[greymule]

A couple of months ago, we had a discussion on exactly how "not higher than the batter's head" was to be applied. Apparently, it is irrelevant and confusing and should be deleted. It is never the determining factor. Obviously, balls higher than the batter's head could be foul tips (batter swings at a pitch over her head, catcher reaches up over the batter's head, ball goes directly into catcher's glove). Also, most people felt that a ball fouled not sharp and direct but perceptibly slowed and deflected to the side could be "not higher than the batter's head" but still be caught for an out.

Two plays from the ASA case book:

1-58 (FP Only) The batter, with a 1-ball, 1-strike count, bunts the ball in front of the plate. The catcher lunges and catches the ball before it touches the ground. The ball did not go higher than the batter's head, so the umpire rules this a foul tip and returns the batter to the batter's box with a 1-ball, 2-strike count. Ruling: This is not a foul tip, for the ball did not go directly to the catcher's glove from the bat. Because the catcher went to the ball, this should be ruled a legal catch, similar to F3 or F5 making the catch.

All that matters is whether the ball goes sharp and direct to the hand/mitt and is legally caught as opposed to the catcher going to the ball. Of course, in the play above, since the catcher caught the ball in front of the plate, the ball was in fact fair. A fair ball cannot be a foul tip, but the reasoning ASA used is "the catcher went to the ball."

1-59 The ball goes directly from the bat, (a) touches the catcher's glove or hand and then rebounds from the catcher or his equipment, (b) from the bat, strikes the catcher's body, his protective equipment or the umpire. In both cases the ball rebounds into the glove or hand of the catcher and is held. Ruling: In (a) it is a foul tip and a strike, in (b) it is a foul ball. The ball cannot be a foul tip if it first touches anything other than the catcher's glove or hand.