Batter Swings and Foul Tips (goes directly to) the ball to the catchers glove it thens richochets to the chest protector and the cathers gathers or catches the ball before it hits the ground. Foul Ball ? Foul Tip ? Ball Still Alive ?

<i>"Batter Swings and Foul Tips (goes directly to) the ball to the catchers glove it thens richochets to the chest protector and the cathers gathers or catches the ball before it hits the ground. Foul Ball ? Foul Tip ? Ball Still Alive ? </i>


Foul tip and catch.

Alive?
 

Could a runner still be allowed to steal on this pitch. Live ball ?

Careful, Glen.

It is a foul tip and a strike, but not a catch for an out (unless it is strike 3). Live ball.

It is a foul tip because it hit the glove first and then was caught by the catcher.

It would be a foul ball (and a dead ball) if it hit the catcher's equipment first. It may not be caught for an out in this case.

Re: Alive?
 

Yes to both.

Change the scene.....
 

Dakota writes : It would be a foul ball (and a dead ball) if it hit the catcher's equipment first. It may not be caught for an out in this case.

I am being told that in NFHS 05 rules that if the batter hittes the ball and it goes directly to the catchers chest protector and then she catches it....it is an out as a caught foul ball. This being due to them removing the height requirement on foul balls.

Bandit -

Check the 2005 Fed Case Book, Play 2.25.1 Situation B. It reads:
"A pitch touches the bat, and without touching the catcher's hand or mitt, strikes the catcher's equipment, body, or the umpire. It the rebounds into the catcher's hands. RULING: This is not a foul tip. Such a ball becomes dead when it strikes the catcher's equipment, body, or umpire. 2-25-1g"

So, the ball that would be a foul tip, if if met the definition, is just another foul when it does not meet the definition.

Bandit wrote:

<b>"Batter Swings and Foul Tips (goes directly to) the ball to the catchers glove it thens richochets to the chest protector and the cathers gathers or catches the ball before it hits the ground. Foul Ball ? Foul Tip ? Ball Still Alive ?"</b>

Rule 2.25 Foul Ball, Tip.

NFHS Case Play: pitch touches the bat of B2, it goes directly to
the catcher's glove then caroms against her protector and rebounds into
her hand or glove.

Ruling: This is a foul tip and a catch, ball remains live.

I thought my original post stated this. Did not mention the word
"out" since I did not know how many strikes batter had.

Glen,

My caution was not that your response was incorrect (it wasn't) but that it might be misconstrued as meaning OUT. I know you didn't say OUT, but to some a catch is an out.

<font size = 5>GOTCHA</font>

Thought I worded original correctly, but you had me
wondering.

The original statement was redundant. If the catcher doesn't catch the ball, it couldn't be a foul tip.

And if the catcher was wearing #22, you would have a......

We need to check
 

Ok, This ruling has been changed for the 2005 season. And when the committee in charge of making sure old rulings from the case book were removed(rule 5.1.1 D #2)this one was missed. I believe you will find this and a couple of others from rule # 5 that have not been ommited and were left in by mistake. I am from Indiana and we have not yet received our 2005 rule books so I cannot go directly to it and look for the rule. But please take a moment and look at the front of I believe your 05 rule book and look at the new changes and plays mentioned there.

With NFHS taking the height rule out of the equation would you agree that when a foul ball is hit off of the catchers gear and still controlled this should be an out ? Off of the umpires gear, no. I have been asked to think of it this way....from the past...if a player turned to bunt and fouled the ball straight up, over the batter head, and it came to be trapped between the catchers mitt and chest protector and she then demonstrated control of the ball with her mit or bare hand...didn't we have an out for a foul ball ? So if you take the height requirement out, shouldn't we have an out for the ball that knows go directly from the bat to the protector and is then caught ?

Re: We need to check
 

You're looking at this the wrong way, IMO. The "higher" phrase was removed because it was redundant, not because they were changing what was and is a foul tip and a foul ball. The operative requirement is "directly from the bat..." A ball that goes straight up is not going directly from the bat to anywhere except the top of its flight path.

Definitionally, a batted ball that goes directly from the bat to the catcher's equipment and is caught is a foul ball. (Unless they completely deleted item g. from the definitions while they were removing the "higher..." phrase).

Re: Re: We need to check
 

Definitionally, a batted ball that goes directly from the bat to the catcher's equipment and is caught is a foul ball. (Unless they completely deleted item g. from the definitions while they were removing the "higher..." phrase). [/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed. But I understand it to mean that this ball if caught off of the catchers equipment will or can result in the batter being called out.

