|
Does Roder explain his view on a bounced pitch batted into the air and gloved by the pitcher before it again hits the ground?
Sure, it's an out. The difference, as Roder sees it, is that a foul tip is not a batted ball. It is still treated as a pitch.
See Roder's defintion of a foul tip:
A foul tip occurs when pitch nicks the bat and goes sharply and directly to the catcher's glove or hand and is caught by the catcher unassisted. A nicked pitch that initially strikes something other than the catcher's glove or hand (e.g., the ground, batter, umpire, mask, protector) cannot be a foul tip; it is simply a nick and a foul. The ball remains in play after a foul tip; thus it is the equivalent to a pitch that is swung at, missed and caught. A foul tip can be an illegally batted ball.
The part that justifies his view is: thus it is the equivalent to a pitch that is swung at, missed and caught. We all agree that pitch that bouncs, is swung at, missed by the batter and caught by the catcher is NOT a caught third strike, and the batter is entitled to run. Since Roder says a foul tip is the equivalent of a ball that is swung at, missed and caught, then the batter must be eligible to run if the pitch had previously bounced.
There is logic to his argument. If a foul tip is a live ball, then it must not be the same as a "batted ball", for a "batted ball" that is touched in foul territory is a foul ball, and is dead. Therefore, it must be the same as a pitch that was swung at and missed, and if so, it was not caught in flight, and the batter can run if this were the third strike.
|