Foul Tip vs Caught Foul

[darronwlsn]

Looking for a little guidance on Foul Tip vs Caught Foul in Fed Rules.

What standards are you using to differentiate between the two? Rule 2-16-2 states "A foul tip is a batted ball that goes directly to the catchers hands and is legally caught by the catcher."

The Case Book adds language for a Caught Foul "The call goes high into the air with a perceptible arc"

Seems like there's too much room in the middle.

As a guide in the past I've gone by if the F2 has to make an athletic move, for it to be a caught foul.

[rkeller]

By def. it is a batted ball that goes SHARP and DIRECT to the catcher and is legally caught.

[bobjenkins]

correct. a foul tip will be "instantaneous" and the glove won't move in response to the ball -- the ball will barely move; it will be the same as a "swing and a miss". Anything else is a foul hit, not a foul tip.

[grayhawk]

By def. it is a batted ball that goes SHARP and DIRECT to the catcher and is legally caught.

It's an important distinction to say to the catcher's "hand or glove". If a ball is tipped sharp and direct to the catcher's chest protector, and is then caught, it's just a foul. Conversely, if the ball is tipped sharp and direct to the catcher's glove, then hits his facemask, bounces 10 feet in the air and is then caught by the catcher, it's a foul tip and on strike 3, the batter will be out.

[mt 73]

If the catcher's mitt does not move it is a foul tip.
if it does move--even if only by inches--it is a foul ball and batter is out.
The old myth of the ball having to be 6 feet over the batter's head is just that--a myth no supported by fact.

[typikon]

Wait. If a ball goes sharp and direct to the catcher's mask or CP, then it's merely foul, and cannot be caught. How much arc is necessary before the ball could be caught and the batter retired? I think those are separeate questions.

[Rich_Ives]

Wait. If a ball goes sharp and direct to the catcher's mask or CP, then it's merely foul, and cannot be caught. How much arc is necessary before the ball could be caught and the batter retired? I think those are separeate questions.

Sharp and Direct means Sharp and Direct.

A virtual straignt line TO THE GLOVE OR HAND - not the pocket or palm.

If it arcs it isn't sharp and direct.

If you have time to think about it it didn't go sharp and direct.

[Richard_Siegel]

This is very simple.

If it is a foul ball and it is caught it is either a foul tip or it is not. If it is not a foul tip then it is a caught foul ball.

A foul tip is a batted ball that goes Sharp and Direct to the catcher's hand/mitt and is legally caught.

If the batted ball DOES NOT GO "Sharp and Direct" to the catcher and is caught then it is NOT a foul tip.

"Sharp and Direct" is a judgement call.

Don't try to define a caught foul ball. Just think: "Is it a foul tip or not?"

If a batted ball goes Sharp and Direct and touches the catcher FIRST on any part of his body other than the catcher's hand/mitt then it can NEVER become a foul tip nor can it become a caught foul ball even if it is caught in flight. I.e. the ball goes Sharp and Direct and and hits F2 in the mask and deflects high into the air and is then gloved in-flight by F2 or another fielder. This is not a legal catch. It is only a foul ball.

[typikon]

This is very simple.

If it is a foul ball and it is caught it is either a foul tip or it is not. If it is not a foul tip then it is a caught foul ball.

A foul tip is a batted ball that goes Sharp and Direct to the catcher's hand/mitt and is legally caught.

If the batted ball DOES NOT GO "Sharp and Direct" to the catcher and is caught then it is NOT a foul tip.

"Sharp and Direct" is a judgement call.

Don't try to define a caught foul ball. Just think: "Is it a foul tip or not?"

If a batted ball goes Sharp and Direct and touches the catcher FIRST on any part of his body other than the catcher's hand/mitt then it can NEVER become a foul tip nor can it become a caught foul ball even if it is caught in flight. I.e. the ball goes Sharp and Direct and and hits F2 in the mask and deflects high into the air and is then gloved in-flight by F2 or another fielder. This is not a legal catch. It is only a foul ball.

I believe I understand the distinctions here and it certainly is consistent with my baseball sensibilities, but I'm just trying to square this up with other similar situations, i.e. a foul ball that ricochets off another defensive player that, like the catcher, may be standing in foul territory. Is it better to just consider the sharp and direct uncaught foul ball it's own thing, not comparable to anything else?

[Richard_Siegel]

....Is it better to just consider the sharp and direct uncaught foul ball it's own thing, not comparable to anything else?

Yes. I ball that goes sharp and direct and touched the catcher can never become a caught foul ball.

However, once a ball is popped up (not sharp and direct) then it can be legally caught just the same as any other fly ball. So as you say it can be caught by a fielder as a ricochet off another fielder as long as it is still inflight.

