hello,


tonight at our fastpitch meeting for high school softball,
a question came up about about the height of a foul ball.
their was a heated argument that if a batter swings at the ball and it doesnt go over her head and the catcher catches it, its just a strike, but if it goes above her and she catches it, its a foul ball and a out. i wanna know does it state anywhere in our federation rules book that a ball coming off the bat has too reach a certain height before it is to be declared a foul ball? i have loked for this and cannot locate.

thanks

timothy

" doesnt go over her head and the catcher catches it, its just a strike,"

NFHS 2.25.2 - A foul tip is a batted ball that goes directly from the bat to the catcher's mit or hand not higher than the batter's head and is legally caught by the catcher. It is a strike.

"goes above her and she catches it, its a foul ball and a out"

Can't be a foul ball and still be an out. Foul ball is dead ball. This is a fly ball. Doesn't matter if is is over fair or foul territory, it's a fly ball.

WMB

You might also read Situation 6 on this years Fed Softball Rule Interpertations.

http://www.nfhs.org/sports/softball interp.htm

The batter "bunts the ball over foul territory to the left of home plate. The Ball is below the batter's head when F2 lunges to her left and catches the ball. Ruling: Legal catch; batter is out. . . . "

Over the head means it can't be a foul tip, but below the head doesn't mean it can't be caught for an out!.

Roger Greene

Just another myth that's come from the playground game for years.

If it isn't a foul tip, the ball is in play and the batter is liable to be put out if the ball is caught in flight.

We've been through this one many times, especially regarding ASA rules. Fed seems to be almost identical. There are still questions as to what the "not over the batter's head" clause specifically pertains to and, at least in ASA, whether it even belongs in the book. Unfortunately, the one ASA case play (1-58) is rather peculiar (it explains that a fair ball is not a foul tip).

For example, what if the batter swings at a 0-0 pitch that is over her head and gets just enough of the ball that the bat hitting the ball is audible? The ball does not deflect visibly but instead goes sharply and directly into the glove of the catcher, who has reached up to catch the ball above the batter's head. What's the call?

Stop and think about that statement for a second

Quote:

For example, what if the batter swings at a 0-0 pitch that is over her head and gets just enough of the ball that the bat hitting the ball is audible? The ball does not deflect visibly but instead goes sharply and directly into the glove of the catcher, who has reached up to catch the ball above the batter's head. What's the call?

Can't have it both ways. If the ball goes directly and sharply into the catcher's glove, how did the catcher have time to reach up. Either the catcher went to the ball or the ball went to the glove. Even if it sent to the glove, if it was direct and sharp, the call is going to be a foul tip based on what I perceive to be "direct and sharp".

<b>Stop and think about that statement for a second</b>

Not sure exactly what requires thinking about. If it's the statement about the case play, I cited it because it mentions that the ball did not go higher than the batter's head (what the original post asked about) and says that the umpire rules it a foul tip. Then it says that the ball is <i>not</i> a foul tip because it "did not go directly to the catcher's glove from the bat." The problem is that the play describes a <i>fair</i> ball in the first place.

The Fed case play is accurate.

As for how the catcher could reach up and catch a ball directly off the bat, I've seen it many times. The pitch is high, the catcher moves up to catch it, and the batter then ticks it with a high swing. By rule, that's an out. It does not meet all the criteria for being a foul tip. However, I agree with you that it should be called a foul tip.

"Not higher than the batter's head" therefore does not disqualify certain pitches that <i>are</i> higher than the batter's head. And we know that balls can be lower than the batter's head and not be foul tips. "Not higher than the batter's head" is not a defining factor.

I agree with Greymule that "above the head" should be removed from the books. It is another example of the rules writers trying to use a short sentence to explain a larger concept. Then the short sentence gets interpteted literally, and we have the ridiculous issue of a head being a reference point in space to determine whether or not we call a foul tip.

Then we need clarification interpretations, like the NFHS interp that Roger pointed out. BTW - here is the correct link: http://www.nfhs.org/sports/softball_interp.htm .Better we should just get rid of the poor statement.

As Mike noted, the only thing that matters is the "sharp and direct" clause. If the catcher moves the glove to where the ball is headed, and then it comes off the bat directly to the glove - foul tip. But if the ball is appreciably deflected and slowed off the bat, and the catcher has time to move the glove to the ball then we have a caught fly ball.

There may be a gray area here where a catcher, with fast reflexes, and set up deep - may move her glove to the ball on a deflection straight back from the bat. But that movement won't be much, and I would still call that a foul tip. (Actually, if catchers had super fast reflexes and could move to every deflected ball, we umpires would not need all our protective gear!)

