swinging third strike

[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?

[Mrumpiresir]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Mrumpiresir

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.

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

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

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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

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.