Once a ball that has gone sharp and direct and touched the catcher and then ricochets of F2 it can never be legally caught at all by anyone to put out the batter.

[typikon]

Yes. I ball that goes sharp and direct and touched the catcher can never become a caught foul ball.

However, once a ball is popped up (not sharp and direct) then it can be legally caught just the same as any other fly ball. So as you say it can be caught by a fielder as a ricochet off another fielder as long as it is still inflight.

Once a ball that has gone sharp and direct and touched the catcher and then ricochets of F2 it can never be legally caught at all by anyone to put out the batter.

I suppose the only exception would be if the ball goes sharp and direct off the glove of the catcher, then ricochets off the mask, into the air, and is again caught by the catcher, then it would still be a foul tip. Have you ever seen this variation?

[thunderheads]

I suppose the only exception would be if the ball goes sharp and direct off the glove of the catcher, then ricochets off the mask, into the air, and is again caught by the catcher, then it would still be a foul tip. Have you ever seen this variation?

if it hits the glove FIRST ...then ricochets, and is caught, then it's still a foul tip...

[Richard_Siegel]

I suppose the only exception would be if the ball goes sharp and direct off the glove of the catcher, then ricochets off the mask, into the air, and is again caught by the catcher, then it would still be a foul tip. Have you ever seen this variation?

What have described is NOT an exception. If the ball goes sharp and direct and FIRST touches the catcher's mitt then it can be caught for a foul tip even if it is not immediately caught and it ricochets of some other part of the catchers body before it touches the ground.

[yawetag]

I believe I understand the distinctions here and it certainly is consistent with my baseball sensibilities, but I'm just trying to square this up with other similar situations, i.e. a foul ball that ricochets off another defensive player that, like the catcher, may be standing in foul territory. Is it better to just consider the sharp and direct uncaught foul ball it's own thing, not comparable to anything else?

Expand on this and we'll try to answer it. What I'm reading is: Batter swings. The ball hits the bat, then goes sharply and directly back to F5, who was standing behind and to the left of the plate, clearly in foul territory.

That wouldn't be allowed, as all players (except the catcher) are required to be in fair territory when the pitcher pitches the ball.

If you meant something else, let us know.

[Richard_Siegel]

I believe I understand the distinctions here and it certainly is consistent with my baseball sensibilities, but I'm just trying to square this up with other similar situations, i.e. a foul ball that ricochets off another defensive player that, like the catcher, may be standing in foul territory. Is it better to just consider the sharp and direct uncaught foul ball it's own thing, not comparable to anything else?

Expand on this and we'll try to answer it. What I'm reading is: Batter swings. The ball hits the bat, then goes sharply and directly back to F5, who was standing behind and to the left of the plate, clearly in foul territory.

That wouldn't be allowed, as all players (except the catcher) are required to be in fair territory when the pitcher pitches the ball.

If you meant something else, let us know.

I don't think that typikon meant to imply that another fielder was standing in foul territory at the TOP. I believe what he was suggesting was a situation where a normal foul pop up is batted that both the pitcher and catcher might be trying to catch in foul territory. The catcher attempts to catch it when he gets turned around. The ball hits F2 in the mask and then bounces in the air where the pitcher, who is 5 feet away then catches it and holds it to retire the batter. That's a legal catch because the ball did NOT go sharp and direct to the catcher.

[yawetag]

I don't think that typikon meant to imply that another fielder was standing in foul territory at the TOP. I believe what he was suggesting was a situation where a normal foul pop up is batted that both the pitcher and catcher might be trying to catch in foul territory. The catcher attempts to catch it when he gets turned around. The ball hits F2 in the mask and then bounces in the air where the pitcher, who is 5 feet away then catches it and holds it to retire the batter. That's a legal catch because the ball did NOT go sharp and direct to the catcher.

Gotcha. I apologize for the confusion.

[typikon]

I don't think that typikon meant to imply that another fielder was standing in foul territory at the TOP. I believe what he was suggesting was a situation where a normal foul pop up is batted that both the pitcher and catcher might be trying to catch in foul territory. The catcher attempts to catch it when he gets turned around. The ball hits F2 in the mask and then bounces in the air where the pitcher, who is 5 feet away then catches it and holds it to retire the batter. That's a legal catch because the ball did NOT go sharp and direct to the catcher.

Thank you, yes, your example works. My question is just my way of working through the rules and variations; sorry if it confuses others. I think what I'm getting at is to say that the foul ball sharp and direct to the catcher (and not caught) is the only foul ball that becomes dead while still "in flight."

