Apr 9, 2014, 4:00 PM EDT
Major league umpires have changed the way the “transfer rule” is interpreted this season. We’ve seen it a few times already so far, but the upshot is that even if you catch a ball and have it in your glove for a long time, if you drop it when trying to transfer it to your throwing hand, you aren’t credited with the catch.
No, I am not exaggerating. Because this play happened in today’s Indians-Padres game, and even after Indians manager Terry Francona challenged it, it was upheld as a no-catch:
That seems rather silly to me. Elliot Johnson clearly had the ball for several steps after his catch. He could have run the ball in from right field personally while not taking it out of his glove and it never would have hit the ground. Only after trying to transfer it did it come loose. Why this is not a catch is utterly baffling to me.
This is not the first time this new interpretation has come into play — Josh Hamilton was a victim of it recently was well — but it’s certainly a perplexing one.
- Mike Trout hit his 100th career home run to become the youngest member of the 100 HR/100 SB club 7
- Make that two: Alex Rodriguez hits second homer of the night, giving him 658 for his career 24
- Alex Rodriguez hit his 657th career home run 43
- Let’s all just stare at Kris Bryant’s numbers for a while 27
- And That Happened: Thursday’s scores and highlights 39
- The wait is over: The Cubs are calling up top prospect Kris Bryant on Friday 99
- Carlos Gomez headed to disabled list with hamstring injury 11
- The Commissioner’s Office thinks that the Angels could indeed go after Josh Hamilton under his contract 153
- The Commissioner’s Office thinks that the Angels could indeed go after Josh Hamilton under his contract (153)
- “Why Ted Cruz is like the Atlanta Braves” (150)
- “We no longer need the terrorists. We’re now so good at terrorizing ourselves.” (143)
- Another argument in favor of making the DH universal (127)
- When it comes to Josh Hamilton, Arte Moreno is a craven opportunist, not a “smart businessman” (116)