"Agreed. But I understand it to mean that this ball if caught off of the catchers equipment will or can result in the batter being called out."

Bandit,
From the RULING in the Case Book - no this is not a catch & out. It is a dead ball. Reread what I quoted from the case book earlier.

Bandit,

Perhaps what has you thinking this way is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a foul ball is.

A foul ball is a dead ball. Always.

However, a fly ball over foul territory is not a foul ball. If it is caught, it is merely a caught fly ball, and a live ball.

When the rules define something as a foul ball, that ball is always dead.

confused
 

I have seen a slide presentation made by NFHS that is now showing with the word change in rule 2-25-1g a ball deflecting off of the catcher chest protector then caught by the catcher being an out. Was told with the rule change of height being deleted this becomes an out

Case book 2005 2.25.1 situation B states that this play is a "foul ball" . I been told that this should of been deleted but was not.


If anyone can get a actual clearing on this from someone with NFHS it would be appreciated


Thanks

Don

Re: confused
 

Anyone with the 2005 Rule Book? What is the definition of a foul ball? Has definition (g) been removed? The published rule changes do not say that is has, from which I was assuming that it has not. Merely removing the "not higher than..." phrase from that definition still leaves that as a foul ball.

2.1g now reads and is highlighted. " goes directly from the bat to any part of the catchers body or equipment and is caught by another FIELDER"

Which to me means if F3 catches it off the deflection you have a foul ball if F2 catches you have a OUT

I am also adding this out of case book play in part 1 comments on the rules going over the rule changes in reply to where a ball goes off of the catchers shin guard and is caught by F5. "The ball is foul and becomes dead at the time it came in contact with the catcher's equipment. Since it was not CAUGHT by the CATCHER, it is a foul ball. If the catcher had caught the ball following contact with the catcher's equipment it would be a CAUGHT foul ball.

Which I am reading correctly it would be an OUT.

Don

[Edited by oppool on Jan 25th, 2005 at 01:01 AM]

Boy, NFHS has sure screwed that up. All because of deleting "higher"???? They've managed to extrapolate a simple clarification into utter FUBAR! (JMO, of course.)

So is the supposedly "caught foul ball" (a newly invented entity) live or dead (which was Bandit's original question & I now understand his confusion)? How does the catcher make a play with a dead ball?

Did ASA join in this silliness?

From my understanding...
 

The rule book and the case book are not written in the same manner as how the rule is to be interpreted. Is it possible that a new interpretation is going to be sent out? yep. Is it possible that an addendum to the rule book will be shipped? Yep. Is it possible that a lot of people are going to be confused? Yep.

I spent about 35 or 40 minutes last night discussing this rule at a HS officials association. They brought up several good questions. I've sent them to "the powers that be" and hope for a reply ASAP.

Re: We need to check
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bandit

Quote:

With NFHS taking the height rule out of the equation would you agree that when a foul ball is hit off of the catchers gear and still controlled this should be an out ? Off of the umpires gear, no. I have been asked to think of it this way....from the past...if a player turned to bunt and fouled the ball straight up, over the batter head, and it came to be trapped between the catchers mitt and chest protector and she then demonstrated control of the ball with her mit or bare hand...didn't we have an out for a foul ball ? So if you take the height requirement out, shouldn't we have an out for the ball that knows go directly from the bat to the protector and is then caught ?

According to the information that we were given at the TASO State meeting, I believe that you are correct Bandit, and that this is in fact an editorial oversight on the part of NFHS.

"<b>To Err Is Human, To Forgive - Highly Unlikely."
</b>

Hopefully both ASA and NFHS will send some changes.
See Mikes Post, 2005 ASA Rule Book.

In 2004 the NFHS said that a ball directly from the bat to the catcher's body, and then caught was a foul ball. Dead ball. A ball that went higher than the batters head and then hit the catcher's body and was caught was a caught foul fly and was an out.

I appears that, with the removal of of the words "higher than the head" that someone is now assuming that a ball going directly to the catcher is equal to a ball that goes up in the air, and thus is treated as a caught foul fly for an out.

I have asked for a clarification from my NFHS source and will let you know when I receive it.

WMB

An additional question about foul balls.

Another part of the foul ball definition (ASA and NFHS) say that a ball over foul territory that touches a player is a foul ball.

But what happens when a player mis-plays a foul fly and it bounces off her head - and is then caught. Out? Or is the ball dead the instant it hit her head?

Instead of the head, what if the ball is first touched by the glove, and lost, and caught before it touches the ground? Out or foul ball?

WMB

In my opinion you guys are over thinking this.