[yawetag]

I think what I'm getting at is to say that the foul ball sharp and direct to the catcher (and not caught) is the only foul ball that becomes dead while still "in flight."

No.

If the ball goes sharp and direct to the catcher's glove or bare hand but is not caught, it's a foul ball the moment the ball touches the ground.

If the ball goes sharp and direct to the catcher's glove or bare hand and is eventually caught by the catcher, it's a foul tip.

If the ball goes sharp and direct to the catcher's glove or bare hand and is eventually caught by another fielder, it's a foul ball the moment it's touched by another fielder.

If the ball goes sharp and direct to any other part of the catcher, it's an immediate foul ball.

[Richard_Siegel]

No.

If the ball goes sharp and direct to the catcher's glove or bare hand but is not caught, it's a foul ball the moment the ball touches the ground.
This is correct.

If the ball goes sharp and direct to the catcher's glove or bare hand and is eventually caught by the catcher, it's a foul tip.
This is correct. This is not a dead ball.

If the ball goes sharp and direct to the catcher's glove or bare hand and is eventually caught by another fielder, it's a foul ball the moment it's touched by another fielder.
This is correct, the ball is foul (dead) while still in-flight because the other field can't legally catch it for an out.

If the ball goes sharp and direct to any other part of the catcher, it's an immediate foul ball.
This is correct, the ball is foul (dead) while still in-flight.

Yawtag,

You said "No," but everything you wrote is correct and supports the statement typikon wrote: "A foul ball that goes sharp and direct to the catchers hand or glove and is not caught is the only kind of foul ball that becomes dead even while it is still in flight."

In the two last cases you proposed the tipped ball (that does not first touch the hand or mitt) was dead immediately after it touched the catcher's body, even if the ball was eventually caught in-flight by the catcher or another infielder.

[typikon]

No.

If the ball goes sharp and direct to the catcher's glove or bare hand but is not caught, it's a foul ball the moment the ball touches the ground.

If the ball goes sharp and direct to the catcher's glove or bare hand and is eventually caught by the catcher, it's a foul tip.

If the ball goes sharp and direct to the catcher's glove or bare hand and is eventually caught by another fielder, it's a foul ball the moment it's touched by another fielder.

If the ball goes sharp and direct to any other part of the catcher, it's an immediate foul ball.


I agree with everything here, except my statement was intended to address only the status of a sharp and direct ball that does NOT first hit the catcher's mit or hand. I was focusing on your final statement. It seems odd to me that the rules don't seem to spell this out the special status of the only foul ball that is dead on arrival, so to speak.

[cbfoulds]

It seems odd to me that the rules don't seem to spell this out the special status of the only foul ball that is dead on arrival, so to speak.

"Special status"?

What is the [live/dead] status of any batted ball that is not caught and first strikes any participant or object foreign to the native ground in foul territory [before passing 1st or 3d]?

From this and some other posts it seems to me that you are trying WAY too hard to "find" circumstances/ situations in the Rules that are "special", "odd", or obscure, in the "stump-the-ump" modality. Understanding the Rules is really not all THAT hard, unless you try to make it so.
There are enough "known errors" in the existing Rulebook [290+, by some counts] without going looking for more.

[yawetag]

You said "No," but everything you wrote is correct and supports the statement typikon wrote: "A foul ball that goes sharp and direct to the catchers hand or glove and is not caught is the only kind of foul ball that becomes dead even while it is still in flight."

I won't argue semantics, but I would argue that the ball's not in flight when it's called dead. If it goes off the hand or glove and into the air, it becomes dead when two things happen: (1) It hits the ground, and (2) It touches another player. In both, the ball is no longer "in flight."

[typikon]

"Special status"?

What is the [live/dead] status of any batted ball that is not caught and first strikes any participant or object foreign to the native ground in foul territory [before passing 1st or 3d]?

Assuming "any participant" means a defensive player, the status is LIVE, which is the whole point I'm making. This case is not symmetric with sharp and direct foul balls.

[Richard_Siegel]

I won't argue semantics, but I would argue that the ball's not in flight when it's called dead. If it goes off the hand or glove and into the air, it becomes dead when two things happen: (1) It hits the ground, and (2) It touches another player. In both, the ball is no longer "in flight."

A ball that is in-flight but clearly on its way to touching the ground or touching another player is going to become dead at the moment either touch happens. So if the ball is clearly not going to come back to the catcher, the ball might as well be considered dead while it is still in-flight.

"Dead ball flying?"

Not that I'm trying to be funny, but calling the ball dead when in flight can save you a little trouble. Suppose a hard fastball is tipped by the batter and it goes sharp and direct to F2's helmet and ricochets high into the air and is heading for F1. F1 comes running forward and calls "I've got!" and prepares to make a diving catch. I would start calling "Foul!" immediately, while its still in-flight, before he tries to catch it so that I don't have to explain to an angry coach why it is a dead ball after his pitcher has made a great catch on it.

