View Single Post
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 10, 2014, 12:40pm
Manny A Manny A is offline
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
But yes - I think that should be a catch. It's just not.
If you treat that as a catch, you should treat a "real" foul tip as a catch as well, and get rid of the foul tip concept altogether.

You keep mentioning that there is no rule basis to call this a foul ball. And you also stated that we shouldn't use the definition of foul tip to support ruling it a foul ball. I don't understand why you would use these conflicting arguments, because the definition of foul tip is the rule that makes the distinction.

By the definition, a batted ball that goes sharp and direct to the catcher and is caught by him is a foul tip. In order to be caught, it has to initially hit either the mitt or the hand of the catcher, and eventually secured before it hits the ground. If it hits anything else, it cannot be caught, by virtue of the phrase in the definition, "It is not a catch if it is a rebound". So if it cannot be a catch, then how could it be an out?

Now, if the phrase had said, "It is not a foul tip if it is a rebound", that would support your argument.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote