"Over the batter's head"?!
 

Glad to see a softball board here.

Maybe some of youze slo-pitch people can help here. The only softball I do is LL (all levels), whose rules are essentially those of fastpitch, I believe.

Sitch: I've got the dish. Less than two strikes. B1 attempts bunt. The rock strikes her bat and arcs about a foot into the air, then settles pleasantly in F2's (she's in foul territory, as if it matters) mitt. I wait my beat and call B1 out.

Manager of offense gets his shorts in a knot and relates his disapproval to me. He then starts with [and here's where I need your help] this, "It's gotta go over her head" horsesh&t. Now, this rule exists nowhere in LL, trust me.

I explain to him it's either a foul tip or a fly out, and I chose the latter. QED. I tried to keep him in the game, just because he was so earnest, even when he gave me old "Show it to me in the rulebook," to which I replied with my standard, "Nope. You show me." No EJ resulted.

After the game (of course, the complainer won), he approached me again, in kindly fashion. I said, "Found the rule yet?" He laughed. I at least showed him how the play could NOT be considered a foul tip.

Now, is this over-the-head palaver an existing or archaic rule in slo-pitch? This is, obviously, only for my own edification.

Ace Holleran

There was, until recently, an inclusion in the "foul tip" definition that the ball must be "not higher than the batter's head". That meant that a ball higher than the batter's head could not be a foul tip, but wasn't intended to mean that a ball lower than the batter's head couldn't be a foul ball, caught for an out. This was for all versions of softball (fasy, slow, modified).

This past year, both NFHS and ASA have removed that language with the same explanation; it was unnecessary, and previously misinterpreted. Ball sharply and directly to the mitt; foul tip. Ball not directly to the mitt (has an arc, or mitt moves to the ball), caught foul ball.

You made the right call from my perspective . . .

And in both situations, batter out!

Which "both"? :confused:

A foul tip is only an out if strike three.

Count was less than two strikes--otherwise batter is out for foul bunt.

BTW, "mitt moves to ball" can certainly be a foul tip, in LL anyway.

tah

Foul tip directly into the catchers mitt is an "out" according to our state and regional UIC. This is ASA of course and why wouldn't it be an out? Batter swings, makes contact with the ball and it's caught before touching the ground. Why wouldn't that be an out no matter what the count is?

Speaking ASA,
If it goes sharply and directly to the mitt (and the mitt doesn't move) it's just a foul tip. Batter out only if it is strike 3.

Why? Because the ASA rule book says so.

A "foul tip" cannot be an out unless the batter has two strikes at the TOP.

Really? Walt Stack says this? A bit hard to believe. Why? Because the rule says it is a strike and a live ball, so it is not an out unless it is strike 3. ASA Rule 7-4-D.

Well, that was quick!

When I get back from vacation, I'll get more into this...

Here's more
 

From the April 2006 Clarifications/Plays page at www.softball.org/umpires/index.asp

Starting this season, 2006, the reference of the

How much more can you get into? It's pretty clear and I believe it's the same in all rulesets.

Well, it's not a live ball in SP w/o stealing and I will bring this up to our state UIC who can bring it up to our regional UIC. Don't shoot the messenger here, I'm just repeating what I was told by people that are supposed to be in the know. I still think it should be an out no matter what the count is.

:D

good save
lol

Ask your regional UIC about whether its a live ball in any real game though.

Even in SP w/o stealing.. a foul tip is only an out with 2 strikes...

So what you're saying is that SP w/o stealing isn't a real game?

Just goofin with some.. no offense intended.

Anyway, you were clearly backed into a corner and reached and dug around for the circumstance where a tip wouldnt be live and have yet to support how a tip is an out at all counts.

in any case, your state UIC and regional UIC are correct, in the high energy sport that is SP w/o stealing, the ball is dead.

For the rest of the sport though, its live.

Speaking ASA

A foul tip is a foul tip regardless of the game being played. The effect of the foul tip is different, but I can assure you that it can never be an out unless the batter had two strikes at the time of the pitch.

The following is from the April Rules Clarification on the ASA Umpire's web page:


ASA Foul Ball / Foul Tip for 2006


Additional Clarification
The ASA Foul Ball / Foul Tip 2006 Rule Change Clarification appeared in the January 2006 Edition of the Rules Clarifications and Plays. However, because of umpire comments and questions received during Association Rules Clinics and National Umpire Schools, five words have been added to the last sentence of the first paragraph to further clarify the difference between a foul ball and a foul tip. The new first paragraph of the 2006 Rule Clarifications and Plays – January Edition should now read as follows (change is in italics and underlined):

Starting this season, 2006, the reference of the “height of the batter’s head” has been removed from the rulebook from the Foul Ball and Foul Tip definitions. This allows more opportunity for the catcher to obtain “outs” by catching foul batted balls the same as the first and third base person who is playing in. Umpires now only need to judge whether the ball moves from the bat “sharply” and “directly” versus a ball that has a “perceptible” arc and/or the catcher moves the glove to catch the ball after contact with the bat.

