Thread: Got me thinking
View Single Post
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Aug 11, 2008, 05:07pm
SanDiegoSteve SanDiegoSteve is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Reed
Steve,
Nice quotes and logic. The only thing is, the same rules and logic would show (incorrectly, we all know) that a batted ball which rebounds directly off the catcher's mask and is then gloved by the catcher is also an out. The ball became foul when it hit the mask, is still in flight (yes, it is still in flight, just like when the ball strikes the mask on the way down), and it was caught.
I didn't address the foul tip/foul ball issue in my post. I was only showing that you can catch a fly ball after it hits a catcher's mask. The same rules and logic do not apply to a batted ball which rebounds directly off the catcher's mask. The definition of foul tip takes care of this situation, and distinguishes itself from the fly ball interpretation:

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.

Therefore, the rule which applies to a fly ball hitting equipment, and the rule pertaining to a sharp and direct batted ball hitting equipment, are two separate rulings.

Is this logic just as sound?
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25

Last edited by SanDiegoSteve; Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:43pm.
Reply With Quote