[dash_riprock]

A ball that is in-flight but clearly on its way to touching the ground or touching another player is going to become dead at the moment either touch happens. So if the ball is clearly not going to come back to the catcher, the ball might as well be considered dead while it is still in-flight.

"Dead ball flying?"

Not that I'm trying to be funny, but calling the ball dead when in flight can save you a little trouble. Suppose a hard fastball is tipped by the batter and it goes sharp and direct to F2's helmet and ricochets high into the air and is heading for F1. F1 comes running forward and calls "I've got!" and prepares to make a diving catch. I would start calling "Foul!" immediately, while its still in-flight, before he tries to catch it so that I don't have to explain to an angry coach why it is a dead ball after his pitcher has made a great catch on it.

You should call it foul because it IS foul. It became foul (and dead) when it hit F2's helmet.

[dash_riprock]

I won't argue semantics, but I would argue that the ball's not in flight when it's called dead. If it goes off the hand or glove and into the air, it becomes dead when two things happen: (1) It hits the ground, and (2) It touches another player. In both, the ball is no longer "in flight."

You sure about 2? Tipped ball goes S&D to F2's mitt, glances off the top of the mitt and ricochet's off F2's mask. F1 runs in to field the still in-flight ball but trips and unintentionally "heads" it back to F2 who makes the catch. The ball never touches the ground. Foul tip or foul ball?

A tipped ball (S&D to F2's mitt or hand) becomes dead when it can no longer be caught by the catcher.

[Richard_Siegel]

You should call it foul because it IS foul. It became foul (and dead) when it hit F2's helmet.

Not yet. If the ball goes S&D and touches the mitt first then deflects to the helmet then pops up into the air it is not yet foul if F2 (and only F2) can still catch that ball before it touches the ground. if the ball is touched by any other fielder (i.e F1 "heads" it back to him) THEN it becomes foul.

[dash_riprock]

Not yet. If the ball goes S&D and touches the mitt first then deflects to the helmet then pops up into the air it is not yet foul if F2 (and only F2) can still catch that ball before it touches the ground. if the ball is touched by any other fielder (i.e F1 "heads" it back to him) THEN it becomes foul.

Your example had the ball going S&D to F2's helmet.



...Suppose a hard fastball is tipped by the batter and it goes sharp and direct to F2's helmet...

[typikon]

Has anyone here ever called a foul tip that wasn't immediately caught?

I.e. ricochets off the mit and so on... was this a rule that had more application back in the 1920s?

[bobjenkins]

Has anyone here ever called a foul tip that wasn't immediately caught?

I.e. ricochets off the mit and so on... was this a rule that had more application back in the 1920s?

Yes -- off the mitt, off the chest protector, back in the mitt / hand.

[Richard_Siegel]

Your example had the ball going S&D to F2's helmet.

Yes you're right.

[Richard_Siegel]

Has anyone here ever called a foul tip that wasn't immediately caught?

I.e. ricochets off the mit and so on... was this a rule that had more application back in the 1920s?

Yes, and I have done the opposite. I've called "Foul!" on balls that the catcher tried to make look like a foul tip. As BU I've seen a tipped ball go S&D to the CP and then get smothered by F2 who would then hold up the ball hoping for a strike-three call. I have, from the field, called "No! That's a foul ball. It hit the catcher first. No catch!"

[cbfoulds]

What is the [live/dead] status of any batted ball that is not caught and first strikes any participant or object foreign to the native ground in foul territory [before passing 1st or 3d]?


Assuming "any participant" means a defensive player, the status is LIVE, which is the whole point I'm making. This case is not symmetric with sharp and direct foul balls.

No sir.

I bolded the critical parts of my question, in case you missed/ misread the first time.

A batted ball is FOUL, and "dead" when it is not caught [if caught, it remains live], but touches or is touched by a participant [doesn't have to be a defensive player, but can be] or object foreign to the native ground in foul territory [before 1st or 3d, to avoid 1 possible complication].

The case [which was my (unsuccessful) Socratic point] is precisely "symmetric" with sharp and direct foul balls: S&D to the mitt/hand and caught= foul tip + live ball; S&D to the chest or mask [bypassing the mitt/ hand], and thus by definition NOT "caught" = foul & "dead". Always. Not "special". Horse, not zebra.

[typikon]

No sir.

I bolded the critical parts of my question, in case you missed/ misread the first time.