OK, I must have missed something. A regular occurance in my life! Are we calling this a foul-tip or a caught foul ball. I thought the original post said it popped UP a foot or so. It's probably a HTBT, but if in the umpire's judgement it went high enough - it's a caught foul pop - not a foul tip. If it's a foul tip that's caught, then yes it's an out only if there are 2 strikes - if it's a foul ball, I've still got an out.

You are correct, the OP concerned an caught foul ball. I believe the issue of the "foul tip" arose when "higher than the batter's head" comment was made.

As we all know, that's "requirement" for a ball to be caught for an out is a myth and I believe that is where the thread went awry.

I think Walt is getting a bit of the "old timers" setting in...

This line of the post totally confused me. I assumed, wrongly, apparently, that we were talking SP since the you made reference to "slo-pitch" people. There are probably more FP people here than SP. My reaction to this post was where is bunting ever allowed in SP, but now I see that you are talking about FP.

OK, I was afraid my filter got stuck on again. . .

I didn't want to start a new post, so added to this one after doing a search.

We do several SP leagues which provide for an "extra" foul ball after the batter has two strikes.

I do not recall seeing a SP foul tip. All those goofy swings that barely contact the ball often result in a little loopy foul ball that F2 can sometimes reach for an out.

My hypothetical situation is if a batter has two strikes "and one to spare" and then we have a foul tip [sharply, directly back to the catcher's glove and held], do we have a strike out or move to "two strikes and none to spare"?

I have my opinion and have heard from a couple of my local guys. Thought I'd put it out there for some inputs.

Thanx.

Unless the local association has a rule specifically providing for this, I have a strike and an out. In terms of rules, a foul tip is handled the same as a called strike.

A courtesy (or extra) foul with two strikes applies to batted balls that meet the definition of a "foul ball".

A foul tip is not a foul ball, and if with two strikes is strike three (and a live ball when stealing is allowed) by every definition in the rule book.

As already said, since a foul tip is not a foul ball (spare or otherwise), you have strike 3.

Or a swinging strike. :p :)

I've always been surprised that there's no verbal for a foul tip. It's just brushing off the fingers, then go into a hammer. That's it. No verbal.

Just about anytime I've ever called it, I've always had confused players.

What verbal would you want? If you want to see confused players, try verbalizing "FOUL TIP" :eek:

Strike. Just strike.

"Is that a foul ball, blue?" "Isn't that an out?"

The hammer means strike or out, but on such rare occasions that we have foul tips, it'd be good, in my opinion to have a verbal "strike" call. Nothing more.

Do you verbalize on a swinging strike?

This is the route I go, because you never know what ucking fidiots we have in our games. We're not ALL blessed with booksmart players. ;)

No, but that is where the bat does not make contact with the ball. If the bat makes contact with the ball, the lack of a verbal detracts from the call. I believe it does not show certainty in the call, even if the PU gives an immediate visual signal. It's almost like it's a half call. A foul tip is not an "obvious call" to everyone in the stands and on the field, which is why we often give no verbal on certain calls like obvious foul balls or, in your example, a swinging strike.

We verbalize a called strike (when the batter doesn't swing). We even verbalize a called ball. Why are we not verbalizing a foul tip for a strike? How would verbalizing "strike" on a foul tip detract from the game?

Maybe this is a slow pitch thing, since a foul tip is not particularly rare in the fast pitch game. Everyone (well, almost everyone) seems to understand the call, although some still think the ball is dead. Occasionally I'll have to remind the batter that she's out on strike 3, but I chalk that up to the batter not actually seeing the signal.

I will state this for the umpteenth time, batters and runners have a tendency to stop when they hear anything out of an umpire's mouth EVEN WHEN IT IS "SAFE". The idea of no verbal is to not interupt play. In this case, the first sound out of your mouth would be "foul" and I guarantee that is all they will hear.

Even if you give a verbal, odss are you will still need to explain what just happened.

I don't think it is necessary and would just muck up the waters that much more. When they argue, cut them off and ask if they would like to protest your call, sign the book and move on.

How did we make it this far without any issues by not verbalizing a foul tip? :rolleyes:

Even when you've got a runner stealing on the pitch, we still verbalize a strike that wasn't swung at, don't we? Does the runner stop? :)

Either way, we've got calls that we verbalize, and those we don't. I just think it might clear some things up if we actually verbalize "strike" on the hammer. Guess we just disagree. I'll still do it the ASA way until it changes (if it ever changes).

I've been moving to the other end of the spectrum on a foul tip. I see little value in a signal that there was a foul tip. There's no verbal - it's a live ball - runners stealing are going to go until they hear something from me.

Yeah, 90'+ away. I call a strike for those around the plate, not the field. THAT is why there are signals.:D

Either way, we've got calls that we verbalize, and those we don't. I just think it might clear some things up if we actually verbalize "strike" on the hammer. Guess we just disagree. I'll still do it the ASA way until it changes (if it ever changes).[/quote]

A foul tip is handled the same as a swinging strike. The reason is that other than a slight sound, the fact that the ball had been hit is barely distinguishable.

One value would be to let anyone who may have heard the contact know that you heard/saw it and it was a foul tip and not catcher's obstruction.

