Wishing for offense not offensive GT4/22

[Donn Beach]

But if a ball hits off of a wall and an OFer catches it, it isn't and out. If the ball hit Logan in the chest and then he caught it, it would have been an out.

True, perhaps a carom off a wall should be ruled differently, that can be touchy on close calls. I see some similarity in viewing the padding, uniform and catching equipment

[Millikin]

Obviously the rule about using something other than a hand or glove to catch a ball didn't account for something like this.

If it was truly "umpire discretion" to make the call like I've seen claimed online, I would have called it a foul ball just like when Rivas caught a ball that bounced off a rafter the other night. It never touched the ground, but between the bat and the glove it was interfered with by some other object.

Plus, a foul just seems more fair. It wasn't a hit. We have no idea what the outcome would have been had it bounced off Logan, probably an out, but who knows. Plus, it wasn't an intentional move by Logan to catch the ball in his clothing,so why the punishment? And calling it an out probably isn't fair because it got stuck inside the jersey, not "caught" by a player.

My original knee-jerk reaction was that it should have been an out, but in retrospect if they ever wrote a rule for this specific occasion, I'd go with foul ball. Getting a ball stuck in a shirt is more similar to a ball getting stuck in the roof than it's similar to a player intentionally trying to catch a ball with his hat.

[Donn Beach]

It is a rule, the discretion was where to place the runners
.

The umpires immediately called time to stop play once they realized the ball had gotten stuck, in accordance with the MLB Umpire Manual's Rule Interpretations, which say that a batted or thrown ball going inside a player or coach's uniform is deemed out of play. At that point, it's up to the umpire's discretion to place the runners.