foul tip - rule question
 

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.

There is some dispute over this, even, I think, between Jaksa and Roder. Most umps, including me, would say it meets the definition of foul tip. Therefore, not an uncaught strike 3; batter is out.

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

MTD, Sr.

Ball that hits the ground cannot be caught correct?

Ok,
 

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:

If a batter can hit the bouncing pitch for a home run . . . why would the simple fact that the pitch bounced before foul tipped . . . that it would not be a caught (and actually a foul tip) for a strike.

Your friend is WRONG. And so is Mark.

I am waiting . . . we have done this at least three times in the last year.

MTD is referring to an old "pseudo" ruling from Roder. And he is wrong.

Evans has made it clear and Roder now agrees.

RODER in one interp said it could not be caught for a foul tip.

Evans retorted that if the pitch can be hit for a home run how could anyone say it is not a "foul tip" and Roder folded . . . to Roder's credit: he talked with the entire MLB staff and they all agreed it would be a foul tip!

Additional comment:

When are the "hands part of the bat?"

We've been there before also . . .

Regards,

PS: If it hits the ground we refer to the original definition of a foul ball.

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

There is no disagreement. Roder changed his ruling some time ago to line up with Evans. Current Pro interpretation is that this is a foul tip. A pitch that hits the dirt can be anything but a called strike. Jiust as a batter can hit it for homerun, so, too can it be a foul tip.

Edited to add: "Voting" for one position or another is meaningless. The Evans ruling, which is now Roder's ruling has been accepted by MLB.

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.

It's not meaningless to me.... Looks like Evans & Roder both vote my way too.... Majority rules huh?

I vote that you take yourself too seriously.......:)

[QUOTE=Justme]It's not meaningless to me.... QUOTE]

Then by all mean, amuse yourself.

Let's say that the pitch doesn't hit the ground...in fact it's down the middle, at the belt. The batter swings and misses, but F2 can't handle the ball. The batter runs and makes it to 1B. The next batter, same pitch location, foul tips it to F2. The batter is out. Do you think that's penalizing the batter for hitting the ball?

[QUOTE=GarthB]Thank you, I was just sitting here waiting for your approval.

Just about the only thing a bounced pitch cannot become is a called strike.

Since neither batter should be swinging at pitches in the dirt, I'd say the first batter got away with one. :)

Foul Tip
 

According to the 2007 NFHS Baseball Rule book, Rule 2-16-2:

"A foul tip is a batted ball that goes directly to the catchers hands and is legally caught by any fielder. It shall be called a strike and the ball is in play."

SanDiegoSteve, help me out, in this situation it's a caught thrid strike foul tip, batter is out, thus the third out?

All those who said the answer is a foul tip are correct. More importantly I do not care what Roder, Evans, or any other person has to say unless he can back up his argument with a rules citation.

Tim C wanted rules citations and that is what matters most. There are several rules with pertinent information to getting the right interp.

NF 2-16-2: Foul tip (see above citation by Uncle George)

NF 2-6-1: Batted ball (thrown ball). A batted ball or thrown ball is in flight until it has touched the ground or some object other than a fielder.

NF 2-9-1: Catch: A catch is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a live ball in flight and firmly holding it.

Answers: When pitcher throws ball in the dirt and batter with 2 strikes
swings and misses he may run to first. That is because a live thrown ball has touched the ground and therefore does not meet the definition a catch. It is an uncaught 3rd strike.

When pitcher throws the ball and it hits ground and then batter hits it, we now have a live batted ball in flight. If it is a line drive to 1B and caught in flight the batter is out. If it is a pop fly to RF (fair or foul) and caught in flight then the batter is out. It the ball goes from the bat directly to catchers hand and then caught in flight by any fielder the batter is out because this meets the definition of foul tip.

Follow-up
 

Daryl,

Thanks for the cogent exegesis.

Since we appear to be talking FED here, I was wondering if you could clear something up for me.

Let's say...

