if indeed a release is required ( for instance, a fielder may exhibit control by catching the batted ball and holding the glove up so the ump can see the ball is secured in the glove. No release required). On the transfer is considered on a caught thrown ball only.
3:06 - about the umpire's mistake: If you are U2 in this play, much better to get to the open-glove side of F4. It's not going to be a banger, you don't need a right-angle view of the front of the bag to see exactly when the runner's foot hits the bag. Instead, all the action you will be judging is the receipt & firm possession of the ball, the tag of the bag by F4's foot, the transfer and release of the ball by F4, and finally any potential interference by R1. That's all better viewed from the shortstop side of 2B; where U2 went here gives him the best view of the 6th most important aspect of the play, and the worst view of the top 5. Being in the right position can help your timing too, because you are seeing more of the play so you naturally wait for more action. In this video, U2 moves in completely the wrong direction and is looking at F4's back so as soon as the ball disappears and the foot is on the bag, U2's mind says "well I've seen it" and he starts making his call. Sure, in the end, timing is the issue, but good position and proper use of eyes _results_ in good timing.
That all said, it is true that almost all plays at 2B are better viewed from inside, so the small field means U2 starts with a handicap but good movement appropriate to the play will get the umpire the best view possible.
@Black Bear I agree, I much prefer being on the inside, but on the 60' field it just doesn't work. I tried it once for an inning, there wasn't enough room, went right back outside. On the 70' field it's ok but I work on those pretty rarely. The solution of course is to work the fewest games possible on smaller fields.
@Black Bear it's all a matter of what you're used to I guess... I first started on the small field, so I'm fine with working outside and prefer it on the small 60' field. as soon as the field size goes up to 70' though, I'm on the inside. really, whether you're inside or outside doesn't make on lick of difference if you're not willing to move to get to the right position for the play.
everyone thinks its so easy making calls the whole game or maybe this was the 4th or 5th game of the day for you and you missed something or didn't let it breath long enough before making your call. I'm not saying I haven't or anyone in these videos didn't make a bad call. I had a batter do a hard shot down 3rd base line. by the time i got around the batter and the catcher it just pasted 3rd base. to me at the split second moment it looked like it didn't cross any of 3rd base. I called it foul. afterwards i asked someone in the stands and he said it crossed the edge of the base. i felt bad for blowing it but it is what it is and you stick to what you called.
I have no catch
I have no control of the ball.
Kid catching the foul ball that was a catch , he dropped it trying to get his hand on the ball to toss back to the mound. Batter out. The second baseman did drop the ball. You can see it from the field camera Runner safe.
When playing basketball as a teen, for a time I was injured, and ended up for a while I'm actually working as a referee in the basketball. And I was one of the few people ever allowed to referee my own teams basketball games. Because if you didn't want the foul called. You shouldn't have committed it. And I would call it exactly that way.
That said, that gives me very little patience for umpires who get very simple calls wrong. I also have very little patience for rules that are too heavily worded. Because when you have too heavily word a rule. You make it not a simple rule. A runner running to first base who gets hit in the back by a thrown ball is called out for interference, is one of the stupidest calls I have ever witnessed. If you can't throw to the first baseman without hitting the runner, that's not the runners fault unless he intentionally moves into the path of the ball. Which is almost impossible to do if the ball is being thrown from behind you. Another one is calling a batter out we're standing in the batter's box and not moving while the catcher throws the ball to second base. The batter's box is exactly where the batter is supposed to be. If the catcher can't throw around him. That's not the batter's fault. And the non-call that I cannot seem to get over since I learned about it. Is if you're on first base and the ball is batted and you slide into second base and lose contact with the bag you are automatically out. As well as the person going to first base is also out. It's an automatic double play. It isn't even a judgement call. It should be plain to see whether or not the person lost contact with the bag or not.
When I first saw this infraction called, Al Kaline was one of the commentators for the game, and he had never heard of the rule. And he played his entire career directly out of high school in Detroit. He's one of the greatest outfielders that ever played the game. Yet he had never heard of it. Three Innings later he actually word-for-word explain the rule. And I was in full agreement with the rule. It made absolute sense. Baseball is not intended to be a contact sport the mechanisms of contact are actually not very great in baseball. Yet that is still almost never called to this day.
