CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Indians determined the basketball and football equivalents to Wednesday's hotly contested ruling at Progressive Field.



Confusion remains, however, about the baseball mandate.



What, exactly, prompted umpires to declare that Elliot Johnson did not complete a catch in right field in the first inning of the second game of the Indians-Padres doubleheader?



"It was a catch. It was an out," Johnson said. "I'm not really sure what they're going off of, but I think it needs to be clear what defines the act of dropping it, because it can get ridiculous. It can get out of hand."



In the top of the first, Johnson made a running catch a few feet before the right-field wall. Once the ball hit his glove, he took a few steps, gathered himself against the wall and turned to relay the ball back toward the infield.



As he motioned to transfer the ball to his throwing hand, the ball dropped to the ground. First-base umpire Bob Davidson ruled Johnson did not make the catch and the call was upheld after Francona issued a challenge.



Francona joked that he thought the umpires, if anything, would "call traveling" on Johnson, since he took a few strides after nabbing the fly ball. Johnson joked he needed "to work on getting that dribble down first." Then he suggested he got "two feet in and possession of the ball," the requirements for an in-bounds catch in the NFL.



The ruling left the Padres with runners at second and third and no outs. San Diego scored the game's first on an ensuing RBI groundout. The Padres won the affair, 2-1. Johnson vented to reporters after the contest.



"It just seems like it lacks a lot of common sense," Johnson said. "I mean, I caught the ball. I hit the fence there with possession of the ball. I took, I don't know, six, seven steps, if you go look at it. Can we get some common sense?



"I mean, is it going to get to the point where a guy can catch a ball, run all the way off the field, go to give a ball to a fan, a souvenir, drop it. What, now he dropped it, so we're going to pull everybody back on the field? We're going to make up where the runners go? At what point do we use some common sense? Obviously, that's getting extreme, but still."



The Rangers were subject to a similar call earlier this week, and manager Ron Washington sought further explanation from Major League Baseball. League officials issued a statement to the Dallas Morning News that read: "Umpires and/or replay officials must consider whether the fielder had secured possession of the ball but dropped it during the act of the catch. An example of a catch that would not count is if a fielder loses possession of the ball during the transfer before the ball was secured by his throwing hand."



"I know they're going to enforce that rule more this year," Francona said. "I thought he still caught it. He went back and then came forward. But I also know they're going to enforce that rule differently than they have in the past. I still thought he caught the ball. ... They're still working through things. I was pretty confident when they went to look at it that they were going to call it an out."



Johnson thought, despite the league attempting to establish precedent with the rule, that the umpires would use discretion and award him the catch.



"To me, it's a catch and a throw. It's two separate things," Johnson said. "I caught the ball and I went to throw it. Now, I did drop it, obviously. They're trying to set precedent and they're trying to enforce a rule. I understand that. I realize there are two sides to it.



"But, to me, I caught the ball. I made six, seven steps, I went to throw it. I did drop it. I didn't have possession of it. I get it. I understand that point of it, but let's use some common sense. it was a catch. It was an out. Let's move on."