Official Game Thread - 6/24 - Bucs @ Marlins

[Surgnbuck]

Two open bases, IMHO, best way to pitch is nibble, don't give in

[Surgnbuck]

Game over



Joe, Castro, Suwinski, the replay guys in New York can all suck a worm

[Bobster21]

I never understand why teams react to any walk-off win as if it's the 7th game of the World Series. But any other win gets a calm reaction.

[ChillinStation]

LOL...Time to watch some real teams, Astros and Dodgers playing.

[Ecbucs]

at least the Bucs scored 3 innings in a row. That hasn't happened much recently (like the past few seasons).

[WildwoodDave2]

That damn call on the ball Palacios CAUGHT came back to kill us

[JollyRoger]

6B464B5A5D4C5B1B18290 wrote: The MLB definition of a catch says the fielder must get "secure possession" of the ball and "firmly holding it." I think that was the issue. Palacious got the ball in his glove as the glove came off and he rolled on top of it. The ball was in the glove but Palacios did not have secure possession of the glove with the ball in it.


Thanks Bobster for looking this up.

However I still do not understand this call

Here is why:

On a couple of occasions I have seen a batter hit a hard grounder back at the pitcher that knocked his glove off his hand with the ball in the glove. The pitcher picked up the glove and underhanded it to the First Baseman with the ball inthe glove. The batter was ruled out.

What is the difference? Neither player had control of the ball. The pitcher got the out at 1B, Palacios caught the ball in is glove and the ball never came out of the glove or touched the ground.

Seems to be an inconsistency in the rules

[Bobster21]

02272424311A272F2D3A480 wrote: The MLB definition of a catch says the fielder must get "secure possession" of the ball and "firmly holding it." I think that was the issue. Palacious got the ball in his glove as the glove came off and he rolled on top of it. The ball was in the glove but Palacios did not have secure possession of the glove with the ball in it.


Thanks Bobster for looking this up.

However I still do not understand this call

Here is why:

On a couple of occasions I have seen a batter hit a hard grounder back at the pitcher that knocked his glove off his hand with the ball in the glove. The pitcher picked up the glove and underhanded it to the First Baseman with the ball inthe glove. The batter was ruled out.

What is the difference? Neither player had control of the ball. The pitcher got the out at 1B, Palacios caught the ball in is glove and the ball never came out of the glove or touched the ground.

Seems to be an inconsistency in the rules
If you have possession of the ball inside the glove, then you have possession of the ball. When the 1Bman takes a throw at 1B, he doesn't have to remove the ball from the glove and hold it in his bare hand. So if the pitcher tosses the glove with the ball in it to the 1Bman, the 1Bman has possession as long as he's holding the glove that has the ball in it.



In this case, as the ball was going into the glove, it came off Joe's hand before he could control it. And as the glove hit the ground, he didn't get his hands under it to control it before it was laying on the ground with Joe on top of it.



It's like in football when a WR traps a ball by falling on it. If his hands are clearly under the ball holding it, then it's a catch. But if he doesn't control the ball and merely lays on top of it, it's not a catch. So Joe never controlled the glove with the ball on it before he was laying on top of it, trapping it against the ground. But in your other example, the 1Bman catches the glove with the ball in it and has clear control.

[JollyRoger]

547974656273642427160 wrote: The MLB definition of a catch says the fielder must get "secure possession" of the ball and "firmly holding it." I think that was the issue. Palacious got the ball in his glove as the glove came off and he rolled on top of it. The ball was in the glove but Palacios did not have secure possession of the glove with the ball in it.


Thanks Bobster for looking this up.

However I still do not understand this call

Here is why:

On a couple of occasions I have seen a batter hit a hard grounder back at the pitcher that knocked his glove off his hand with the ball in the glove. The pitcher picked up the glove and underhanded it to the First Baseman with the ball inthe glove. The batter was ruled out.

What is the difference? Neither player had control of the ball. The pitcher got the out at 1B, Palacios caught the ball in is glove and the ball never came out of the glove or touched the ground.

Seems to be an inconsistency in the rules
If you have possession of the ball inside the glove, then you have possession of the ball. When the 1Bman takes a throw at 1B, he doesn't have to remove the ball from the glove and hold it in his bare hand. So if the pitcher tosses the glove with the ball in it to the 1Bman, the 1Bman has possession as long as he's holding the glove that has the ball in it.



In this case, as the ball was going into the glove, it came off Joe's hand before he could control it. And as the glove hit the ground, he didn't get his hands under it to control it before it was laying on the ground with Joe on top of it. 



It's like in football when a WR traps a ball by falling on it. If his hands are clearly under the ball holding it, then it's a catch. But if he doesn't control the ball and merely lays on top of it, it's not a catch. So Joe never controlled the glove with the ball on it before he was laying on top of it, trapping it against the ground. But in your other example, the 1Bman catches the glove with the ball in it and has clear control.


I would have argued that Palacios never lost control of the glove or ball as he had the glove trapped against his stomach with the ball inside. This is not football where you have to have your hands under the ball. The only question should be, did the ball hit the ground yes or no. It clearly did not. The rule needs better definition as this cost the Bucs the game

[JollyRoger]

I think the Angels tonight had more hits with runners in scoring position than the Pirates have had all month