A batted ball is FOUL, and "dead" when it is not caught [if caught, it remains live], but touches or is touched by a participant [doesn't have to be a defensive player, but can be] or object foreign to the native ground in foul territory [before 1st or 3d, to avoid 1 possible complication].

The case [which was my (unsuccessful) Socratic point] is precisely "symmetric" with sharp and direct foul balls: S&D to the mitt/hand and caught= foul tip + live ball; S&D to the chest or mask [bypassing the mitt/ hand], and thus by definition NOT "caught" = foul & "dead". Always. Not "special". Horse, not zebra.

You seem to be saying that if an airborne ball hit into foul territory touches anything other than a player's mitt, then it's dead. If so, I don't agree.

Why would it matter if this happens before or after 1st/3rd base?

Also, by saying "not caught" and "dead" you've created a tautology. Perhaps you meant "not gloved" or "not yet caught." I can't tell.

[Rich_Ives]

You seem to be saying that if an airborne ball hit into foul territory touches anything other than a player's mitt, then it's dead. If so, I don't agree.

Why would it matter if this happens before or after 1st/3rd base?

Also, by saying "not caught" and "dead" you've created a tautology. Perhaps you meant "not gloved" or "not yet caught." I can't tell.

No - he's saying that if it hit something other than the hand or mitt first it is foul and cannot be legally caught.

A FOUL TIP is a batted ball that goes sharp and direct from the bat to the catcher’s hands and is legally caught. It is not a foul tip unless caught and any foul tip that is caught is a strike, and the ball is in play. It is not a catch if it is a rebound, unless the ball has first touched the catcher’s glove or hand.

[cbfoulds]

You seem to be saying that if an airborne ball hit into foul territory touches anything other than a player's mitt, then it's dead. If so, I don't agree.

If anything I've posted really "seems to be saying" the above when you read it, you are dumber than I originally thought.

Why would it matter if this happens before or after 1st/3rd base?

An umpire would already know this: bounding ball passing over/ beyond 1st or 3d base into foul territory. That you are NOT an umpire answers many questions about you and your increasingly silly posts.

Also, by saying "not caught" and "dead" you've created a tautology. Perhaps you meant "not gloved" or "not yet caught." I can't tell.
Your misuse of "tautology" suggests that you are a poseur in more than your posting to a baseball umpire forum.
"Uncaught foul" = "dead ball" IS a tautology - universally true and self-evident [at least under the rules of baseball].

"Not gloved" is not even a baseball concept, except as a negation: not "gloved"; and has no bearing on the topic under discussion [at least by me], which was your erroneous assertion(s) that a foul tip is some weird or "special" class of foul ball, and [later] that a foul ball remains live after being touched, but not caught, by a defensive player. Ditto "not yet caught".

That you can't tell what is and is not relevent to a discussion of baseball rules is most likely the result of relying on your [mis-]"understanding" of the Rules, rather than a serious study of them, which begins with actually reading; and as they say: "reading is fundamental".

[thunderheads]

*scratches head*... and wonders why this has gone to three pages, AND is starting to get crappy ?!?!? :confused::confused::confused:

[jaxrolo]

*scratches head*... and wonders why this has gone to three pages, AND is starting to get crappy ?!?!? :confused::confused::confused:

I am with you Man!!!

Such a basic thing! :confused:

[thunderheads]

I am with you Man!!!

Such a basic thing! :confused:

And it's in the Newbies section, No Flaming ..... guess not, eh?:rolleyes:

[britinmuc]

im going to play the devils a here. :P

count 2:2
no runners - no outs. (edit)
f1 pitches a bouncer that hits the grass before the home plate, the batter still swings and makes (slight) contact with the ball.
the contact is not enough to deviate the balls flight that flies direct and without deviation into the catchers glove....

foul tip or foul ball


same sitch.
this time ball arcs and lands in the catcher mitt.
foul ball or catch...

:)


edit (after dash_riprock's comment) forgot to mention runners/bases :/
OBR:
Rule 2.00 (Ball) Comments:
6.05(c), 6.09 (b)

[dash_riprock]

im going to play the devils a here. :P

count 2:2
f1 pitches a bouncer that hits the grass before the home plate, the batter still swings and makes (slight) contact with the ball.
the contact is not enough to deviate the balls flight that flies direct and without deviation into the catchers glove....

foul tip or foul ball
Foul tip


same sitch.
this time ball arcs and lands in the catcher mitt.
foul ball or catch...

:)

Catch

[Richard_Siegel]

im going to play the devils a here. :P

count 2:2
no runners - no outs. (edit)
f1 pitches a bouncer that hits the grass before the home plate, the batter still swings and makes (slight) contact with the ball.
the contact is not enough to deviate the balls flight that flies direct and without deviation into the catchers glove....

foul tip or foul ball


same sitch.
this time ball arcs and lands in the catcher mitt.
foul ball or catch...