One other observation. A few years ago Calvin Johnson of the Detroit Lions caught a ball in the end zone clearly had control of it. Came down with both feet in Fair territory. Completing the process of catching the ball by coming down in bounds. But because he let go of the ball after the touchdown was called one of the referees claimed that he didn't have control of the ball. Saying that he had never put the ball in both hands. And that's not the criteria. In football all you have to do is be in possession of the ball and the ball make it into the endzone it doesn't even require the person to get into the endzone. Yet now we're actually reviewing every single touchdown. Because these guys don't even know what a catch is anymore. Just last season I saw a catch and as B man who intercepted the ball was transitioning it to run, he dropped the ball. But he had clearly caught the ball. And it was clearly he had lost control of ball as he was handling the ball to get it into a position he could run with it when he got here and dropped the ball. That actually happened twice in the game. Yet for some reason the team that intercepted the ball was not given possession of the ball because of the idiot calls that were being perpetrated. And now they're talking about removing the replay from football altogether. And I think that that is a function of these same referees who are intentionally making these bad calls but only in cases where the call is not reviewable. Such as whether or not a player that intercepts the ball actually ever had possession of the ball. Which is a stupid rule in the first place if you're going to allow review, it should be on all calls. And it should be more than two reviews in a game. Because I'm seeing a lot more bad calls today than I ever did in the past.
The runner is safe because he never had control of the ball in his glove. The catch for the third out was a catch because he secured possession of the ball and when he reached and turned his glove down the ball was released. Catch
it only appears it was secured if you have the video slowed down 25% like in this video...watch it full speed you can see the ball jumbling around in the glove which is why he missed it when it fell to the ground, he was also acting surprised because if he had control he wouldn't have fumbled the transfer to his throwing hand.
I almost don't want to watch the rest of the video because that is so obviously not a catch it should not even be a question. But I will watch the rest now...
you have to catch the bal and hold on to it to get the runner out
A technique I learned (the hard way) at WR: at first base or any place where the fielder is stretched out, if the ball goes straight down, it’s not a catch. If it comes out at an angle, it was moved by the throwing hand and was a drop on transfer.
I've heard that one too, and have found that guidance to be largely useless now. If you apply that to the two plays in this video, you'd have both wrong.
i do not think this is a catch he did not have complete control over the ball
Terrible timing by umpire. Why did right hand come up?
Have you seen his glove? It’s giants
There was the smallest kid for his age that I ever saw and his glove was some adult glove his dad used to use. The glove literally looked like it was almost half the size of the kid. He was a good player, but line drives to him would literally knock his glove off his hand.
no catch, never had control of the ball at any time.
No Catch!....but the base ump tho.... not executing "Pause, Read, React", makes me cringe!
Lost control in the transfer no catch.
Umpires SLOW DOWN.
Safe, anytime the ball falls out of a mitt, it is not a catch
No catch hit the web hand never touch the ball
If the umpire didnt rush his call he would have been able to watch the play through --- this was not a catch.
No catch
No catch.
MJH-Baseball you can't just make up terms and call them the rules....there is no reference to dropped in transfer as you put it in the rulebook....only an intentional movement...and him dropping the ball was not intentional....it is hard to make a judgement as to whether it was dropped or he was transferring as none of us can really say what was on the players mind when the ball dropped, the appearance he was transferring it is yet another made up issue you created in your mind when you saw and posted this. He very well may have been just trying to make sure he caught the ball because he felt it moving out of his glove and didn't want to lose the out....but hey you know exactly what the player was thinking and doing so it must have been a dropped in transfer, even though that appears nowhere in the rulebook. The player did not have control of the ball in my opinion and did not meet the point in the rule of intentionally getting rid of the ball, no he dropped it because he didn't have control....plain as day.
you can tell in the video he didn't have control by the way his glove is fumbling about, the ball was moving around in the glove before he attempted to take it out of the glove...so that means per the rule he didn't have control and it wasn't an intentional transfer, no different than the play at 2nd base.