If Fed still wants to call out the BR when first base is touched by a player with the ball, despite the fact that for the past 3 years there has been no rule to cover this call, I think that a batted ball that goes directly from the bat to the catchers body, not her hands, is simply a foul ball. Tell the coach that this is by tradition and custom, then let him protest. To do otherwise would be against truth, justice and the American way.

The WMB questions about the catch or foul ball would simply be covered by the definitions of a catch elsewhere.

Roger Greene

Scott:

You and I were at the same presentation at TASO state. It was explained that the reason the height requirement of over the head was taken out was for foul tip purposes. If a batter attempts to bunt a ball over her head and the catcher happens to be standing up and it goes straight to the catcher's glove, it is considered a foul tip, not a caught foul ball.

On the other hand if the catcher is squatting down and the batter attempts to bunt a ball in the normal stike zone (or lower/higher) and the ball is popped up and caught, it is an out. It is the umpires judgement as to foul tip or foul ball, regardless of whether the ball is higher than the batters head.

the following article just arrived via e-mail. I hope this clarifies what everyone is asking.

"Dear Softball Administrator,

There has been some confusion regarding a 2005 rules change. This message is being sent to clarify the misunderstanding and correct some of what has already been published.

CLARIFICATION:

The clarification involves rule 2-25-1g & 2-25-2 and what constitutes a foul ball/foul tip. Basically, to determine a call in this specific situation, the movement of the ball off the bat must be determined. The recent rules change no longer requires the umpire to make a judgment regarding how high the ball travels off the bat as it relates to the batter's head, but rather if the ball moves DIRECTLY to the catcher or has some perceptible arc.

1. If the ball moves DIRECTLY to the catcher's glove/mitt or hands, we have a foul tip, if caught (2-25-2) or a foul ball, if not caught (2-25-1d).

2. If the ball moves DIRECTLY to the catcher's equipment or person (any place other than the glove/mitt/hand) we have a dead ball and a foul (2-25-1d, 5-1-1d2).

3. If there is any perceptible arc to the flight of the ball (it is not traveling directly to the catcher) and it is caught in flight, the batter is out and the ball remains live. It doesn't matter if it hits the catcher's equipment, it doesn't matter if it's caught by the catcher or any other fielder and it doesn't matter if it stays below the height of the batter's head (recent rules change). If the ball is not caught and is touched in foul territory, it's merely a foul ball.

CORRECTION:

1. Slide #11 (transparency #4) of the NFHS Softball Rules Changes PowerPoint is incorrect. It depicts the ball traveling directly to the shoulder and the catcher making the catch for an out. I have attached a new slide to replace this old slide, which updates the text, and correctly states the ball is dead and a foul ball is called. Please be sure to replace with the correct slide and email this slide out to any of your interpreters.

2. Case Book play 2.25.1 SITUATION 2 on page 4 of the 2005 book is incorrect. The last sentence of the ruling should be deleted. I have also attached the new 2005 interpretations which indicate this correction and include a new play (Situation 16), which gives multiple scenarios pertaining to this rule.

I apologize for the confusion and hope this helps. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Mary

Mary Struckhoff
NFHS Assistant Director
Softball Rules Editor/National Interpreter"

Thanks for the info


Don

I too say thanks.

I have a coach's umpire meeting next Monday, will be useful.

Now you understand ?
 

And you thought that I was going crazy didn't you Mr Dakota ? And from my understanding No ASA did not join in this "silliness". I have not had a chance to compare the rulings but I understand that this ruling has been this way in college. True ? False ?

Re: Now you understand ?
 

Well, to be honest, yes, I did! :D (BTW, while I appreciate the respect, the "Mr" is unnecessary - just plain Dakota or Tom will do - or even Ice or Iceblue if you frequent those other boards.) ;)

For the further explanation given, it would appear that what NFHS intended to do was tighten significantly the definition of "directly".

It making judgments on a foul tip, I had already pretty much ignored the "higher" phrase since it so rarely came into the equation.

The standard I used was did the catcher make a play on the batted ball or not? (i.e. did the ball go to the glove or did the glove go to the ball).

The standard NFHS is putting into their interp is "perceptable arc."

Fine for a ball with an arc, but what about one that goes straight back (i.e. no arc) but comes off at an angle. F2 has to move to the ball. OUT in ASA. What about NFHS? Does the old standard still apply when there is no arc?

i.e. : (assume ball is caught by the catcher)

Perceptable arc?[list=A][*]YES - not a foul tip[*] NO - did the catcher make a play?[list=1][*]YES - not a foul tip[*]NO - a foul tip[/list=1][/list=A]
OR do they want

Perceptable arc?[list=a][*]YES - not a foul tip[*]NO - a foul tip.[/list=a]

"did the ball go to the glove or did the glove go to the ball)."

