Two controversial calls in last night’s game, involving an attempted bunt and a caught fly ball, might have made the difference in the outcome of the game and thus require a review of the wording in the rule book, so you can decide if the umps made the correct calls.
THE BUNT PLAY
[VIDEO: http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=21312949&c_id=bos&topic_id=]
“The Red Sox appeared to have something going against Royals closer Jonathan Broxton when Cody Ross led off with a single and Jarrod Saltalamacchia drew a walk.
At that point, Valentine asked Marlon Byrd to move the runners up to second and third with a bunt, but it appeared a bonus was in the offing.
Byrd had his bat in the bunting position and the pitch hit him on the finger. The ball also hit the bat, and Nelson ruled it a foul ball, feeling as if Byrd offered at the pitch.
Valentine simply wanted Nelson to ask first-base umpire Tim Tschida for his opinion.
“Marlon bunted at that ball? He got hit [on the] finger,” Valentine said. “I don’t know why an umpire wouldn’t check. I asked him five times to check with the first-base umpire.”
What was Nelson’s reason not to do so?
“We usually don’t ask about a ball hitting a guy’s hand based on an umpire that’s 100 feet away,” said Nelson. “You go on the best information that you have, and also, if the batter had been offering at the pitch and the pitch had hit his hand, the result would be a strike and a dead ball. But my ruling was a foul ball.”
[http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2012_05_09_bosmlb_kcamlb_1&mode=recap&c_id=bos Ian Browne]
First, Valentine should know that an umpire has the option to ask for help, or not. If he is certain that he had the best view of the play, he is not required to ask another umpire for their opinion. An appeal is not a right, it is a request that may be denied. The most frequent “appeal” is on a checked-swing. Usually, the catcher will appeal to the plate umpire to ask for the opinion of a base umpire. In most cases, the plate umpire will decide to ask the base umpire for his call, but it is extremely rare to see a base umpire over-rule the plate umpire’s call.
In last night’s play, the plate umpire believed that he saw the ball, the bat, and the batter’s hand clearly and chose to not ask for a second opinion from a base umpire. Manager Valentine said he did not understand why the plate umpire would not check with the first-base umpire. The umpire was correct: he is not required to “ask for help,” as long as he believes that he had the best angle on the play.
According to the report, the plate umpire believed that” Byrd offered at the pitch,” that is Byrd attempted to bunt the ball. The term “offer” is mentioned just once in the rule book:
5.03
The pitcher shall deliver the pitch to the batter who may elect to strike the ball, or who may not “offer” at it, as he chooses.
The two verbs employed in this rule are “strike” and “offer.” To, “strike” means to try to strike, or hit, the ball; the word “or” implies an action other than a strike, or complete swing, at the ball.
Thus the verb “offer” is traditionally interpreted to apply to a bunt, an attempt to tap the ball gently and direct it a short distance in the infield, usually less than 45 feet, with the bat, virtually, in a stationary position. If the batter simply imitates a statue and holds the bat out and does not move it, most umpires will ignore the bat and call the pitch a ball or a strike.
If the batter makes a movement, forward, up or down, with the bat, it is considered an “offer,” or attempt, to meet the ball with the bat; this will result in a strike being called by the umpire. If the batter moves the bat backward, it is not an offer.
A second rule pertains to the bunt situation.
2.0
A BUNT is a batted ball not swung at, but intentionally met with the bat and tapped slowly within the infield.
The key word here is “intentionally,” as it supports the verb “offer” to describe a batter who places the bat in a position above the plate and in a left-right [E-W] position, perpendicular to the ground and then moves it with the intent of meeting the ball.
Logically, if a batter meets the ball with the bat, “UN-intentionally” [accidentally], it is still, in effect, a bunt; except, the ball then either goes fair or foul and is, respectively, put in play, or called a strike. [Most people know that, a batter with two strikes, who fouls off a bunt attempt, is called out. Also, a batter who fouls a pitch with two strikes into the catcher’s glove is out; if the catcher drops, or misses the third strike, the runner may try to reach first before his is tagged out, or a throw to first beats him to the bag.]
Thus, if a batter does NOT offer at a pitch and the ball first hits his hand or fingers, before hitting the bat, the ruling should be “hit by pitch” and he should be awarded first base.