There's a runner on 1B (R1). As the pitcher commits to deliver, the R1 takes off for 2B.

The batter takes a mighty swing at the pitch and barely nicks it. The ball goes sharp and direct to the catcher's mitt and, as he is gaining secure control, the R1 (legally) slides into 2B, as the umpire calls "Foul!"

What do you do? ...

As,

A. The Plate Umpire
B. The Base Umpire
C. The Offensive Manager
D. The Defensive Manager

I'll admit this is kind of a trick question, because I didn't really say what role you were playing in this scenario. And what you would or might do could depend on who did what first.

Regardless, I would be interested in your answer.

JM

I think you misinterpreted Tim's post. He had the correct answer. His reference to a rules citation was in regards to the ability of anyone having one that would disprove his answer, not confirm it.

You are correct, sir!

Thanks Steve.

George

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

always one in the bunch ...
 

Ah the tricky mind.

A. Lets see as PU - it won't happen

B. as BU - let PU make the decision - its his call. (probably throw out the assistant coach as head coach is arguing with PU)

C. The Offensive Manager - probably going to get thrown out for arguing a crazy rule.

D. The Defensive Manager - glad that' he's gotten away with the call.

I did not misinterpret anything.

Tim absolutely had the right answer.

But, why is it OK for Tim (or anyone else posting on this board including me) to challenge anyone to cite a rule reference to disprove his answer when he did not cite a rule to confirm his own answer?

First lets apply the proper rules as to what should happen.

2-16-1e Foul: A foul ball is a batted ball that touches the ground after being inadvertantly being declared foul by the umpire.

Therefore, by rule, since the ball never touched the ground even though the umpire declared it foul, the ball remains live and a strike is charged to the batter and R1 remains on 2B.

As PU: I know the rule so I will not do this. But if I inadvertantly said foul and then realized my error (either on my own or brought to my attention by partner or either coach) I would call time. I would bring both coaches together and admit my mistake and correct the situation by rule.

If it was my partner who called foul I would call time and confer with him alone. Depending on how experienced he was my words would be a gentle reminder of his role in the situation as BU or a rather silent scolding to keep his mouth shut. (Either way my body language and volume of my voice is such that I do not embarrass my partner. It will look like a normal conference). Then I would bring both coaches together and correct the play.

Apply the same if I was base umpire.

As for coaches, even if I had made a mistake I do not let coaches charge the mound or argue vociferously. I let them know at pregame they can come out and ask and I will listen to them. It has worked for 25 years with only 2 ejections.

You do not start new threads because you have been taken to task for deleting the thread when there are those that disagree with you.

If you do not know how to find specific rulings to cite in you rules interps them let me know and I will ty to find someone to teach you how to do so.

For an umpire to be so arrogant that he thinks he is GOD and everyone should accept his interpretation based on who he is, the level of ball he umps, or the number of years of experience he has is unconscionable.

My only wish is there were three things you would no longer do on message boards. Please add the following to your list:

3. I will no longer post on message boards. GOODBYE.

What????

Why did you toss the asst coach?

Which crazy rule?

What call did he get away with?

[QUOTE]
You are not going to be able to back every single argument with a rules citation. there is also something called "custom and usage"

Example: The batter swings and hits a dribler. Just as he vacates the box the ball hits him. The actual rule would say to call the batter out but custom and usuage tell us otherwise. Generally speaking when a batter gets hit with the ball right around the plate area it's a FOUL ball regardless of what the rule actually states. if the batter has already taken several steps and then gets hit it's a different story.

the "neighborhood play" is also a PRIME example on custom and usage. Even though F4/F6 didn't actually Touch the bag on a play where R1 is out by a good margin. As long as they are in the 'vicinity" they will get what is called the "neigborhood play"

In addition there are many errors in the OBR rule-book. Evans / Roder clean those up for us. Also, for you to say you do not care what Evans / Roder say will not help one in administering and understanding the rules.

Here's another PRIME example as to why Rick / Evans are important.