I am not sure that I can buy the argument that the catcher can execute a visible "play on the ball" on a 50 - 60+ mph pitch that is slightly deflected.

If the ball hits the glove, then the glove probably moved very slightly to the ball path. Maybe 16 YO reflexes are quick enough to get to the ball, but I don't believe that I would even see it. Ask yourself - when that ball deflects directly at your face - do you duck - or get hit? (If you can successfully duck, then why wear the mask?)

I have no problem that a ball can travel a straight line (NHFS word is "direct") from the bat to the glove, even if glove moved, and be called a foul tip.

For a FP catcher to make a perceptible movement to the ball, the ball must have been slowed significantly by the bat - and it probably no longer travels in a straight line. Thus "Arc." And thus foul fly (if caught) or foul ball (if uncaught).

I suspect that ASA will need to keep their definitions due the preponderance of SP play, which allows for catcher movement "to the ball." In that NFHS is primarily FP, their definition makes sense to me.

WMB

Well, I didn't say "slightly."

I wear a mask not because I can't get out of the way (sometimes I probably could, sometime I surely couldn't, but then I'm not 16U!) but so I don't have to try and because I'm not into broken noses, eye-sockets, or skulls. ;)

16U / 18U equivalent is the main focus of NFHS, no?

But, I was just wanting further clarification on this exerpt from the clarification letter posted from NFHS:This seems to define "not traveling directly" as "perceptable arc".

Simple question: is this how NFHS wants this called?

Or, is there still the possiblity (which I actually see sometimes with a good catcher) of a catcher making a play on a batted ball with no perceptable arc?

BTW, with the clarification letter, the only FUBAR remaining is how local clinicians are teaching the change since clearly NFHS did not intend for a foul ball to magically come alive again if caught. Whew!

Glen pointed out in another thread that the NFHS has their rules interps online now.

They help clarify this a lot.

Here are the interps that apply:

This ruling is the same with or without the wording change.Again, same as before.Again, same as before.(a) and (b) are the same as before. In (c), NFHS makes it clear that if the batted ball has a perceptable arc, it cannot be a foul tip and it is a live ball still after hitting the catcher's equipment. At least that is how I read it.

BTW, I don't like their use of the term "caught foul ball" in this ruling. The ball was not foul to begin with (at least, not yet.)

Need more clearification
 

As a second year umpire, I am still a little confused.

Count on batter is 1-1 in both cases below.

1. Ball goes directly from bat to mitt and catcher drops the ball to ground. a) foul ball, play is dead. b) foul ball, play is live. c) foul tip, play is live. d) foul tip, play is dead.

2. Ball goes directly from bat to mitt, glances off mitt, hits chest protector, and is caught. a) foul ball, play is dead, no out. b) foul ball, play is live, out. c) foul tip, play is live, out. d) foul tip, play is dead, no out.

Thanks for the help.

Strike4,

Keep in mind for a foul tip, the ball must go directly from bat to the mitt and be caught by the catcher. Anything else is a foul ball. Therefore 1A and 2 is none of you answers. 2 is a foul tip, play is live, out only on the third strike.

Re: Need more clearification
 

Keep in mind a foul ball is always dead and a foul tip is always live - which eliminates b) and d). And, keep in mind a foul tip is always caught - which eliminates d).

With reminders above, b) and d) are eliminated. Also, remember that if the batted ball goes directly to the hands, glove, or equipment, it cannot be caught for an out, eliminating c). It will be either a foul tip or a foul ball. The deciding factor between a) and foul tip in this situation is what was hit first - glove or hands - foul tip, live ball. If it had hit the equipment first - foul ball; a).

[Edited by Dakota on Jan 31st, 2005 at 01:35 PM]

Maybe it would help to post a general summary of "what is a foul tip." Speaking newly changed and interpreted NFHS rules.

A foul tip must be ALL of the following (if it misses even one, it is not a foul tip):

1. A batted ball
2. Goes directly (no perceptable arc) to the catcher's hands or glove
3. Be caught by the catcher.

That's it. A foul tip is treated exactly the same as a swing and a miss. It is a strike on the batter and the ball is live.

Thanks for the Help
 

Thanks Tex and Dakota both for the help.

The last sentence of Dakota's last post really cleared up my confusion. This new rule is going to cause a lot of discussions since it is being taught different ways across the country.

I'm sure I will be back soon for more answers.

Again thanks to you both for your help.