Foul tip? Direct?

[TussAgee11]

BigUmp brought up a point in the flow chart about foul tips being "direct from bat to catcher's mitt".

Last night I had a play that brought this into question. 2 strikes, batter tries to get out of the way of a pitch on his hands. The ball hits bat (either the handle or knob, definatly not the hand) and richoches back into the catcher's mitt. The ball did change angle's due to contact with the bat.

Well at first I called foul, because I thought there was no way this ball was caught (white uniform on the batter, lost sight of the ball), then the catcher turns around and has it in the heel of his glove (a very nice play by him).

I called the batter out.

The pitch was direct from the bat to the catcher's mitt. It wasn't direct from the pitcher to the catcher, but that isn't in the criteria. When is the "direct" rule violated? Was it in my scenario?

Thanks.

[nickrego]

Good call.

Directly from the bat to the catcher's mitt.

After hitting the mitt, it may be bobbled and caught in the mitt or hand.

[DG]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

The pitch was direct from the bat to the catcher's mitt. It wasn't direct from the pitcher to the catcher, but that isn't in the criteria. When is the "direct" rule violated? Was it in my scenario?

Thanks.

When the ball goes from bat to chest protector to mitt, it is not direct. Your call was accurate.

[LilLeaguer]

Originally Posted by DG

When the ball goes from bat to chest protector to mitt, it is not direct. Your call was accurate.

If the ball goes direct from bat to chest to mitt, what's the call?

[Az.Ump]

Originally Posted by LilLeaguer

If the ball goes direct from bat to chest to mitt, what's the call?

Foul Ball

Paul

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by LilLeaguer

If the ball goes direct from bat to chest to mitt, what's the call?

Foul ball. If the ball goes sharp and direct to the mitt or hand, then to the chest protector it can still be caught as a foul tip on the rebound.


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. A foul tip can only be caught be the catcher.


Tim.

[UmpJM]

tussagee11,

While it is hard to say definitively without having been there, I would certainly agree with Nick and Don that it would appear you made the correct call in the situation you described.

If I'm reading your post correctly, you have two other questions.

1. What constitutes "direct" in the context of the rule.

and

2. How does the "angle of deflection" affect the proper ruling.

Question 1 is fairly straightforward, while question 2 is a little trickier.

Question 1:
As Don says, "When the ball goes from bat to chest protector to mitt, it is not direct." This is absolutely correct. For a foul tip to be "direct" enough, the first thing it must hit after hitting the bat is "the catcher's glove or hand." If it hits something else first (chest protector, shin guard, umpire, the ground, whatever...) it cannot be a "foul tip".

If it does hit the catcher's glove or hand first, and then hits something else, and the catcher ultimately catches it, it mayor may not be a foul tip. If it has hit the catcher's glove or hand first and is still "in flight" (in the strict baseball sense) when the catcher gains secure posession, it is a foul tip. (Under FED rules, I believe this is also true if a fielder other than the catcher is the one to achieve secure posession.)

Question 2:
Here is how I think of it, and this may not be the correct way to think of it. If the "foul tip" rule did not exist, any time the pitch hit the bat and the catcher held on to it while the ball was still "in flight", the batter would be out. (Ref. 6.05(a)). The count wouldn't matter.

The rulesmakers decided that if the batter "barely nicked" the pitch, and altered it's path so slightly that the catcher managed to catch it anyway, the defense hadn't really "earned" an out if the batter has less than two strikes.

So, they decided to treat it as if the batter had "swung and missed".

Now, there are a couple of things that most people seem to intuitively "get" and "not get" about this rule.

The things people seem to "get" are:

1. A foul tip is properly ruled a strike.

2. If the foul tip is strike three, the batter is out. If it is not strike three he is not out.

The things people seem to "not get" are:

1. The ball remains live.

2. The ball remains live.

So, to see if this makes any sense, I'm going to pose two hypothetical situations and ask you for your ruling in each. (If you are certain you know the answers, please refrain from responding for awhile.)

In both situations, there is 1 out, an R1 and an R2, and the count is 2 balls, 1 strike on the batter.

Both runners are stealing on the pitch.

In both situations, the catcher eventually catches the ball, which is still "in flight" , while both he and the ball are completely in fair territory.

In both situations, the batter takes a mighty swing and barely nicks the ball.

In both situations, having caught the ball, the catcher fires it to F3, who steps on 1B as the R1 and R2 reach their advance bases.

In situation A, the ball tipped the catcher's glove, hit his helmet and bounced 20' in the air (over fair territory).

In situation B, it didn't tip his glove and everything else is the same.

What's your call?

JM

[SanDiegoSteve]

A. Foul tip, runners advance

B. Foul ball, runners return

Why was the catcher throwing to F3 on strike 2?

I'm a bit confused. Maybe I'm just tired from extra innings tonight, and read something wrong.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

tussagee11,

While it is hard to say definitively without having been there, I would certainly agree with Nick and Don that it would appear you made the correct call in the situation you described.