Thus, if a batter DOES offer at a pitch and the ball first hits his hand or fingers, before hitting the bat, he could argue that the ruling should be “hit by pitch” and he should be awarded first baste. However, if a batter is hit by a pitch, while taking a swing at the ball, it is correctly ruled a strike and not “hit by pitch.” Thus, the logic would prevail that, since swinging [or striking at] a ball is the equivalent of “offering” at the ball from a bunt position, a batter that is hit by the pitch, while making an attempt to bunt the ball does not get awarded first; the umpire calls a strike.
In last night’s game, the umpire ruled that “Byrd had his bat in the bunting position and the pitch hit him on the finger. The ball also hit the bat, and Nelson ruled it a foul ball, feeling as if Byrd offered at the pitch.” He made the right call: if a batter offers to bunt a pitch and is hit by the ball, it is a foul ball and a strike.
My review of the video resulted in the conclusion that Byrd did NOT offer at the pitch and:
IF the ball hit the batter before it hit the bat, the batter should have been awarded first, based on the “hit by pitch” ruling.
IF the ball hit the bat before it hit the batter, the batter should have NOT been awarded first, based on the “hit by pitch” ruling, and the umpire should have called it a foul ball.
THE CATCH PLAY
Let’s read the pertaining rule:
2.00
A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it; providing he does not use his cap, protector, pocket or any other part of his uniform in getting possession.
It is not a catch, however, if simultaneously or immediately following his contact with the ball, he collides with a player, or with a wall, or if he falls down, and as a result of such collision or falling, drops the ball.
It is not a catch if a fielder touches a fly ball which then hits a member of the offensive team or an umpire and then is caught by another defensive player. 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. 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.
The Boston OF, Cody Ross, said this is what happened:
“I thought I caught the ball, took a couple good steps, then went to go brace myself against the chain-link fence, and the ball just kind of came out,”
Sox manager Valentine saw this:
“I thought it hit off the wall…I thought it hit his glove and then bounced off the wall. I didn’t know that they saw that. It’s not a catch unless you get it out of the glove voluntarily.” He correctly referenced the rule “has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional.”
Valentine ran out from the dugout and asked for an explanation.
“I asked (the umpire) what the ruling was,” Ross said. “He said when you catch the ball, you have to maintain control or on exchange. That was the ruling. It’s a tough call for him. I haven’t seen the replay, but it ended up being a huge play for them.”
The umpire ruled that Ross simultaneously, or immediately following his contact with the ball, collided with a wall, and as a result of such collision, dropped the ball.
The key issue is whether the OF had “secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and [was] firmly holding it.” before it was jarred loose by the wall.
The OF believed that he “caught the ball, took a couple good steps, then went to go brace [himself] against the chain-link fence, and [then] the ball just kind of came out,”
If Ross did take one or more steps with the ball securely in his glove, the correct ruling would have been an out. Any runners would need to wait until the umpire signaled “OUT!” with a hand gesture, before tagging up to advance a base or more. Since the umpire ruled ‘no catch,” there was no reason for the runners to return to their base to tag up.
But, there may be another reason that the umpire called it “no catch.”
Start at 0:18 and take a careful look at the catch here:
http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=21312949&c_id=bos&topic_id=
Just after Ross snags the ball in the webbing of his glove, he lowers it to his right hip and runs a step or two. Then, to cushion his concussion with the wall, he raises his glove and the ball pops out of the webbing.
It is possible that he pushed the loose, sliding ball against his hip, while he took those two strides toward the wall. In that case, he would not have complete control of the ball in his glove and the umpire’s ruling—“no catch”—would be correct.
Only OF Ross might know if the ball was securely in the glove, or trapped against his hip; in the glove, it’s an out; pressed against his hip, it’s “no catch.”
The umpire could make the case that, since he could not see the ball, he could not verify, if the OF had “secure possession in his hand or glove of the ball and [was] firmly holding it.” before it was jarred loose by the wall.
My review of the video resulted in the conclusion that the OF had the ball in the webbing of his glove, took two strides and, while he was attempting to cushion his contact with the wall, the ball was released from the webbing. Since I could not tell where the ball was, while the glove was on his hip, I would assume it was still in the webbing. I would have ruled that Ross had “secure possession in his hand or glove of the ball and [was] firmly holding it.” before it was jarred loose by the wall.
What’s YOUR call?
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
For all the latest news and analysis from BoSox Injection, follow us on Twitter, Facebook, or with our RSS feed.