:)


edit (after dash_riprock's comment) forgot to mention runners/bases :/
OBR:
Rule 2.00 (Ball) Comments:
6.05(c), 6.09 (b)

Any legal pitch tipped by the batter and goes S&D to F2's mitt is a foul tip when legally caught by F2. Whether the pitch touches the ground BEFORE it touches the bat is irrelevant. If such a ball is not legally caught by F2 it is a foul ball.

Any legal pitch that is touched by the batter's bat and does NOT go S&D to F2's mitt is a batted ball in-flight. The batter is out when such a batted ball is legally caught by any fielder. Whether the pitch touches the ground BEFORE it touches the bat is irrelevant. If such a ball is not legally caught by any fielder it is a foul/fair ball based on where/who first touches it and/or where it first touches the ground. See definition of fair/foul ball in rule 2.00.

[dash_riprock]

edit (after dash_riprock's comment) forgot to mention runners/bases :/

Runners are irrelevant to both situations, except the ball stays live and runners may attempt to advance.

[bobjenkins]

im going to play the devils a here. :P

count 2:2
no runners - no outs. (edit)
f1 pitches a bouncer that hits the grass before the home plate, the batter still swings and makes (slight) contact with the ball.
the contact is not enough to deviate the balls flight that flies direct and without deviation into the catchers glove....

foul tip or foul ball


same sitch.
this time ball arcs and lands in the catcher mitt.
foul ball or catch...

:)


edit (after dash_riprock's comment) forgot to mention runners/bases :/
OBR:
Rule 2.00 (Ball) Comments:
6.05(c), 6.09 (b)

I agree with the others (foul tip; catch). Why is this an issue, and why do you think you are playing devil's advicate by asking it?

[britinmuc]

I agree with the others (foul tip; catch). Why is this an issue, and why do you think you are playing devil's advicate by asking it?

because of the wording in the OBR.


Rule 2.00 (Ball) Comment: If the pitch touches the ground and bounces through the strike zone it is a “ball.” If such a pitch touches the batter, he shall be awarded first base. If the batter swings at such a pitch after two strikes, the ball cannot be caught, for the purposes of Rule 6.05 (c) and 6.09 (b) . If the batter hits such a pitch, the ensuing action shall be the same as if he hit the ball in flight.




6.05 A batter is out when—
(c) A third strike is not caught by the catcher when first base is occupied before two are out;



6.09 The batter becomes a runner when—
(b) The third strike called by the umpire is not caught, providing (1) first base is unoccupied, or (2) first base is occupied with two out;



ball bounces. batter swings. ball cannot be "legally" caught (by the catcher).
-> d3k

[bobjenkins]

because of the wording in the OBR.









ball bounces. batter swings. ball cannot be "legally" caught (by the catcher).
-> d3k

You highlited the wrong part. Try the next sentence.

[typikon]

because of the wording in the OBR.

ball bounces. batter swings. ball cannot be "legally" caught (by the catcher).
-> d3k

Jaksa/Roder has the following phrase in italics: "A bounced pitch can become a foul tip subject to the above conditions." For those who don't know, his italics indicate that Jaksa is adding what he believes is a consensus interpretive standard. Which means that he believes the rules are silent on the fact that a bounced pitch cannot be caught for purposes of one rule (third strike), but can be caught for purposes of another (foul tip).

[heyblue26]

Jaksa/Roder has the following phrase in italics: "A bounced pitch can become a foul tip subject to the above conditions." For those who don't know, his italics indicate that Jaksa is adding what he believes is a consensus interpretive standard. Which means that he believes the rules are silent on the fact that a bounced pitch cannot be caught for purposes of one rule (third strike), but can be caught for purposes of another (foul tip).

I also have read the J/R and understand what he is saying but its only his Opinion in what he believes.

[Matt13]

It is a consensus opinion, now. For years J/R and Evans disagreed on this situation. Finally, it was realized that the rules DO provide for this--a foul tip is a batted ball, not a pitch. Thus, strike 3.

[heyblue26]

It is a consensus opinion, now. For years J/R and Evans disagreed on this situation. Finally, it was realized that the rules DO provide for this--a foul tip is a batted ball, not a pitch. Thus, strike 3.


Wow and I would say Evans is correct. Yes that is right also a foul tip is a batted ball, and not a pitch. I give you another strike

[Rich_Ives]

It is a consensus opinion, now. For years J/R and Evans disagreed on this situation. Finally, it was realized that the rules DO provide for this--a foul tip is a batted ball, not a pitch. Thus, strike 3.

