The batter attempts to bunt with 2 strikes but POPS it up

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Read tehe "when a ball becomes dead" section (I'm without my books, so that might not be the correct title). Does it say the ball is dead on a foul, or on an UNCAUGHT foul?

Bob,
A foul is not foul until touched or it comes to a stop on foul ground. As this ball was touched and secured, as the result of an attempted bunt with two strikes, by rule it should be immediately dead. Obviously we have an issue of whether the foul third strike supersedes a foul catch. So far I haven't seen anything that I can use to call this a live ball. I hate these plays but know that it wouldn't be in there unless it happened to one of us and will again. Thanks.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Jaksa/Roder

A batter is out when
(3) his third strike is uncaught because it was bunted foul,

Originally Posted by Jim Evans Annotated

5.09(d) Professional Interpretation #1: A ball that is bunted foul on 3rd strike may be caught for an out and the ball remains alive and in play. If it is not caught in flight, the ball is dead and all runners return in accordance with 5.09(d).

What else do you want?

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by yawetag

What else do you want?

Andrew,
Thank you. I saw the J/R reference but it does not provide a ruling. The Jim Evans book is outstanding but not a rule book. I would love to see an NCAA umpire try to show that to a coach.

This is one of those wierd plays that makes me hate umpiring but love the game. I really appreciate the effort to look this up. The NCAA rulings come out in a few days. It looks like I got it wrong but that won't be the first or last time. Have a good season.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I would love to see an NCAA umpire try to show that to a coach.

NCAA 6-2a. The ball becomes dead and base runners return when A foul is hit that is not caught. Runners return ...

NCAA 8-6.a A runner shall be called out on specifi appeals that are made when:
(1) The base runer does not retouch the base before a fielder tags the runner or the base after a fair or foul fly ball i stouched in making a legal catch.

Can't get any clearer.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I would love to see an NCAA umpire try to show that to a coach.

I would hope an NCAA umpire doesn't show ANYTHING to a coach. If a coach disagrees with your call, he can follow the proper protest procedures.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by yawetag

I would hope an NCAA umpire doesn't show ANYTHING to a coach. If a coach disagrees with your call, he can follow the proper protest procedures.

The point I made, badly it seems, is that when discussing NCAA mechanics, a Jim Evans manual is fairly useless for affirming calls at that level. Don't get me wrong, I think Jim is a terrific instructor but his book has little place in an NCAA umpire's bag. I was looking for an NCAA reference and Bob provided it.

Thanks to all for clarifying this play. The exam questions and answers come out soon and I'm sure we'll see more talk about them here.

[soundedlikeastrike]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Bob,
A foul is not foul until touched or it comes to a stop on foul ground. As this ball was touched and secured, as the result of an attempted bunt with two strikes, by rule it should be immediately dead. Obviously we have an issue of whether the foul third strike supersedes a foul catch. So far I haven't seen anything that I can use to call this a live ball. I hate these plays but know that it wouldn't be in there unless it happened to one of us and will again. Thanks.

"Obviously we have an issue of whether the foul third strike supersedes a foul catch."

No, "we" don't. One of us is confusing "touched" with caught, they are not the same.

A ball that is in flight off the bat that is "caught" can never be foul.
It's a caught fly ball and caught fly balls are live.

A ball that was foul, can not be caught, because it either hit (beyond 1B-3B), settled, was touched (read booted), or hit something over foul territory.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

"Obviously we have an issue of whether the foul third strike supersedes a foul catch."

No, "we" don't. One of us is confusing "touched" with caught, they are not the same.

A ball that is in flight off the bat that is "caught" can never be foul.
It's a caught fly ball and caught fly balls are live.

A ball that was foul, can not be caught, because it either hit (beyond 1B-3B), settled, was touched (read booted), or hit something over foul territory.

My apologies for including you.

For all otherss, I am seeking an official rule book reference for this play.

It is impossible to separate touch and catch on this play. The ball was not bobbled (nor booted) and no mention of an improper release occured. The second the player touched it, it was caught. The ensuing play, as described indicates as much.

Anyone else seen an umpire watch a batted ball get caught in foul territory, signal catch and then point foul? Why indicate the place of catch if a caught fly ball is just a caught fly ball?

Thank you.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Anyone else seen an umpire watch a batted ball get caught in foul territory, signal catch and then point foul?

If I did, I'd laugh my *** off. You signal fair/foul, then catch/no catch.

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

A ball that is in flight off the bat that is "caught" can never be foul.

Try again.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

"A ball that is in flight off the bat that is "caught" can never be foul.

A ball that was foul, can not be caught, because it either hit (beyond 1B-3B), settled, was touched (read booted), or hit something over foul territory.

Absolutely, positively, incorrect. The definition of foul is independent of whether or not it was caught. That's why the dead ball rule says a ball is dead if a foul ball is not caught. It also covers why a caught foul ball is live. It's because a foul can be either caught or not.

[ManInBlue]

This really isn't as complicated as you are trying to make it. There is no need to separate the touch and the catch. He popped it up, it was caught, period.

If he popped it up and F2 attempted to catch the ball, standing 3' in foul territory but bobbled it and the ball fell to the ground in fair territory...we have a touch in or over foul territory and thus a dead ball, foul (then we talk about the count, etc) - and the batter is out because his bunt attempt on the 3rd strike was bunted foul.

Your situation is just a catch, that's all. Forget the 3rd strike, forget the bunt attempt. He popped up to F2 - he's out because F2 CAUGHT THE BALL.

