Apr 16, 2014; Detroit, MI, USA; Cleveland Indians center fielder Michael Bourn (24) makes a catch of a ball hit by Detroit Tigers third baseman Nick Castellanos (not pictured) in the fourth inning at Comerica Park. Mandatory Credit: Rick Osentoski-USA TODAY Sports

MLB Changes Rule that Cost Indians a Game Earlier This Season


Major League Baseball is a slow moving group. They are a cruise ship trying to turn around: it takes a long time for any movement. Yet as the season’s first month comes to an end MLB has already changed a rule that had cost the Cleveland Indians a game earlier this season. Much like the Calvin Johnson catch no catch issue in the NFL, baseball has struggled with the related to transfer of a caught ball. Now, according to Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports, baseball is interpreting the rule differently:

Starting Friday night, umpires will rule on catches the way they did in the past, using more of a common-sense approach rather than following the letter of the law, according to major-league sources.

A catch, forceout or tag will be considered legal if a fielder has control of the ball in his glove, but drops the ball after opening his glove to transfer the ball to his throwing hard, sources said. No longer will the fielder be required to successfully get the ball into his throwing hand.

So basically a catch is a catch if the player, you know, catches the ball. They don’t also have to catch the ball with their bare hand to have actually caught the ball. One catch is now enough for MLB. Lets take a look at the play that impacted the Indians:

Got to love Tom Hamilton‘s passion for this team.

Should the Indians feel vindicated? Are you shocked that MLB actually made changes this quickly given their glacial pace of changes in the past?


Dick's Sporting Goods presents "Hell Week":

Tags: Cleveland Indians Mlb

  • Mike Kirkner

    Can I get a job writing misleading information on here? The play did not cost them the game. There on courtesy of Cabrera error

    • Jared Mueller

      Thanks for your feedback Mike. I watched the game as well and looked back at it before writing this but will look a little closer based on your comments and make a decision from there. Thanks again.

      • Guest

        Mike Kirkner, such comments are invalid in baseball. The pitching and defensive approach would be different with just one man on third with one out instead of second and third with no outs. Thus, saying that the next guy still would have grounded out to short stop is invalid. The play made a difference bigger than you think.

        • Mike Kirkner

          HughAss170 – I wasn’t being a smart ass, just stating the facts. I
          generally agree, Indians would approach differently with men on 2nd & 3rd with
          one out vs no outs however being top of 1st the outcome probably would
          have been the same, especially when the illogical hope that Asdrubal could make a throw for the putout at home after just making a throwing error two batters earlier. And using your logic against mine, you can’t assume they would not of scored either. Now go back into your mothers basement because I absolutely know more about baseball than you do HughAss170…

          Sent from my iPad

          • HughJass170

            There’s no way in hell that you know more about baseball than me. Keep managing your fantasy team while those of us who have actually played the game can continue to make sound judgement based on facts and simple logic. The assumption that the ground ball to short would have still happened is simply wrong. Simple statistics would support this simple conclusion because too many factors are involved to allow a reasonable probability that the exact same thing would have still happened. Or we can just use common sense. Either one. Even the hitter’s approach would have been different. Not only that, Cleveland as a team would have had a different mentality after a great catch instead of such a horrible call. Just admit that you are wrong and were a smartass to the author, who was very tolerant of your poor attempt to refute his article’s reasoning while being completely wrong.

          • Mike Kirkner

            Actually there is a way that I know more than you, as I also played the game and don’t sense the author was offended in any way, but it sure seems to have struck a nerve with you! A wee bit too sensitive now aren’t we? I don’t waste my time on fantasy sports either so why don’t we just agree to disagree on this one rather than continuing to try to up one another with childish insults. I happen to believe it would not have altered the outcome of the inning and also while it would have been a good catch, dispute your great catch theory of lifting the team so much so to avoid allowing a first inning run. I’m just not sure you can get such a lift in the first inning of a day night double header. Furthermore baseball genius at the very least IF the run doesn’t score in the first, the game is tied after 9 innings unless of course your wisdom creates a stitutional inning rally that didn’t happen in the actual game, so how does replay still then cost the Indians a game? We can’t, you or I with any logic predict with any certainty who would have won the game. Now relax and go find another post to get worked up over.

          • HughJass170

            First you say you know more than me about baseball, then tell me to stop one-upping. Just by your “analysis” of this game, as you would probably call it, it shows that you really do know much less than you think you do about the game of baseball.

            Playing little league hardly counts as credibility of baseball knowledge. What strikes my nerves is people like you that think you know the game and attempt to talk down to others with completely false reasoning. You can believe that it would not have altered the outcome, that is actually a valid statement. (Good for you!) But to say that it DID NOT effect the game, even to the point of altering the outcome, is 100% wrong.

            Again, having the opinion that a great catch such as that probably would not have an uplifting effect on the team, especially the pitcher, is valid. (Good for you!) But to say that it WOULD NOT, is 100% wrong. I simply pointed out the possibilities and the fact that the entire game would have been altered. The degree of such alteration is anyone’s guess, but to say the same thing would have happened anyway is wrong.

            Just when you get two Good for you!’s, you go back to your absence of sound baseball thought. You say if the run didn’t score, the game would be tied after 9 innings, which is the very flawed reasoning that I have been trying to tap out of your brain so you can travel the road to begin to know as much as you think you do about baseball. Then you say the claim was that replay cost the Indians a game, when replay had nothing to do with the call made. My word. Then to top off your ridiculousness, you actually state the very conclusion that I have been trying to teach you: You say no one can predict who would have won the game. HA! So what are we talking about then? Unbelievable. Don’t ever claim to know more than someone about baseball. Unless it’s you.

    • HughJass170

      Mike Kirkner, such comments are invalid in baseball. The pitching and defensive approach would be different with just one man on third with one out instead of second and third with no outs. Thus, saying that the next guy still would have grounded out to short stop is invalid. The play made a difference bigger than you think. So next time do your homework and don’t be a smartass when you know much less than you think you do about baseball.

  • Gary

    Not scoring more runs than the opposition is what cost the Indians the game.
    Can’t blame a loss on one play.