swinging third strike

[David Emerling]

Here's what I was thinking about these. I could be wrong.

Play #1 - WRONG - The umpire is using the mechanic for an uncaught 3rd when, in fact, the ball was caught. An understandable mistake but, what if the catcher had thrown it over the first baseman's head? I wonder if the catch (of the pitch) is reviewable. I don't know.

Play #2 - RIGHT - The umpire calls the batter out - because he is! The question is: WHY does he call him out? It can't be a caught foul tip because it never touched the catcher's mitt or hands. Yet, the ball was caught. Since the umpire never gave the foul tip signal, I assume he's calling the batter out for a caught foul ball. Which would be correct.

Play #3 - RIGHT call WRONG mechanic? - Since there is a runner on 1st with less than two outs (I told you that you had to look for details), the umpire gave the MLB mechanic for an uncaught third strike THEN, it seemed to me, he belatedly realized that the batter was out anyway and signaled the out. He could have directly signaled the batter out as soon as he swung and missed regardless of whether the pitch was caught or not.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Play #2 - RIGHT - The umpire calls the batter out - because he is! The question is: WHY does he call him out? It can't be a caught foul tip because it never touched the catcher's mitt or hands. Yet, the ball was caught. Since the umpire never gave the foul tip signal, I assume he's calling the batter out for a caught foul ball. Which would be correct.

I read 2.00 Foul Tip as saying the ball cannot be caught period. It's a foul ball, not a caught batted ball for an out.

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I read 2.00 Foul Tip as saying the ball cannot be caught period.

Why?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Why?

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."

[MD Longhorn]

I feel like I'm being baited... And I worry this is going to go south soon... but........

Yes, a batted ball that is not a foul tip, which is caught before it hits the ground, is an out. At any level, in any code, baseball or softball. If you disagree, quote a rule ... and quote one that doesn't simply say that it's not a foul tip. A ball caught by F9 near the bat girl is also not a foul tip.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I feel like I'm being baited... And I worry this is going to go south soon... but........

Yes, a batted ball that is not a foul tip, which is caught before it hits the ground, is an out. At any level, in any code, baseball or softball. If you disagree, quote a rule ... and quote one that doesn't simply say that it's not a foul tip. A ball caught by F9 near the bat girl is also not a foul tip.

Not arguing, but just wondering - wouldn't you think there would be an official interpretation about this ... somewhere? There are lots of things we know are true but are not explicitly addressed in the rulebook - aren't there? It's hard to believe that, in all the literature and interpretations, this has never been specifically addressed. Or, maybe it has and we just don't know about it.

[Paul L]

OBR 2.00:
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.

Sounds like once the ball is no longer in flight or if you use your uniform to gain secure possession, like it's lodged between your pants and your shirt, it is not a catch.

I always thought it was getting secure possession before touching the ground.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Paul L

OBR 2.00:
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.

Sounds like once the ball is no longer in flight or if you use your uniform to gain secure possession, like it's lodged between your pants and your shirt, it is not a catch.

I always thought it was getting secure possession before touching the ground.

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Not arguing, but just wondering - wouldn't you think there would be an official interpretation about this ... somewhere? There are lots of things we know are true but are not explicitly addressed in the rulebook - aren't there? It's hard to believe that, in all the literature and interpretations, this has never been specifically addressed. Or, maybe it has and we just don't know about it.

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.

[asdf]

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

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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 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.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

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

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I don't believe either main softball code has addressed this. I don't believe NCAA baseball or softball have either,

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

11.5 Foul Ball
11.5.8 Goes directly from the bat to any part of the catcher’s body or equipment
other than her hand or gloved hand.

[David Emerling]

I think I'm going to change my answer to Play #2. Since the pitch went sharp and direct into the catcher, without touching his mitt or hands, it is a foul ball. If the ball had any discernible loop, however slight, it would be a caught foul ball for an out. I'm going with "wrong call", regardless of the umpire's reason.