A (Somewhat) Rhetorical Rules Question

[BretMan]

Another umpire (whose opinion I value and who checks in on these boards) and I got into a discussion on another message board about the old ASA "not higher than the batter's head" requirement for a foul tip.

Discussing the old rule was kind of a moot exercise, since ASA removed the "not higher than..." requirement in 2006. But, some associations still have that requirement on their books- NSA and USSSA, for example.

Imagine you're back in 2005 and calling an ASA game, or calling an NSA game today, and the "not higher than the batter's head" is still included in the definition of a foul tip. Let me throw out some sample plays- you tell me what you have.

Just to narrow it down, here are your three choices for each of the questions:

a) A foul tip & a live ball.
b) A caught fly ball for an out & a live ball.
c) A foul ball & a dead ball.

1) Batter swings and barely nicks the ball. The ball goes sharply and directly to the catcher's hands, not higher than the batter's head, and is caught. What do you have?

2) Batter swings and barely nicks the ball. The ball goes sharply and directly to the catcher's hands, going higher than the batter's head, and is caught. What do you have?

3) Batter swings and barely nicks the ball. The ball comes off the bat in an arcing path, not higher than the batter's head, and is caught by F2. What do you have?

4) Batter swings and barely nicks the ball. The ball comes off the bat in an arcing path, going higher than the batter's head, and is caught by F2. What do you have?

5) Batter swings and barely nicks the ball. The ball goes sharply and directly to the catcher's hands, not higher than the batter's head, then rebounds and is caught by another fielder. What do you have?

6) Batter swings and barely nicks the ball. The ball goes sharply and directly to the catcher's hands, going higher than the batter's head, then rebounds and is caught by another fielder. What do you have?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Okay, Bret, I'll play. Give me Rhetorical Rule Questions for $100!

Originally Posted by BretMan

Just to narrow it down, here are your three choices for each of the questions:

a) A foul tip & a live ball.
b) A caught fly ball for an out & a live ball.
c) A foul ball & a dead ball.

1) Batter swings and barely nicks the ball. The ball goes sharply and directly to the catcher's hands, not higher than the batter's head, and is caught. What do you have?

A

2) Batter swings and barely nicks the ball. The ball goes sharply and directly to the catcher's hands, going higher than the batter's head, and is caught. What do you have?

C

3) Batter swings and barely nicks the ball. The ball comes off the bat in an arcing path, not higher than the batter's head, and is caught by F2. What do you have?

B

4) Batter swings and barely nicks the ball. The ball comes off the bat in an arcing path, going higher than the batter's head, and is caught by F2. What do you have?

B

5) Batter swings and barely nicks the ball. The ball goes sharply and directly to the catcher's hands, not higher than the batter's head, then rebounds and is caught by another fielder. What do you have?

C

6) Batter swings and barely nicks the ball. The ball goes sharply and directly to the catcher's hands, going higher than the batter's head, then rebounds and is caught by another fielder. What do you have?

C

[jmkupka]

Hey Mike,

Your answer to Sit 2 is a typo, correct?
A ball that's nicked off the bat, which F2 has to reach higher than the batter's head in order to catch. would be an out, live ball, no?

[jmkupka]

And Sit 3 would be a rare occurance, maybe the world's slowest pitch, for an arc off the bat not to go higher than the batter's head.

That said... if F2 doesn't have to move the mitt to catch this arc (not sharp but definitely direct), it's not a foul tip?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Hey Mike,

Your answer to Sit 2 is a typo, correct?
A ball that's nicked off the bat, which F2 has to reach higher than the batter's head in order to catch. would be an out, live ball, no?

The catcher didn't have to reach for anything.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

And Sit 3 would be a rare occurance, maybe the world's slowest pitch, for an arc off the bat not to go higher than the batter's head.

That said... if F2 doesn't have to move the mitt to catch this arc (not sharp but definitely direct), it's not a foul tip?

Actually, it is not that rare of occurance, especially in SP. And if it comes off the bat and is not a foul tip, the catcher is going to move the glove.

[DeputyUICHousto]

I was in the conversation with Bretman on the other board. Here is a direct quote from Bretman which I felt was incorrect:

"There never was any requirement that a batted ball go to any specified height before it was caught for an out. That is, the ball NEVER had to go over the batter's head to be caught for an out (ie: to be a fly ball caught over foul territory)!"

Prior to the rule change in 2006 the all HAD to be above the batter's head in order for it to be an out of caught by the catcher.

Please enlighten me if I'm incorrect.

Also, in your "situations" posted...anytime the ball goes "sharply and directly" to the catcher's glove or hand it is a foul tip...period.

[FullCount]

I'm struggling to visualize the difference between sits's 3 & 4 (described as an arcing path) and those that are listed as "sharply and directly" to F2's hands or glove yet over the batter's head. My issue is that anything that goes over the batter's head to F2's hand or glove would seemingly have a vertical arc, or rainbow path. How does that differ from 3 & 4? Also, I can't imagine how it can go sharply and directly to F2's hands and also be over the batter's head- maybe F2 is nearly standing straight up while reaching up?

