Is this considered "possession'?

[KenGibes]

I was watching a game tonight that was being umpired by an older teen who I taught to umpire when he was 12 years old.

On a ground ball, F4 booted the ball towards first base. He caught up with the ball and started to toss the ball to F3 covering the bag. However, F4 realized that he was way too close to toss the ball, so he reached out and placed his hand (with the ball in it) in F3's first baseman's mitt. F3 squeezed his glove with the ball in F3's hand in the mitt as the runner crossed first base.

The umpire called the runner safe. I asked him after the game what he based his call on, and he said that he could clearly see F4's hand in F3's glove and it was in the glove with the palm up and the ball still in F4's hand. In other words, he based his call on the fact that the ball wasn't actually contacting the mitt.

Was this a good call?

What would the call have been if F4's hand was on top of the ball (but still holding it) while it was squeezed by F3's glove? Any difference?

[ziggys141]

I have pretty darn good vision, but I only wish I could see a ball, the fingers, and a palm inside a glove that was being squeezed shut.

If he was that focused on all that going on inside the glove, how could he ever see when the BR's foot hit the bag?

In any case, sounds like splitting hairs any way you look at it. Ball in the glove is an out, especially with the youngsters (an older player would have touched the bag himself instead of sticking it into another players glove).

Same situation as been discussed here before.... if the ball is moving inside F3 glove, as BR crosses the bag, is it "secured" for the out?

[lmsans]

Based on the description, it sounds like a good call, if he could clearly see that F3 didn't have possession.

[bigblu2u2]

The 2 responses were kinda like what you get from the dugouts. Half of them loved it, half of them hated it. As far as I am concerned, you had to be there to know if he had control of the ball or not.