Out or not?

[genetoy71]

High school ball this week in Ohio. 2 strikes on the batter. Next pitch, batter swings. Bat hits ball. Ball goes straight back, touches catcher's glove, glances off glove, hits catcher's chest protector and settles in catcher's lap. Catcher grabs ball with bare hand and controls it then places it in her glove. Ball never touched the ground or came close to touching the ground. Plate umpire calls "out". Field umpire comes running in and says "No out. The ball has to go straight to her glove." The plate umpire changed his mind and said that the batter wasn't out. I asked "How is she not out? She swung at strike 2, didn't hit a fair ball, and the ball didn't touch the ground?" He just kept repeating that the ball has to go straight to the glove. Fortunately the batter was later put out and no runners advanced. Should the batter have been out as initially called given the situation as described?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by genetoy71

High school ball this week in Ohio. 2 strikes on the batter. Next pitch, batter swings. Bat hits ball. Ball goes straight back, touches catcher's glove, glances off glove, hits catcher's chest protector and settles in catcher's lap. Catcher grabs ball with bare hand and controls it then places it in her glove. Ball never touched the ground or came close to touching the ground. Plate umpire calls "out". Field umpire comes running in and says "No out. The ball has to go straight to her glove." The plate umpire changed his mind and said that the batter wasn't out. I asked "How is she not out? She swung at strike 2, didn't hit a fair ball, and the ball didn't touch the ground?" He just kept repeating that the ball has to go straight to the glove. Fortunately the batter was later put out and no runners advanced. Should the batter have been out as initially called given the situation as described?

1) If "Ball goes straight back, touches catcher's glove" means directly to the glove, meeting the definition of foul tip, then out as a 3rd strike.
A directly to the glove foul tip does not require immediate catch, just direct line and eventually a catch.

2) If not meeting the definition of foul tip, but caught in flight (no ground contact); then out as a fly ball regardless of count..

3) Field umpire is also out. (Field umpire comes running in and says "No out. The ball has to go straight to her glove." )

4) Both umps need mentoring.

[MT 73]

This is a foul tip because it went sharply and directly to the catchers glove.
As long as it does not touch the ground and is eventually caught it is still a foul tip and, if it is the 3rd strike the batter is now out.
These are the basic types of rules that any umpire should know.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

1) If "Ball goes straight back, touches catcher's glove" means directly to the glove, meeting the definition of foul tip, then out as a 3rd strike.
A directly to the glove foul tip does not require immediate catch, just direct line and eventually a catch.

2) If not meeting the definition of foul tip, but caught in flight (no ground contact); then out as a fly ball regardless of count.

3) Field umpire is also out. (Field umpire comes running in and says "No out. The ball has to go straight to her glove." )

4) Both umps need mentoring.

You're #2 above is not correct if this batted ball had hit something other than the catcher's mitt or glove. A batted ball that goes sharp and direct from the bat to the catcher can only be a foul tip or a foul ball. It cannot be a caught batted ball for an out.

[RKBUmp]

Apparently base umpire has never learned the section of the rule book about umpires never seeking to overturn another umpires call or providing input on a call without request from the calling umpire.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Manny A

You're #2 above is not correct if this batted ball had hit something other than the catcher's mitt or glove. A batted ball that goes sharp and direct from the bat to the catcher can only be a foul tip or a foul ball. It cannot be a caught batted ball for an out.

Correct, it would require being away from the catcher for a reach or a move.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Apparently base umpire has never learned the section of the rule book about umpires never seeking to overturn another umpires call or providing input on a call without request from the calling umpire.

That's not the only thing he has not learned...

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Correct, it would require being away from the catcher for a reach or a move.

I'm a jacka$$ when it comes to grammar; and a stickler when a rule is restated colloquially, rather than in rule book language. I aspologize if I hurt anyone's last feeling.

SharpLY and directLY means you cannot see an observable change of direction as a result of the "tip". That is actually a physical impossibility, as any contact MUST, by the laws of physics, change direction (every action/force must result in an equal but opposite reaction).

If there is an observable change of direction as a result of the contact, be it up, down, to a side, or any combination; if that ball is caught, it is an out. Fair or foul, it is a batted ball caught in flight that is NOT a foul tip.

The exception noted by Manny is a ball contacted by the batter that does not have an observable change of direction, but contacts the catcher first somewhere OTHER than hand or glove. THAT is a foul ball, and a dead ball, grounded by contacting the catcher.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

The exception noted by Manny is a ball contacted by the batter that does not have an observable change of direction, but contacts the catcher first somewhere OTHER than hand or glove. THAT is a foul ball, and a dead ball, grounded by contacting the catcher.

And that rule could stand a bit of an adjustment

[josephrt1]

SharpLY and directLY means you cannot see an observable change of direction as a result of the "tip". That is actually a physical impossibility, as any contact MUST, by the laws of physics, change direction (every action/force must result in an equal but opposite reaction).

The exception noted by Manny is a ball contacted by the batter that does not have an observable change of direction, but contacts the catcher first somewhere OTHER than hand or glove. THAT is a foul ball, and a dead ball, grounded by contacting the catcher.[/QUOTE]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++

Steve, your comment on a ball contacted by the batter but contacts the catcher first other than hand or glove is a foul, dead ball is the way i learned it and play it. (doesn't happen much) But i just checked the wording in the rule and it is actually a little confusing.

Foul ball definition says "Foul Ball: A batted ball that: G. Goes directly from the bat to any part of the catcher's body or equipment and is caught by another fielder". Why does it say caught by another fielder? What if it is caught by the catcher herself?

And just a light hearted response on defying the laws of physics. The rule does say directly from the bat to the the glove or hand. So the anticipated slight change in direction when the ball contacts the bat should allow Sir Issac to rest peacefully.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

If there is an observable change of direction as a result of the contact, be it up, down, to a side, or any combination; if that ball is caught, it is an out. Fair or foul, it is a batted ball caught in flight that is NOT a foul tip.

I'd like to know how a change in direction can be observable in that short a distance between the bat and the catcher. The only way I can see that is if the ball doesn't go sharply and directly from the bat to the catcher.

Suppose the pitch is so low that, had the batter not contacted the ball, it might hit the dirt before the catcher fields it. But because the batter swung below the ball and nicked it such that the ball goes back up towards the catcher's mask, hits off her mask and goes up in the air, and is then eventually caught by the catcher, are you saying above that that is considered an observable change in direction, and this should be a batted ball caught in flight? I hope not, because there's nothing in the rule that says the direction the ball was going prior to being contacted by the bat has to be taken into account.

Or am I confused by your point?

[MT 73]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I'd like to know how a change in direction can be observable in that short a distance between the bat and the catcher. The only way I can see that is if the ball doesn't go sharply and directly from the bat to the catcher.

Suppose the pitch is so low that, had the batter not contacted the ball, it might hit the dirt before the catcher fields it. But because the batter swung below the ball and nicked it such that the ball goes back up towards the catcher's mask, hits off her mask and goes up in the air, and is then eventually caught by the catcher, are you saying above that that is considered an observable change in direction, and this should be a batted ball caught in flight? I hope not, because there's nothing in the rule that says the direction the ball was going prior to being contacted by the bat has to be taken into account.

Or am I confused by your point?

I am still working on how sharp and direct defies the law of physics.