[BretMan]

Thanks for checking in, Deputy. I purposely left your username out of the first post to respect your privacy. I figured that if you wanted to join in the conversation, you could on your own terms.

The crux of our disagreement (and it has been a very polite disagreement) was in regard to a batted ball that comes off the bat with an arc, which the catcher has to move the mitt to catch.

Your opinion was that (in ASA, prior to 2006) such a ball would have to go higher than the batter's head to be caught for an out (ie: to be a fly ball caught over foul territory).

My point was that this was never the case. There was never any height requirement for a batted coming off the bat with an arc before it could be caught as a fly ball for an out. A ball coming off the bat with an arc at ANY height could be caught for an out.

(Is that an accurate summary of our disagreement?)

The whole "not higher than the batter's head" ONLY affected the status off a ball that went off the bat sharply, directly and straight to the cather's mitt, without the catcher having to move the mitt to make a catch.

You have added another claim to your post here- and it is one I cannot disagree with, Yes, any ball that goes sharply and directly to the catcher's hands and is caught is a foul tip in ASA...since 2006. Before that, it could ONLY be a foul tip if it went no higher than the batter's head. That was the effect of the 2006 rule change. The rule change had nothing to do with balls that came off the batt with a perceptible arc.

[AtlUmpSteve]

I'm going to weigh in with Bret on this one.

The old rule said that a ball that was over the batter's head could not be a foul tip; it also said that a ball not over over the batter's head that went sharply and directly into the catcher's body or equipment was a foul ball even if caught by another fielder.

Nothing ever said what you (Deputy) are taking to be the inverse, that a batted ball not higher than the batter's head that was not hit sharply and directly to the catcher's glove could not be caught for an out. You are interpreting a ruling that does not exist because it seems to be the inverse; but it is not.

The inverse of a foul tip is NOT a foul ball; it is a batted ball caught for an out. All ASA definitions of foul balls (both past and current) refer to balls not caught, except the one hitting the catcher's body or equipment first.

So if this is not, by definition, a foul tip, and it is not by definition, a foul ball, it is the only remaining possibility; a caught batted ball is a live ball out, with runners required to tag up. Nothing about the batted ball that doesn't get higher than the batter's head, and is caught, makes it a foul (thus dead) ball.

In other threads, I have used the phrase that touching a bat never makes a ball foul dead. Only one of the definition of a foul ball makes it foul and dead. It appears you are confusing the location of the ball when caught (over foul territory) with the result of the catch; and that makes no difference to anyone but NCAA statisticians.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Another way I use to handle coaches that don't get this is to say that every batted ball has to be something, and there has to be a rule that makes it that. We know the definition of a foul tip; if that, it is live, and treated as a swing and miss. We know the definition of a foul ball; if that, it is a dead ball, and a strike.

Everything else is a live ball as long as it is in live ball territory. All batted balls that aren't either a foul tip or a foul ball must then be a live ball. And all live batted balls caught before touching part of the field or an offensive player can be caught for an out.

[Dakota]

Agree with Steve and BretMan. The "not higher than the batter's head" was a condition that was placed on a foul tip (i.e. if it went higher than the batter's head it was NOT a foul tip). There was no "not lower than the batter's head" condition placed on what could be caught for an out. It was certainly possible (and not uncommon) for the catcher to catch for an out a batted ball that stayed below the batter's head, so long as the catcher had to make a play on the ball rather than have the ball go directly to her hand/glove.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Agree with Steve and BretMan. The "not higher than the batter's head" was a condition that was placed on a foul tip (i.e. if it went higher than the batter's head it was NOT a foul tip). There was no "not lower than the batter's head" condition placed on what could be caught for an out. It was certainly possible (and not uncommon) for the catcher to catch for an out a batted ball that stayed below the batter's head, so long as the catcher had to make a play on the ball rather than have the ball go directly to her hand/glove.

Late comer, but agree with the consensus. This was a neighborhood wiffle ball league rule, but not in softball.

Basically, it is a softball myth.

[jmkupka]

"2) Batter swings and barely nicks the ball. The ball goes sharply and directly to the catcher's hands, going higher than the batter's head, and is caught. What do you have?

C (A foul ball & a dead ball. [my parentheses])"



This is a typo, though, right Mike? Sharp and direct into the hands cannot be a foul ball & a dead ball.



Sorry I don't have the knack for the quotes

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

"2) Batter swings and barely nicks the ball. The ball goes sharply and directly to the catcher's hands, going higher than the batter's head, and is caught. What do you have?

C (A foul ball & a dead ball. [my parentheses])"



This is a typo, though, right Mike? Sharp and direct into the hands cannot be a foul ball & a dead ball.



Sorry I don't have the knack for the quotes

I don't disagree, but before the rule was changed, how many umpires would call that a caught fly ball?

In today's world, there can be some serious size/height differences among the players at all levels, but mostly 10U. It is not inconceivable to have a catcher on her knees and still be as tall as a batter. Therefore, it wouldn't be impossible for a catcher to get a high pitch tipped into her glove that was or seemed over the batter's head.

The purpose of the rule change in Tucson in 2005 was to eliminate any requirement other than going sharply and directly to the catcher's glove/hands.