Roder was a lonely voice. Roder was thinking it was still a pitch and was applying the uncaught part of rule to it.

The rule also says if the ball is hit it's treated as if it was hit in flight.

Double whammy on Roder.

I guess he finally "got it".

[yawetag]

because of the wording in the OBR.

ball bounces. batter swings. ball cannot be "legally" caught (by the catcher).
-> d3k

As Bob says, read the next sentence. Also, the highlighted part you gave only excepts the two rules given in determining whether it was caught or not.

How would you rule a bounced pitch that was hit into the air and caught by an outfielder?

[yawetag]

You sure about 2? Tipped ball goes S&D to F2's mitt, glances off the top of the mitt and ricochet's off F2's mask. F1 runs in to field the still in-flight ball but trips and unintentionally "heads" it back to F2 who makes the catch. The ball never touches the ground. Foul tip or foul ball?

A tipped ball (S&D to F2's mitt or hand) becomes dead when it can no longer be caught by the catcher.

Wendelstedt disagrees: A foul tip is a ball that goes sharp and direct from the bat to the catcher's hand or glove, and then is subsequently caught before it has touched any fielder, umpire, or foreign object.

I'm not suggesting WUM is the most reliable and trustworthy source, but it's a direct argument to your statement.

[typikon]

So just to be clear, if a batter swings at a bounced pitch and completely misses, regardless of whether the catcher gloves it cleanly or not, it's "uncaught" and the batter would need to be tagged/retired?

[dash_riprock]

So just to be clear, if a batter swings at a bounced pitch and completely misses, regardless of whether the catcher gloves it cleanly or not, it's "uncaught" and the batter would need to be tagged/retired?

Correct.

[dash_riprock]

Wendelstedt disagrees: A foul tip is a ball that goes sharp and direct from the bat to the catcher's hand or glove, and then is subsequently caught before it has touched any fielder, umpire, or foreign object.

I'm not suggesting WUM is the most reliable and trustworthy source, but it's a direct argument to your statement.

J/R seems to agree with WUM. It adds "by the catcher unassisted" to the 2.00 definition of a foul tip, although the added words are in italics, meaning they are innovations the authors believe to be unique or original to their manual, but not specifically addressed by the Major or Minor Leagues. The MLBUM says a foul tip must be caught by the catcher, but it is silent on whether such catch must be "unassisted." (I assume "unassisted" means, to J/R, without being touched/deflected by another fielder.)

Nevertheless, 2.00 is quite clear that a foul tip is a batted ball, and we all know that a batted ball in flight remains in flight if touched/deflected by another fielder. J/R says a foul tip is equivalent to a pitch that is swung at, missed and caught, but the same manual also says a foul tip can be an illegally batted ball.

2.00 FOUL TIP goes one step further: "It is not a catch if it is a rebound, unless the ball has first touched the catcher’s glove or hand."

Finally, 2.00 IN FLIGHT describes a batted, thrown, or pitched ball which has not yet touched
the ground or some object other than a fielder.

So until MLB or NCAA tells me otherwise, I'm grabbing an out, although I doubt any of us will ever see this happen.

[dash_riprock]

I'm not suggesting WUM is the most reliable and trustworthy source, but it's a direct argument to your statement.

It's an opinion directly contrary to mine, but I would argue that it is not an argument. I don't have the WUM. Does it offer anything in support of that interpretation?

[BigUmp56]

I'm confident that the proper ruling on a foul tip that becomes a rebound and is caught by another fielder or tipped back to the catcher depends greatly on whether or not the game is being played during the day or during the evening. What are we, like, on six pages of this nonsense?

Tim.

[dash_riprock]

I'm confident that the proper ruling on a foul tip that becomes a rebound and is caught by another fielder or tipped back to the catcher depends greatly on whether or not the game is being played during the day or during the evening. What are we, like, on six pages of this nonsense?

Tim.

Didn't think of that. Good point Tim. I'm happy to let dead dogs sleep.

[CoachJM]

When I was first learning the rules, and experiencing difficulties similar to those expressed by darronwlsn in the OP in trying to grasp this basic concept, it finally dawned on me that "Foul Tip" is NOT a special definition of a "Foul" - rather, it is a special definition of "Catch".

JM

[cbfoulds]

When I was first learning the rules, and experiencing difficulties similar to those expressed by darronwlsn in the OP in trying to grasp this basic concept, it finally dawned on me that "Foul Tip" is NOT a special definition of a "Foul" - rather, it is a special definition of "Catch".

JM

Exactly.