You won't have a coach try to argue the difference in touch and catch in this situation. It's a caught fly ball, the ball is live by definition.

[johnnyg08]

Please listen and read ManInBlue's post. It really is that simple.

[soundedlikeastrike]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Absolutely, positively, incorrect. The definition of foul is independent of whether or not it was caught. That's why the dead ball rule says a ball is dead if a foul ball is not caught. It also covers why a caught foul ball is live. It's because a foul can be either caught or not.

The definition of "foul" okay, I see your angle. however none of my OBR based literature offers a definition of FOUL. so don't know where you going with that?

However the OP and my statements concern a "foul ball".

The definition of "foul ball" can very well be dependent on whether caught or not. In the OP as I see the intent, is 100% "dependent" on whether caught or not.

OBR Definition:
A FOUL BALL is a batted ball that settles on foul territory between home and first base, or between home and third base, or that bounds past first or third base on or over foul territory, or that first falls on foul territory beyond first or third base, or that, while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, or any object foreign to the natural ground.

The definition of a catch however, has no dependence on fair or foul.

OBR Definition:
A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it; providing he does not use his cap, protector, pocket or any other part of his uniform in getting possession.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

The definition of "foul" okay, I see your angle. however none of my OBR based literature offers a definition of FOUL. so don't know where you going with that?

However the OP and my statements concern a "foul ball".

The definition of "foul ball" can very well be dependent on whether caught or not. In the OP as I see the intent, is 100% "dependent" on whether caught or not.

OBR Definition:
A FOUL BALL is a batted ball that settles on foul territory between home and first base, or between home and third base, or that bounds past first or third base on or over foul territory, or that first falls on foul territory beyond first or third base, or that, while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, or any object foreign to the natural ground.

The definition of a catch however, has no dependence on fair or foul.

OBR Definition:
A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it; providing he does not use his cap, protector, pocket or any other part of his uniform in getting possession.

1) You said none of the literature defines foul then you quote the rule that defines it.

2) You said fair/foul can be dependent on caught or not - but you quoted the rule which makes no mention of the location of the ball.

Lets look at the relevant part:

A FOUL BALL is a batted ball . . . that, while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, or any object foreign to the natural ground.


Was the ball over foul ground - yes.

Did it touch a player while there? - Yes

It's foul.

Caught/Not Caught is completely independent of fair/foul.

Live/dead on a foul ball IS dependent on caught/not caught, but first you have to know 1) was it fair or foul and 2) was it caught or not.

[soundedlikeastrike]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

1) You said none of the literature defines foul then you quote the rule that defines it.

Reminds me of an ole song: here we go roun in circles, see the fly way up in the skyyyy.. I made that part up.

SLAS: NO, I clearly quoted the definition of a "FOUL BALL", as I stated, there is no such beast as "foul". Where I think you and I are on a disconnect is; I use the "definitions" verbatim and firmly believe everybody should.
You would say; a ball hit over foul territory is a foul ball no matter what happens to it.
I say a ball over foul territory that is touched, is a foul ball and is dead and one that is caught over foul territory is a "caught fly ball".

2) You said fair/foul can be dependent on caught or not - but you quoted the rule which makes no mention of the location of the ball.

SLAS: No I clearly said a "foul ball" AND I quoted "a catch", because it is NOT dependent on fair or foul, that's what I was trying to get across. A fly ball that is caught is never foul, or at least there is no worth in noting it either way, so why bother? Or should we refer to the scorekeepers, maybe they care? Oh wait, except; U-Trip SP SB: With one strike if the batter hits a second foul ball, the ball is dead and no runners may advance, except at the Majors Division. Nat. Interp.


Lets look at the relevant part:

A FOUL BALL is a batted ball . . . that, while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, or any object foreign to the natural ground.

SLAS: Okay.

Was the ball over foul ground - yes.
SLAS: WE are clearly in total agreement here, all right!!

Did it touch a player while there? - Yes

SLAS: UH-OH! Here we will disconnect again. NO the ball was not "touched" by a player, it was caught by a player. Hence why, in my original post I tried to clarify that, touch and catch are only used in the same sentence when; considering the legality of a runner re-tagging on a ball which is eventually caught. We must agree, there is a difference between touch and catch? Is a re-tagging runner allowed to leave on a touch or must he wait for the catch, no need to answer, I know we agree on that. If you let that sink in for just a moment, you must agree, there is a difference between the two.
If you don't re-read "a catch" and compare it to the following;
OBR: TOUCH. To touch a player or umpire is to touch any part of his body, his clothing or his equipment. Touch is not, anyway, anywho, related to, or in the same zip code as "a catch".

It's foul.

SLAS: No, it's a caught fly ball, and remains live. I didn't, nor will I go back through this thread and count for you, but all but one poster here by now, agrees; the OP is, "a caught fly ball" that remains in play and will leave the O in jeopardy, because the D may still make a play on them.

Caught/Not Caught is completely independent of fair/foul.
SLAS: Hey were agreeing a lot more.

Live/dead on a foul ball IS dependent on caught/not caught, but first you have to know 1) was it fair or foul and 2) was it caught or not.

SLAS: Dang another disconnect. Live/dead is never dependent of anything on a foul ball, a foul ball by definition and rule is always "dead". Hence why it " a foul ball" can never be caught.

A fly ball over foul territory with a defender under it is neither fair nor foul. The fact that if it were to fall or be touched while over foul territory would make it foul, it is not until, after that "something" happens. If the ball is caught over foul territory it's still in play, why, because it did not become a foul ball.