Foul Tip

[SRW]

I am having a discussion with a fellow ump, and need some historical help with the Foul Tip rule.

Speaking ASA only.

Was there ever a time where, to be considered a foul tip, the ball had to be caught over foul territory? If so, when did it change to remove that?

I don't care about the batter's head height, or anything else like that... I just need to know if there was ever a requirement for F2 to catch it over foul ground. And if so, when did that change?

Hope some of you can help...

[greymule]

I don't recall any rule like that and at any rate would have a hard time imagining something that could qualify as a foul tip and be caught over fair territory. (OK, ball goes sharp and direct off the bat, hits the catcher's glove, rebounds into the air in front of home plate, and is caught by the catcher; or batter in front of box, F2 reaching out over the plate—yes, it's possible.)

However, ASA did offer a case play in which the batter bunted the ball in front of the plate and F2 dived forward and caught it in fair territory. The ruling was that the play qualified as an out, not a foul tip, since the catcher moved toward the ball. Thus some people studying the case book might have thought the criterion disqualifying a foul tip to be that the ball was caught over fair territory, when in fact it was that the ball did not go sharp and direct into the mitt or hand, but instead deflected such that "the catcher went to the ball."

So the fact that the ball was caught over fair territory was an unintentional red herring, since a ball deflected to the side such that F2 had to move to the ball and catch it over foul territory would also qualify as an out and not a foul tip.

Last summer, I did see a foul tip that was deflected at quite a large angle, though. The batter attempted to bunt a high pitch, and the ball deflected almost straight downward, sharp and direct into the catcher's mitt, with no perceptible change in speed or spin. Despite the severe change in angle, the defining criteria of "sharp and direct" were met, so it was a foul tip. (Why the catcher was holding her glove a foot off the ground when the pitch was 6 feet high is anybody's guess.)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by greymule

Last summer, I did see a foul tip that was deflected at quite a large angle, though. The batter attempted to bunt a high pitch, and the ball deflected almost straight downward, sharp and direct into the catcher's mitt, with no perceptible change in speed or spin. Despite the severe change in angle, the defining criteria of "sharp and direct" were met, so it was a foul tip. (Why the catcher was holding her glove a foot off the ground when the pitch was 6 feet high is anybody's guess.)

Her eyes were probably closed Guess your lucky the batter made contact

[SRW]

Soooo...
Due to the lack of replies, I'll take it that this was never part of the rule...?

[greymule]

There is nothing about a foul tip having to be caught over foul territory in my ASA rule books back through 1998, but without rule books back to the first one published, who knows? I would be very surprised, though, to find any such stipulation in any code, including baseball.

Maybe the 1933 rule book worded the definition in such a way that some inference could be made about foul territory. Again, I suspect that any present confusion results from the badly worded case play.

The main difference among codes regarding foul tip involves whether the ball has to be caught by the catcher. In ASA and NCAA it must be caught by the catcher. In Fed, "any fielder" can catch it (2002 book). The OBR book says simply "caught" and doesn't specify the catcher.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by greymule

Again, I suspect that any present confusion results from the badly worded case play.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by SRW

Was there ever a time where, to be considered a foul tip, the ball had to be caught over foul territory?...

Go to Softball Umpires and go to the Handouts page, Rules Articles, and click on the link for "Original Softball Rules." You'll find that it was not a requirement in the 1930's era ASA rules. EVER? I don't know.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SRW

I am having a discussion with a fellow ump, and need some historical help with the Foul Tip rule.

Speaking ASA only.

Was there ever a time where, to be considered a foul tip, the ball had to be caught over foul territory? If so, when did it change to remove that?

I don't care about the batter's head height, or anything else like that... I just need to know if there was ever a requirement for F2 to catch it over foul ground. And if so, when did that change?

Hope some of you can help...

I was waiting for someone else to raise the point, but....

Working on the assumption that the catcher must remain in the catcher's box and the normal catcher's arms are not more than 36" long, there is no other option than the ball being over foul territory to catch a foul tip.

If a player contacts a batted ball over fair territory, how can it be a foul ball? ASA 1.Fair Ball.C

[SRW]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I was waiting for someone else to raise the point, but....

Working on the assumption that the catcher must remain in the catcher's box and the normal catcher's arms are not more than 36" long, there is no other option than the ball being over foul territory to catch a foul tip.

If a player contacts a batted ball over fair territory, how can it be a foul ball? ASA 1.Fair Ball.C

I envisioned a play where, B1 swings, ball goes from bat sharply and directly to F2's mitt, bounds up about 8 feet and away from F2 (toward F1), and F2, making a diving leap into fair territory, catches the ball about a foot in front of the plate.

