[greymule]

To me, the "not higher than the batter's head" is more of a disclaimer as to when it is not a foul tip than a requirement which may make it a foul tip.

True, and they undoubtedly didn't consider the play where the pitch is already over the head. Without that possibility, "not higher than the batter's head" would be valid as one criterion that has to be met. But when ASA includes the phrase as part of the definition, we can't blame coaches who assume that it is indeed part of the definition. (If ASA gives us a case play that says we should call the batter out if she swings at a pitch over her head and ticks it into the catcher's outstretched mitt, then they clearly mean what they have written, and the "batter's head" clause is necessary.)

In my opinion, "not higher than the batter's head" should be relegated to a POE that explains how to judge foul tips (as in POE #9 concerning checked swings).

BTW, CB 1-58 ruling is based on the catcher-to-the-ball scenario being a caught ball, not a foul tip. Fair or foul is irrelevant.

It is indeed proper that the case book contains a catcher-to-the-ball scenario so that balls that, for example, spin off to one side and are caught by the catcher are properly called outs even though they did not rise higher than the batter's head. It is clear from the "ruling" that the intent of the case play was just that. But the book describes a FAIR ball: "The batter . . . bunts the ball in front of the plate. The catcher lunges and catches the ball before it touches the ground."

"Ruling: This is not a foul tip . . ." Well, what fair ball is? If a case play is going to explain why a ball isn't a foul tip, it should at least start with a foul ball.

Whoever wrote 1-58 probably also wrote 1-72C, which informs us that we should not honor a missed-base dead ball appeal from F6, since the "appeal must come from an infielder including the pitcher or catcher."