WMB

With the rule as written (i.e. I'm not discussing whether the rule should be changed...)

To be a foul tip, the batted ball must meet all of these criteria (ASA and NFHS):

1. Goes directly from the bat to the catcher's hands or glove;
2. Not higher than the batter's head;
3. Is caught by the catcher.

That's it, but it must meet ALLof those.

Too many arm-chair umpires (i.e. coaches) will look only at the "higher than the batter's head" part and try to argue that any caught batted ball that stays below the batter's head is a foul tip.

Not true. If the catcher's glove goes to the ball (side movement or up/down movement), then it is a caught fly ball and an out.

I agree with the sentiment that #2 is not a useful addition to the rule, and it is the cause of most discussions with coaches regarding OUT calls, but other than allowing me to spend some conversational time with coaches and some time on these boards writing about it, it doesn't cause me any problems in applying the rule.

I read this in an entirely different manner.

To me, the "not higher than the batter's head" is more of a disclaimer as to when it is not a foul tip than a requirement which may make it a foul tip.

If you remove this wording you could have more problems than it's worth.

R1 on 1B and is off with the release of the pitch. B attempts to bunt the ball, but it goes about a foot over the batter's head and right down to the catcher's mitt without the catcher leaving her crouch.

Defense wants the out and a possible DP on R1 at 1B. Offense cites the rule and states that since the ball went directly from the bat to the catcher's glove, it is a foul tip, live ball and R1 is now safely standing on 2B.

Without the "not higher than the batter's head" clause, both coaches have a valid argument.

Just leave it there and stop trying to parse each rule with Webster-Merriam.

BTW, CB 1-58 ruling is based on the catcher-to-the-ball scenario being a caught ball, not a foul tip. Fair or foul is irrelevant.

Perhaps. As I said, I have no issue in interpreting the rule; the only detriment is those coaches who think that "lower than the batter's head" is a disqualification for it to be a caught fly.

Again, perhaps, although a bloop pop up does not follow a "direct" path to the glove. "Direct" to me means a straight line, or nearly a straight line.

Also the "goes directly" into the glove or hand doesn't mean "goes immediatley". a small arc is OK. I believe the directly was worded that way just so a "tip" could not roll up the arm, or come back off the chest protector, or get trapped in the catchers gear/arms/chest then possession is finally gained, ..just a foul at that point.

<b>To me, the "not higher than the batter's head" is more of a disclaimer as to when it is not a foul tip than a requirement which may make it a foul tip.</b>

True, and they undoubtedly didn't consider the play where the pitch is already over the head. Without that possibility, "not higher than the batter's head" would be valid as one criterion that has to be met. But when ASA includes the phrase as part of the definition, we can't blame coaches who assume that it is indeed part of the definition. (If ASA gives us a case play that says we should call the batter out if she swings at a pitch over her head and ticks it into the catcher's outstretched mitt, then they clearly mean what they have written, and the "batter's head" clause is necessary.)

In my opinion, "not higher than the batter's head" should be relegated to a POE that explains how to judge foul tips (as in POE #9 concerning checked swings).

<b>BTW, CB 1-58 ruling is based on the catcher-to-the-ball scenario being a caught ball, not a foul tip. Fair or foul is irrelevant.</b>

It is indeed proper that the case book contains a catcher-to-the-ball scenario so that balls that, for example, spin off to one side and are caught by the catcher are properly called outs even though they did not rise higher than the batter's head. It is clear from the "ruling" that the intent of the case play was just that. But the book describes a FAIR ball: "The batter . . . bunts the ball in front of the plate. The catcher lunges and catches the ball before it touches the ground."

"Ruling: This is not a foul tip . . ." Well, what fair ball is? If a case play is going to explain why a ball isn't a foul tip, it should at least start with a foul ball.

Whoever wrote 1-58 probably also wrote 1-72C, which informs us that we should not honor a missed-base dead ball appeal from F6, since the "appeal must come from an infielder including the pitcher or catcher."

<b>a small arc is OK</b>

I wish I knew just how much the ball has to be visibly slowed or deflected for it to become a "fly" ball. This has come up on the baseball board, and the consensus seems to be that any perceptible arc or change of direction is enough. A true foul tip should look just like a pitch that is missed except that you can hear the "tick" of the bat hitting the ball.

In baseball, however, minor deflections of varying degrees and directions are not nearly as common as they are in softball.

Which is why they need to have a ball over the head as a disqualifier for a foul tip, but not a requirement for a ball which can be caught in flight for an out.

But is it really a fair ball, or a caught fly ball? http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/devil_2.gif If allowed to land, is there any guarantee the ball would not roll untouched into foul territory?

OK. No more. I can see that the devil (or his advocate) is after me!