I'm looking at that as having minimal value. Should there be CO, I've got a call to make and they'll know by the call what I have.

Don't we have a signal for that and a verbal as well?

Why don't players understand that if I want you to stop, I'll tell you. If I don't tell you, play on!

Which, IMO, shouldn't exist either. When Fed went to a verbal on OBS, the first two OBS I had that year, I verbalized and the girls looked at me instead of playing on. Since then, I just will not do it.

Like the foul tip, the play is to continue as if the violation never occurred and you deal with it afterward. Don't remember the last time someone started to complain about "interference" (OBS) and someone else didn't say, "he's got it, look at the arm" or something to that effect.

I'm with Steve on this one...I just don't see the value of the "foul tip" signal. It's treated the same as a swinging strike and, usually, everybody knows that the batter swung.

I think this is leaking over from baseball :eek: but I tend to agree with not having a signal for a foul tip and just using the hammer to indicate a strike.

But, it's such a cool signal! :D

If "everybody knows that the batter swung", using your and others' logic, why give a hammer?

I'd be willing to bet that many college umpires who argue against the foul tip signal now would have argued for it back when it was part of the collegate manual. Funny how these things go.

Do you give a safe signal when a runner nearly contacts a fielder or the ball? If so, why?

And I was soooo trying to avoid heading back in this direction...;)

Yes, I do. And that's the right thing to do. It's very much like the "play on" verbal in a different game.

Substitute "INT" for "CO" and I could see the consistency in your 2 points.

BTW, I include both signals in my game because they communicate the fact that, yes, I did see what you saw, and this is what it was. I prefer it to others thinking I'm not seeing what I'm paid to see. Like most of what we do, however, it's not 100% foolproof.

What a load of crap :rolleyes:

You'll have to expand on this glorious comment, oh Great One.

If you're saying that a coach who thinks that he/she has seen or heard something that may be an advantage to his/her team is just as likely to come out and make an issue of it when these mechanics are used as not, then your years of experience are not the be all / end all that some would conclude.

(not referring to the foul tip mechanic)

I'm saying the umpire does their job and the coach is going to come out anyway if they disagree with your assessment of the situation no matter how many signals are made.

Or are you suggesting that coaches who think their team has been slighted by the lack of a call are not going to do their job just because an umpire makes a signal? IMO, that is one weak coach.

AFAIC, umpires have more important things to do than stop to make a non-call.

We have all had managers/coaches approach us prior to a the game warning us of the opponent's dastardly deeds on the field or during a game pointing out what they believe is a violation. Standard response, at least from me, is, "Thank you, coach, I will certainly call any violation when I see it".

You are paid to see runners touch a base, but you do not make a signal every time a runner safely touches a base, do you? :D

I'm suggesting that communicating to a coach that I have seen the same "something" that they saw and judged it to be nothing at least helps remove their perception that I missed seeing it. If they have a problem with what I've judged, that's ok. But I believe it lessens the likelyhood of a "you need to pay attention" discussion. IMO, the weak coaches are the ones who would disregard the fact that I made the signal and argue that I wasn't paying attention anyway.

If there is any question about their being safe I do. ;)

Redundant. If you see a violation, you are going to make the appropriate signal/call, correct? If you don't see a violation, what is there to call? What happens when you make a safe signal and the coach is wondering "what the hell is he doing?"

And that would insinuate there was a play made. Even then, it isn't a matter of touching the base, but the runner being retired by the defense. :D

OTOH, it may also mean that you are making a call on a possible appeal prior to the request for an appeal. :eek:

Oh, Mike. Don't stop now. This is hilarious. I love you taking the devil's advocate position on mechanics. Keep going. Please. This is great stuff.

Sorry to disappoint, Smoke. There are some signals which I think are completely useless.

Sort of curious how we have survived 3/4 a century without such a signal. :rolleyes:

Just a point, however. Nowhere along the way have I suggested an umpire not use the recommended signal of the org. for which they are working. Doesn't mean I have to like it. ;)

The foul tip mechanic, I've had several LL coaches mis-interpret it as calling the batter out. I would simply brush my hands several times, indicating the tip and give the hammer, indicating the strike. And then, the offensive coach comes up to me asking why I'm calling his batter out, and I have to explain that the hammer is used to indicate both strikes and outs. Makes me wonder, in LL, wouldn't it be easier if I just used the baseball method and point to indicate the strike?

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/wilsper/info...ntral/spam.jpghttp://blogs.sun.com/factotum/resource/1113jpg.jpghttp://simplesem.com/wp-content/uplo...pam-report.jpghttp://www.icess.ucsb.edu/images/anti_spam.gifhttp://oviedos.com.mx/data/phoo/2006...atas_gatos.jpghttp://neatorama.cachefly.net/images...-o-lantern.jpghttp://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...911/Douche.jpghttp://www.forgetfoo.com/images/blog/douchebag_you1.jpghttp://www.rockstargames.com/IV/wet/...mdouchebag.jpg

Don't make him angry.
http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com...s-there-is.jpg

Post of the week award :D :cool:

But do you still have a job? :p

Indeed, I do. :)