The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 02, 2007, 11:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 1,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDUB
If there are two strikes and the batter swings and misses at the bounced pitch he becomes a runner and can advance to first base. Now let's say that the batter does better than missing the pitch, this time he tips it to the catcher. Now this is a foul tip and he is out.

In the first play the batter did not contact the ball and he was not out. In the second play the batter did a better job at making contact with the ball but he is called out. Isn't that penalizing the batter for hitting the ball?

I'm not saying that Roder's old way of calling this is correct, I'm just giving some input to the situation.
Not really that confusing at least IMO. When the batter misses the ball it is an uncaught pitch because the ball hit the ground.

Once the batter hits/tips the ball it becomes a batted ball but since the batted ball goes directly to the catchers mitt it makes it a foul tip.

So its not apples to apples with the two situations.

Thanks
David
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 02, 2007, 03:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Jerry City, Ohio
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim C
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Wrote:

"This is an uncaught third strike. The batter can advance to first base at his own risk. Your friend is correct."

Site a rules interpretation . . . anything at all that says:

.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim C
As I have stated for the last 10 years on umpire websites:

I do not do "citations".

The "agressive" style of my post was in answer to the INCORRECT answer that appeared just before mine.

There are two things I no longer do on message boards:

1) Cite specific rulings and,

2) Start new threads.

Regards,


Tim, I ask again,

Why is it OK for you to challenge anyone to cite a specific rule reference to disprove your answer then blatantly say you will not cite specific rulings to support yours?

Last edited by Daryl H. Long; Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:54pm.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 03, 2007, 03:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl H. Long
Tim, I ask again,

Why is it OK for you to challenge anyone to cite a specific rule reference to disprove your answer then blatantly say you will not cite specific rulings to support yours?
Because Tee has standards.

Double standards.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 03, 2007, 04:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 355
Send a message via AIM to NFump
burn-reenie!!!
__________________
Just where are those dang keys?!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 03, 2007, 05:10pm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lakeside, California
Posts: 6,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFump
burn-reenie!!!
Bruce, is your last name Kelso, or what?
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 03, 2007, 04:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 4,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hensley
Because Tee has standards.

Double standards.

At times, don't we all, here and in private lists.

But in this case, I don't think that was in play.

Tee provided the correct and to those who know the history of this issue, blatantly obvious ruling. He also provided some of the history of the correct interps to back it up. He then indicated it would take a specific citation to disprove it.

In this case, that's like one saying "the sun will come up tomorrow and I provide past history as my evidence. If you think it won't, give me some reasons."

As for Tee saying he doesn't provide citations, I believe he was exaggerating slightly. I've seen him do so in the past. Perhaps he was announcing a new philosophy.

I don't think the earth will stall on its axis of he has. Even most on this board will probably continue as they have in the past. There's not much any of us can or will do to change the perceptions that have been established. It happens, but not often.
__________________
GB
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 28, 2007, 12:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by newump
2 outs. 2 strikes on B1. pitch bounces in the dirt, then B1 swings and tips the ball directly back to F2's glove, where F2 catches it. foul tip batter out? is this also a dropped 3rd strike situation. does F2 need to tag the batter or throw to first. a friend, who has twice been to ump school, believes that F2 must tag the batter or throw to first. he insists that he covered this exact sit while at school. most of the rest of the group opposed his ruling.
thoughts?
thx.
I vote foul tip if caught, strike 3, batters out.

But if not caught.......doesn't a foul tip that isn't caught become a foul ball? Sure it does.

If not caught I vote "Foul", the count remains at 2 strikes

Last edited by Justme; Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:43am.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intentional foul rule # jritchie Basketball 9 Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:01pm
NCAA Rule Foul by B on Touchdown for A Simbio Football 2 Wed May 17, 2006 05:35pm
New Team Control Foul Rule seneca_rec Basketball 4 Tue Mar 07, 2006 09:17am
Fed rule - foul away from ball on inbound womens_hoops Basketball 24 Sat Mar 12, 2005 02:58am
Rule 7, sec 11, Foul TIp 3rd strike Animal Softball 3 Mon Jun 30, 2003 12:08pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:35am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1