Appeal Plays. In order to fully understand appeal plays one has to understand what is meant by the terms "Relaxed" vs. "Unrelaxed" action. You will not find those terms in the rule book but they are extremely important when it comes to certain types of appeals meaning Do we have to simply tag the base or do we have to tag the player.

There is a rule book and then there are case plays. OBR doesn't have a case Book ala FED/NCAA but there are supplemental materials such as the PBUC handbook, Rick's Book, Papa C's BRD and Evans which is next to impossible to get. These materials have case plays which explain the rules.

Bottom Line: You can't always take the rules Verbatum. Even if the rules are re-written there will still be questions. It's the nature of baseball.

Pete Booth

The only FED case book example that comes close to this situation is:

2.16.1 Situation A (Page 16): On a count of 1-ball, 2-strikes, B1 hits a fly ball down the right-field line. While the ball is in the air, the umpire inadvertently declares "foul ball'; (a) F9 catches the ball in flight, (b) the ball falls on the ground in fair territory, (c) the ball falls to the ground in foul territory.
RULING: (a) the batter is out and the ball remains live, (b) and (c) the ball is immediately dead as soon as it touches the ground; the batter returns to bat with a count of 1-2.

Tim,

Reading my posts you will see I hold myself to the same standard that I believe all others should adhere to.

I realize as umpires we are called upon to offer interpretations of difficult plays but when giving mine I also show the authority to which I base my conclusions on AND give that authority due credit. By the way, I never consider Daryl H. Long to be the Authority nor do I ever give him credit.

My authority is the rule book to pertinent to the level or code the game is bieing played under. If this is a NFHS baseball game then my authority is NF baseball rule book. If an NCAA game then NCAA Rule book.

By what authority do you base your interpretations on?

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?

Daryl,

Once again, a thoughtful and thorough answer. Though I've never seen you work a game, I am inclined to believe that you would not commit this faux pas.

I came to the same conclusion you did regarding what the proper application of the rules would be in the situation I posed. My ulterior motive in posing it was to question whether the FED rulesmakers had considered this particular implication of their "correction" of 2005's rather absurd interpretation that stated that a batted ball which was legally caught was made foul and dead solely by virtue of an umpire (erroneously) calling it foul.

Now, in my experience, the notion that a foul tip remains live and in play (and that runners need not return or retouch) is a concept that remains elusive to many coaches, players, and even a few umpires. In my experience, it is also a significantly more common occurrence (not that it happens a lot, but it does happen) for an umpire to incorrectly declare a foul tip "Foul" than it is for an umpire to incorrectly call an in-flight batted ball near the line "Foul".

So, I wonder if the "unintended consequences" of this clarification will end up producing more unpleasant situations than it will prevent.

On another note, while Tim C. can be terse, cryptic, antagonistic, and arrogant in his posts, I believe he knows what he is talking about and generally find reading his posts (as well as his articles) to be worth my while.

Oh, and he doesn't seem to be especially receptive to constructive criticism offered in this forum either.

Some things we can change, some things we can't. Not recognizing the distinction can result in a lot of wasted time. Is your pig an alto or a soprano?

JM

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.

Bruce, is your last name Kelso, or what?:p

Fez....... :D

I still dont see a response to Pete's point, that being that you cannot just 'ignore' J/R, Evans, customs and usage, etc if you aim to be a quality umpire.

The statement 'if it aint in the rulebook I dont recognize it' is LLDan-esque in the extreme, and no real umpire truly believes that. Calling only by the rulebook is what the kiddies do.

I don't know about anybody else, but I didn't respond to Pete's post because I agreed with him completely. You are right, you can't just use the book, because the book's full of errors.

In OBR rule discussions, my association would seek out the current pro interpretation to a given rule, and that is how we would call it, regardless of what the book said. For FED rules we would abide by whatever correspondence came from the state interpreter, as well as the case book.

Nowdays, with all the different resources available, there is no reason not to take advantage of them.