From J/R:

A nicked pitch
that initially strikes something other than the catcher's glove or hand (e.g., the
ground, batter, umpire, mask, protector) cannot be a foul tip; it is simply a nick
and foul

also -- if it can't be caught for a foul tip, I don't see how it can be caught as all

And, FED case 2.16.1D COMMENT: "... the ball becomes dead when it touches the body of F2 and is an uncaught foul."

Not quite a relevant cite, and I think you are mis-interpreting it. Had the ball been a liner to F4 and it stuck between his thigh and stomach, and f4 then grabbed the ball -- that's a catch.

There's a FED case play that talks about having a perceptible arc, but only in the context of treating that one as a foul fly that's caught.

I know I feel pretty good from a spirit and intent perspective.

Two plays:

(1) Foul fly. Catcher chases. Loses the ball. Hits his chest protector and is eventually caught.

(2) The play in the video, except the ball hits the chest protector first and is then caught.

I would feel good about calling the out in (1) and a foul ball in (2).

Also, 2.16.1D (NFHS Baseball) comment refers to the "body" of the catcher.

2.16.2A (b)

B2 swings and tips the ball and (b) the ball goes directly to the catcher's chest protector and then is caught by the catcher.

Ruling: in (b) this is a foul ball

:)

I suppose this is my fault. Promising not to bring up an argument, and then only bringing up part of it. I don't want to again beat the horse we've killed so thoroughly in the past. And I hope I can refrain from responding to this one again after this post. (Fat chance, right?)

But my OPINION that this should be an out is solely rules based. My OPINION is that it SHOULD be an out, based on the rules themselves.

I recognize that JR has an interpretation that says it's not, and while I contend that their interpretation is not supported at all by the rules, I will call it their way on the field.

Fed has actually done the best job on this one, as they at least created an AR for it. The AR is not supported by rule either, but at least it's in the book as officially "approved".

I don't believe either main softball code has addressed this. I don't believe NCAA baseball or softball have either, although I confess my NCAA baseball knowledge is the weakest among all the rulesets.

I believe the foul tip rule was created so that we are to treat a ball that was touched by the bat so slightly that it caused nearly no change in the ball's trajectory as if it was not touched by the bat at all.

I don't believe the foul tip rule was meant to be warped to create this no-mans-land of a fouled batted ball that cannot be caught for an out.

I also recognize that I'm in the extreme minority in that opinion.

I think it was. I think that this is part of the evolution from hand-outs on one bounce to catchers needing to catch a pitch. Without this, catchers could block this type of ball with their body and catch it on the rebound for an out.

1. F2 caught the ball it appears. I am confused by the mechanic, pointing with index on right hand, I thought we signal no catch with a safe sign and verbalize no catch, so even if PU thought he did not catch the ball, the mechanic is confusing.
2. No KO, since the batted ball did not go directly to the mitt first. Can't blame the PU though because he does not have a good view of the stealthy move to secure the ball into the mitt.
3. 1b occupied, but even if not, isn't the rule now that if batter moves outside the circle around the plate now without attempting to go to 1b he is out?

So in Play #2, you would bang the batter out even if the count was 2-1?

I believe the key phrase to the rule is "sharp and direct". If the ball nicks the bat and goes "sharp and direct" it can be one of two things.

1. If it first hits the glove or hand and is held, it is a foul tip. If it is not held, it is a foul ball.

2. If it first hits anything but the glove or hand, it is foul.

So the call in #2 was wrong.

I recall having read somewhere that if the ball hits the hand or glove, then hits the catcher's chest protector and rebounds to his glove and is held, that would also be a foul tip.

Did you read what I wrote?

No, I would not. Because the people I work for tell me not to.

But yes - I think that should be a catch. It's just not.

You probably read that in the rulebook. That's where I read it.

My apologies to the baseball guys, but to address NCAA softball:

I stand corrected.

My thought also. Plus, F2 got dinged on the play, which was another distraction for PU.

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.