[BigUmp56]

When I was first learning the rules, and experiencing difficulties similar to those expressed by darronwlsn in the OP in trying to grasp this basic concept, it finally dawned on me that "Foul Tip" is NOT a special definition of a "Foul" - rather, it is a special definition of "Catch".

JM

When I've encountered a new umpire who has difficulty making the distinction, I simply tell them to stop thinking if it as a "foul tip." It's a terrible name for it. It's a "live tip" that's been caught under special circumstances.

Tim.

[yawetag]

It's an opinion directly contrary to mine, but I would argue that it is not an argument. I don't have the WUM. Does it offer anything in support of that interpretation?

Nothing authoritative. It's underlined, which means it's a "term that is unique to the Wendelstedt Umpire School, either in whole or in part."

[darronwlsn]

When I've encountered a new umpire who has difficulty making the distinction, I simply tell them to stop thinking if it as a "foul tip." It's a terrible name for it. It's a "live tip" that's been caught under special circumstances.

Tim.

Thank you BigUmp and everybody that contributed to my question. I don't think I'll ever kick this one after the lively discussion and thankfully nobody said "it has to go higher than the catchers head to be a caught foul"!

[heyblue26]

So just to be clear, if a batter swings at a bounced pitch and completely misses, regardless of whether the catcher gloves it cleanly or not, it's "uncaught" and the batter would need to be tagged/retired?

This may have been answered but to answer you're question I also agree (YES) the batter woud have to be tagged by the catcher to be retired.

[Rich_Ives]

So just to be clear, if a batter swings at a bounced pitch and completely misses, regardless of whether the catcher gloves it cleanly or not, it's "uncaught" and the batter would need to be tagged/retired?

On strike three. Otherwise it wouldn't matter. :p

[thunderheads]

So just to be clear, if a batter swings at a bounced pitch and completely misses, regardless of whether the catcher gloves it cleanly or not, it's "uncaught" and the batter would need to be tagged/retired?

heyblue26 answered this above, but .... think of it this way ...

bounce = NO CATCH / NOT clean!

therefore, if it bounces the catcher can't catch it cleanly...batter needs to be tagged or thrown out at first , unless, first is occupied with less than 2 out ;)

[grayhawk]

Can't remember where I read it, but the way it first made sense to me was:

"There's nothing foul about a foul tip."

[HugoTafurst]

"Special status"?

What is the [live/dead] status of any batted ball that is not caught and first strikes any participant or object foreign to the native ground in foul territory [before passing 1st or 3d]?
(Snip)

.


Are you suggesting that a ball hit foul up the 3rd base line that strikes F5 and is subsequently caught by F6 is not an out?

[cbfoulds]

"Special status"?

What is the [live/dead] status of any batted ball that is not caught and first strikes any participant or object foreign to the native ground in foul territory ?
(Snip)
[emphasis added by cbf for Hugo's benefit]


Are you suggesting that a ball hit foul up the 3rd base line that strikes F5 and is subsequently caught by F6 is not an out?

Hugo:
Are you suggesting that a batted ball has ever hit F5 in flight and in foul territory, then bounced off and been caught by F6 still in flight?
Has that ever happend in a game that you are aware of?

If so, I suppose you have found/ experienced an exception to my absolute statement: I was a fool to try to respond socratically in this thread in the first place.

EXCEPT: did you miss the part [you quoted it, so I would not think so] abouth the [B]"...batted ball that is not caught...."? So, NO, I am NOT suggesting that a ricochet/ bobble that is CAUGHT is not an out: I am flatly asserting that such a batted ball that is NOT CAUGHT is definitely, foul, dead, and NOT an out.

Reading is fundamental.

[Rich_Ives]

[emphasis added by cbf for Hugo's benefit]


Are you suggesting that a batted ball has ever hit F5 in flight and in foul territory, then bounced off and been caught by F6 still in flight?
Has that ever happend in a game that you are aware of?

.

There's a pretty famous play on the 1B side where someone muffed a foul fly ball and Pete Rose caught it.

[KenGibes]

There's a pretty famous play on the 1B side where someone muffed a foul fly ball and Pete Rose caught it.

Right-O. When Charlie Hustle played in the World Series for the Phillies, so I'm guessing that it was Bob Boone that muffed the foul pop-up.

[sdix00]

http://www.umpire.org/vb/showthread.php?t=9635

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eW-ctEcPkdY/TZSlci96qQI/AAAAAAAAAQM/64wyxcx2ciI/s1600/006033013.jpg

[heyblue26]

Right-O. When Charlie Hustle played in the World Series for the Phillies, so I'm guessing that it was Bob Boone that muffed the foul pop-up.

yes your right and sidx00 has provided a link to that picture and Charlie Hustle made the catch.