Foul ball w/2 strikes

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by youngump

It's different by rule. See the definition of Foul Ball. (G)

Aaaaah, but that says "caught by another fielder".

To me, this is just another poorly written rule (actually several rules apply) that never clarify the difference (and the difference is huge) between a foul ball that remains in flight and can be caught for an out, and a foul ball that is also a dead ball. That very difference is what makes a foul tip a live ball, as well.

[Philosophy On]

A ball that touches a bat and can be caught in flight is neither fair nor foul; because it simply doesn't matter!! If over fair territory, it's an out, if over foul territory, it's an out; if sharply and directly to catcher hand or glove, it's a foul tip.

A ball that touches a bat, and cannot be caught in flight within the confines of the playing play is either fair (thus live and in play), or foul (thus dead ball and no play). The foul becomes dead when it is "grounded" (for lack of a better word), or strikes something foreign to the field (fence, foul pole, etc.), rather than caught while in flight.

Some nuances include touching defensive players (remains live and in flight), umpires (live but no longer in flight) or runners (may be dead, may remain live but no longer in flight) before being caught or "grounded" My point with this is that there isn't absolute consistency in this category.

Enter the ball hit sharply and directly to the catcher body/equipment, that cannot be a foul tip because catcher hand or glove isn't the first contact spot. Nor is it a foul ball live in flight, because it didn't (apparently) change direction "with a perceptible arc" as clarified and required by the RS 22; it cannot be caught for an out.

Since it cannot be a fair ball, there is simply only one other category remaining; the catcher "grounded" the ball, and it has the status of dead ball that cannot be caught.

[/PHILOSOPHY OFF]

It would be nice if the rule(s) actually defined these ball statuses, but, instead, the rules (and rules supplements) are lists of examples, instead. And they don't ever really use this example, so the ruling is unclear; until you use Sherlock Holmes logic (eliminate the impossible, the truth must be within what remains).