swinging third strike
 

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ej5o2DkZOJg

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Ej5o2DkZOJg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

An umpire friend sent me a short videoclip and I uploaded it to YouTube so you guys could watch it and render an opinion. It's a trivia question, of sorts, so you have to look for all the details.

There are three plays, all involving a swinging third strike. In each case the question is: Did the plate umpire make the right call?

I'd be interested in some of your opinions. It would be helpful if you explained your answer instead of simply saying that the umpire got it right out wrong.

Can't tell what the question is on the 1st.
2nd - half here will insist it's just a foul ball, but it's not. And frankly, given that we've had that argument 47 times, I don't have the energy to have it again. I'll just say, that's a caught ball for an out.
3rd - clearly (to us) a D3K miscalled by the umpire. Not sure he could see the bounce from there though.

1) No. Looked like a catch.
2) Yes. Was a catch once F2 secured ball in his hand.
3) Yes. Batter left the circle before attempting to advance to first.

For the third, first base is occupied, so I'm not sure what he miscalled.

(1) NO. It was caught.

(2) NO. That's not a foul tip. It didn't go sharp and direct to the catcher's hand or glove. It went sharp and direct to the catcher's leg. That makes it a foul ball. I'm glad that MD Longhorn won't wrongly argue with me, however.

(3) YES. First is occupied with less than 2 outs.

I agree with Rich.

On #3 -- if first wasn't occupied, or there had been two outs, then I agree with Paul L in post 3 (but the batter would likely have acted differently)

On 3, I didn't notice the graphic showing 1 out and R1 - I just watched the video. So yeah - he's out.

On 2 - not arguing but clarifying my response. I also am not calling this a foul tip. Just a caught batted ball for an out.

I know what you are trying to say. I completely disagree with it, however. In this situation, the leg is no different than the chest protector. If it hits the protector first, you wouldn't dream of calling it a caught batted ball...or would you?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why?

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.

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.

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.

Maybe the mechanic has been recently changed to just sticking the right arm out? It seems the PU in video 3 did the same thing to signify he had an U3K, but then signaled the out since the batter could not advance.

I believe that's what they are teaching/doing at professional level now.

I agree with your interpretation of Play #3. I think, for the moment, the umpire forgot that there was a runner at 1st and immediately went into his "dropped third strike mechanic" and then realized there was a runner on 1st and called him out. Or, he completely forgot about the ramifications of having a runner on 1st and simply called the batter out for "giving up" and walking out of the dirt area around home. But the batter was out instantly. The umpire may got the call right for the wrong reason.

I think they must have changed the mechanic. They were using the safe sign for a while but they seem to have switched to an extended right arm and holding it there to indicate that a play is still pending. You see the same mechanic in Play #1. The catcher shows the umpire the ball to highlight "I caught it" and then sees the umpire's arm extended. He immediately recognized that as a signal that the umpire considered the pitch uncaught.

I don't understand the reason for the extended arm mechanic for 'no catch' on a pitch. The safe signal means 'no catch' everywhere else on the field, and it will never be mistaken for an out call. A safe signal with a verbal "no catch" says it best.

Nitpicking a signal like this? I don't get the point. It doesn't change a damned thing.

(And I'm not talking about the safe sign versus the extended right arm. I really don't care which signal is used there.)

The original question was whether PU made the right call, which would be inclusive of whether it was signaled correctly so all would know, thus the question about the mechanic.

It is not nit-picking, it is seeing something different than what has been conventional and wondering...

You think it's not nitpicking.

I think it is.

Was the right call made? Yes.

I was. And I wasn't nitpicking the PU. I'm sure his mechanics were by the book. I was nitpicking the book.

Nitpick or not, I find it fascinating, and somewhat disconcerting, that nobody can get on the same sheet when it comes to this common occurence. Why can't we just have a one-size-fits-all mechanic for all sanctioning bodies when it comes to U3Ks?? I thought after the whole Doug Eddings fiasco, the Safe sign and verbal "No Catch" would be the standard. But almost ten years later, it's still not.

I don't do much baseball, having opted to umpire fast-pitch softball the last few years. And "over there", there is no accepted standard. I believe NCAA requires the Safe/No Catch mechanic. But ASA wants umpires to give no verbal or signal; just signal the strike (verbal if it's a called third), and let the players figure out if the ball was caught or not. I think FED softball is the same as ASA.

Now it appears that MLB is using a completely unique mechanic. I don't get it....

I think you're ascribing more to "MLB" than you should from one umpire's mechanic on one play.

And since we don't knopw what he said, it might have been perfectly clear to all the participants in that game what was going on.

Unless it's the same umpire, plays 1 and 3 on the video show both PUs extending the right arm out on the call. I really haven't given it much thought, but maybe I need to watch a few MLB games more closely and see if it's the new mechanic, or just two umpires ironically doing the same strange signal.

#1 is Lincecum's no-hitter on 6/25/14 against San Diego.
#3 is Wainright (St. Louis) against Cincinnati on 5/25/14

In both cases the umpire is Adam Hamari.

Dang! That's impressive research. :)

I was at the Single A Fort Wayne Tincaps over the weekend and the plate umpire there used the same mechanic on the video for all of the uncaught third strikes.

Surely that indicates training rather than a rogue signal by an umpire.

I never liked the safe sign mechanic for an uncaught third strike because some of those are checked swings. Not only is there a question as to whether the ball was caught or not - there is some question as to whether the batter swung or not. There can sometimes actually be two issues that are simultaneously unclear.

I think some may interpret the safe sign to mean "the batter didn't go".

After all, what's the signal a base umpire gives on an appealed checked swing if, in his opinion, the batter did not swing? The safe sign!

I actually like the extended arm mechanic. It looks like a strike call (which a safe sign does not) and the fact that the umpire maintains that signal is a strong indicator that something is pending.