Meets the definition of a foul tip... doesn't it?

[greymule]

Meets the definition of a foul tip... doesn't it?

I'd say so. I offered a similar possibility in my earlier post. It could happen.

How about this one?

Pitch goes sharp and direct off the bat to the catcher's mitt and rebounds into the air halfway to the mound. F1 dives to catch the ball but instead knocks it toward F2, who catches it in the air. If the ball never hit the ground, you'd have to rule this a foul tip also. Meets the definition.

It is true that though a foul tip could be caught over fair territory, it pretty much has has to hit foul first, though I can imagine, with a batter far forward in the box, a catcher moving up to where she could reach straight out and first touch the ball over the back point of home plate. In NCAA, where the catcher can (if she doesn't interfere) plant her feet farther forward, I can imagine this more easily.

The back point of the plate is 27½ inches from the back line of the batter's box, which is the front line of the catcher's box. If the catcher gets as far forward as ASA allows, her mitt could certainly contact a pitch at a point over the plate. If this is a pitch that has gone sharp and direct off the bat, then "sharp and direct" qualifies the play as a foul tip. Otherwise, if the ball went sharp and direct from the bat to the mitt (over the plate) and then bounced off the mitt and rolled into fair territory, we'd have to call it fair and treat it as a ground ball.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by greymule

Meets the definition of a foul tip... doesn't it?

Okay, I'm mistaken on this as I was thinking more along the line of the status of the ball. OTOH, while that would meet the definion of fair territory, it isn't relevant to the play at hand, but that doesn't make me right.

Pitch goes sharp and direct off the bat to the catcher's mitt and rebounds into the air halfway to the mound. F1 dives to catch the ball but instead knocks it toward F2, who catches it in the air. If the ball never hit the ground, you'd have to rule this a foul tip also. Meets the definition.

No, because a foul tip must be caught by the catcher, by rule.

It is true that though a foul tip could be caught over fair territory, it pretty much has has to hit foul first,

Which is where I was hanging out.

though I can imagine, with a batter far forward in the box, a catcher moving up to where she could reach straight out and first touch the ball over the back point of home plate. In NCAA, where the catcher can (if she doesn't interfere) plant her feet farther forward, I can imagine this more easily.

The back point of the plate is 27½ inches from the back line of the batter's box, which is the front line of the catcher's box. If the catcher gets as far forward as ASA allows, her mitt could certainly contact a pitch at a point over the plate. If this is a pitch that has gone sharp and direct off the bat, then "sharp and direct" qualifies the play as a foul tip. Otherwise, if the ball went sharp and direct from the bat to the mitt (over the plate) and then bounced off the mitt and rolled into fair territory, we'd have to call it fair and treat it as a ground ball.

The only problem with that is knowing that the ball was actually over the plate when it hit the glove which is going to be near impossible from your position and then selling it. GFL, I wouldn't want to be the UIC handling that protest

[IRISHMAFIA]

Through the generosity of WMB, I can quote the following from the Softball Official Rules as approved by the Joint Rules Committee, 1936:

RULE 15 - A FOUL TIP

Foul tip
A foul tip is a ball batted by the batsman while standing in the lines of his position, that goes sharp and direct to the hands of the catcher and is legally caught.

A foul hit ball which rises hight than the batsman's head shall not be a foul tip under this rule.

[greymule]

Pitch goes sharp and direct off the bat to the catcher's mitt and rebounds into the air halfway to the mound. F1 dives to catch the ball but instead knocks it toward F2, who catches it in the air. If the ball never hit the ground, you'd have to rule this a foul tip also. Meets the definition.

No, because a foul tip must be caught by the catcher, by rule.

But F2 did catch it: ". . . F2, who catches it in the air."

And I agree that sharp and direct to the catcher's hand or mitt cannot be a fair ball, even if the actual contact is made over home plate. (Good luck selling that one, anyway.) Naturally, a ball not sharp and direct off the bat, perhaps spinning upward and backward, could be contacted over the plate and thus rendered fair.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by greymule

Pitch goes sharp and direct off the bat to the catcher's mitt and rebounds into the air halfway to the mound. F1 dives to catch the ball but instead knocks it toward F2, who catches it in the air. If the ball never hit the ground, you'd have to rule this a foul tip also. Meets the definition.

No, because a foul tip must be caught by the catcher, by rule.

Man, this season better get here quick, I can't even keep my Fs in line!

But F2 did catch it: ". . . F2, who catches it in the air."

Another one that I don't want to be around to sell. I agree, by the rule, this meets the definition of a foul tip unless someone can find something in the book to nullify it. I couldn't.