Catch or homerun?

[smddad]

Assuming the ball was actually caught.

She caught the ball. They ruled an out. HC protested and the UIC & Tournament director ruled an out.

 

[Comp]

She caught the ball. They ruled an out. HC protested and the UIC & Tournament director ruled an out.

Did any of them actually look at the rule?

 

[smddad]

Did any of them actually look at the rule?

No, they did not.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

There was a bad call in the 2010 PGF 18U Championship game where they ruled HR and it should have been a catch. Here's what that ump posted about his call afterward.

My ruling in Sunday's game was incorrect. From my angle, while in pursuit of the ball, the centerfielder knocked the fence down while jumping for the ball. While in flight, the player contacted the fence with her right foot before catching the ball. Under NFHS rules, contacting the fence while it is still on its way down in considered to be in live ball territory. This should have been ruled a catch. I was wrong.

 

[Comp]

The type of fence in the photo is never going to go completely horizontal to the ground, but in the photo that is about as horizontal as that type of fence is going to get. In real time Im sure the call could go either way, in the freeze frame the knee is not yet touching the ground, but the ball is also not yet in the glove. But, her right arm is extended and may very well already be on the ground beyond the fence line and the view is blocked by her body.

 

[Cannonball]

Under fed rules it would be a home run. If the player is on top of a collapsed fence they are considered to be out of play. In asa this would be an out, collapsed fence is an extension of the playing area.

Assuming the ball was actually caught.

This^^^^^^^^^^ I've seen this call a couple of times.

 

[obbay]

I may be confusing rule sets as I don't really know, but my understanding was that for a catch to be valid either your feet have to be on the field or, if in the air at the time of catch, have to land in the field of play. I'm not arguing for either side, just want to understand better.

I was thinking it was like the football analogy: catching a pass while stretched out horizontally with only the toes in-bounds vs catching the ball the exact same way only with the feet on the wrong side of the line. Or in baseball jumping up to make a catch and landing in the bleachers.

If that was a 6'-0" tall permanent fence, it looks like it wouldn't have gone over, but would she still have made a catch?

 

[Ajaywill]

I may be confusing rule sets as I don't really know, but my understanding was that for a catch to be valid either your feet have to be on the field or, if in the air at the time of catch, have to land in the field of play. I'm not arguing for either side, just want to understand better.

I was thinking it was like the football analogy: catching a pass while stretched out horizontally with only the toes in-bounds vs catching the ball the exact same way only with the feet on the wrong side of the line. Or in baseball jumping up to make a catch and landing in the bleachers.

If that was a 6'-0" tall permanent fence, it looks like it wouldn't have gone over, but would she still have made a catch?

Think more like basketball...when you're in the air, you are where you were when your feet left the ground until you touch somewhere else