If I'm reading your post correctly, you have two other questions.

1. What constitutes "direct" in the context of the rule.

and

2. How does the "angle of deflection" affect the proper ruling.

Question 1 is fairly straightforward, while question 2 is a little trickier.

Question 1:
As Don says, "When the ball goes from bat to chest protector to mitt, it is not direct." This is absolutely correct. For a foul tip to be "direct" enough, the first thing it must hit after hitting the bat is "the catcher's glove or hand." If it hits something else first (chest protector, shin guard, umpire, the ground, whatever...) it cannot be a "foul tip".

If it does hit the catcher's glove or hand first, and then hits something else, and the catcher ultimately catches it, it mayor may not be a foul tip. If it has hit the catcher's glove or hand first and is still "in flight" (in the strict baseball sense) when the catcher gains secure posession, it is a foul tip. (Under FED rules, I believe this is also true if a fielder other than the catcher is the one to achieve secure posession.)

Question 2:
Here is how I think of it, and this may not be the correct way to think of it. If the "foul tip" rule did not exist, any time the pitch hit the bat and the catcher held on to it while the ball was still "in flight", the batter would be out. (Ref. 6.05(a)). The count wouldn't matter.

The rulesmakers decided that if the batter "barely nicked" the pitch, and altered it's path so slightly that the catcher managed to catch it anyway, the defense hadn't really "earned" an out if the batter has less than two strikes.

So, they decided to treat it as if the batter had "swung and missed".

Now, there are a couple of things that most people seem to intuitively "get" and "not get" about this rule.

The things people seem to "get" are:

1. A foul tip is properly ruled a strike.

2. If the foul tip is strike three, the batter is out. If it is not strike three he is not out.

The things people seem to "not get" are:

1. The ball remains live.

2. The ball remains live.

So, to see if this makes any sense, I'm going to pose two hypothetical situations and ask you for your ruling in each. (If you are certain you know the answers, please refrain from responding for awhile.)

In both situations, there is 1 out, an R1 and an R2, and the count is 2 balls, 1 strike on the batter.

Both runners are stealing on the pitch.

In both situations, the catcher eventually catches the ball, which is still "in flight" , while both he and the ball are completely in fair territory.

In both situations, the batter takes a mighty swing and barely nicks the ball.

In both situations, having caught the ball, the catcher fires it to F3, who steps on 1B as the R1 and R2 reach their advance bases.

In situation A, the ball tipped the catcher's glove, hit his helmet and bounced 20' in the air (over fair territory).

In situation B, it didn't tip his glove and everything else is the same.

What's your call?

JM

First off, I have not read SDSteve's post. Interesting scenarios. Obviously, in situation B, the ball is dead as soon as it hits his helmet. It is a foul ball because even if he catches it, it would not be direct. So I'm killing that one right away, and sending runners back.

In situation A, if I read correctly, you have the batter tipping the ball to the top of the catchers mitt, hitting the helmet, richoching way into the air, the catcher then coming into fair territory to catch the ball. Out or foul ball? Well conventional testing wisdom would tell me this is an out, since the other scenario is not an out. But something bothers me about calling this an out. It has to do with the catcher coming out of the catcher's box to make this play. And the ball not being a fumble in his chest off the glove. So I, without looking at the wording of the rule book, am going to say this is a foul ball too. A wierd play indeed...

Regarding the tag up at first you suggest in both scenarios, it doesn't apply, its just a simple strikeout. If it is a strikeout, then the ball is live, and runners can advance as they wish without having to retouch, obviously.

[SanDiegoSteve]

But there was only one strike on the batter. Now there are two.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

But there was only one strike on the batter. Now there are two.

See what I get for not paying attention!

I am killing both still. Not completely sure about Situation A. Doesn't seem like the intent of the rule (I know, opening another can of worms) I don't have my rule books up here so I can't go word for word through them to get a good answer.

Take my last post and imagine there was 2 strikes. I'm tired. Its almost 3am.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Hell, I'm tired and it's only midnight here. Gotta love extra innings night games!

I still say that it's a foul tip in A, because it went sharp and direct to the catcher's mitt, and then was caught by the catcher. That is the very definition of a foul tip. Nothing happened to change it into a foul ball. If the catcher didn't end up catching it, then it would have been foul.

[TussAgee11]

I know exactly what you are saying. It just seems to wierd to be a foul tip.

I guess it's direct from bat to glove, and then never hit the ground in the catcher's attempt to secure the ball. Foul tip, strike 2.

Good question, really had to think through the wierdness of the play. Now that I've done it, I will be ready to call it. Preperation is what its all about.

[SanDiegoSteve]

JM,

Any more PM's?

If not, I'm gonna hit the hay, it's been a long day!

[UmpJM]

Steve,

Just one. Go to bed. Catch ya later.

JM