Quote:
Originally posted by Atl Blue
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.
|
Thanks for the patience in quoting the book for me. It does, however, leave me just as confused. His conclusion, "thus ..." should be based on the rules and shouldn't be used to justify any other rule interpretations.
But following the logic, a pitch with two strikes, which is "swung at, missed, and caught" is the third strike and the batter is out. A bounced pitch that is swung at, missed, and
gloved by the catcher is not
caught, since it is not in flight. This is, I believe, the reason for the extra defintion of "legally caught" in OBR 6.05(b). (Isn't this definition unnecessary, since it appears to be totally consistent with the defintion of "Catch" in OBR 2.0?)
Roder appears to saying that the ball is
caught for the purposes of the definition of "foul tip" and not
caught for the purposes of 6.05(b).
Maybe it is impertinent of me to suggest a third interpretation, but wouldn't it be more consistent to say the it just isn't a
foul tip? I think that I could argue that a bouncing ball isn't going sharp and direct anywhere (I don't think that we want to argue that a bounced pitch can never be
caught.) Perhaps this pitch should be considered the same as a foul ball that is gloved uncaught by the catcher.
Quote:
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.
|
First, a ball
caught in foul territory is already a live ball (the phrase "live ball" isn't used in OBR 7.08(d), but it's pretty clear). (As I stated above, I can't tell if Roder thinks that this ball is
caught.) Second, an explicit rule states that a foul tip is live (OBR 2.0), and another rule (OBR 6.05a) states that it doesn't retire the batter. But, most importantly, a
foul tip is defined (OBR 2.0 again, but you knew that) as a "batted ball that ..."
LL