I wasn't on this field but was working this 100+ team national tournament and this situation created a lot of discussion.

Batter attempts a bunt which goes up and to the side but not above the batter's head. Catcher lunges to the side and cleanly catches the ball outside of the catcher's box without the ball hitting the ground. Is this a foul tip, simply a strike, or simply a foul and dead?

By the way it was ruled to be simply a foul because it did not go directly to the catcher's glove. In my opinion, directly simply means that the ball touched nothing in between and therefore this play is simply a foul tip.

Any thoughts?

[Edited by Larry Wolfe on Aug 5th, 2002 at 02:20 PM]

We have had many discussions about this type of play in our association. As far as I am concerned, this is an out. Here's why:

You posted: "Catcher lunges to the side" this eliminates the foul tip as the ball did not go directly to the catcher's mitt or hand, the catcher had to move to catch the ball.

Then: "cleanly catches the ball outside of the catcher's box without the ball hitting the ground." It's not a foul tip, so it's a batted live ball that was caught before it hit the ground. OUT!

For those who want to argue the heighth of the ball issue, thik about this. If the bunted ball had gone forward instead of to the side at the same heighth into fair territory and the catcher lunged forward to catch it, would you call an out on that play?

I agree with Andy. To be a foul tip, the batted ball has to meet <u>all</u> of the conditions specified in the rule. The "not higher than the batter's head" is just <u>one</u> of the conditions. Not all batted balls that stay below the batter's head are foul tips.

It is not a foul tip if it goes higher than the batter's head.

It is not a foul tip if it touches something besides the catcher's hands or glove first.

It is not a foul tip if it is not caught by the catcher.

It is not a foul tip if it does not go directly to the hands or glove of the catcher. That is, if the glove goes to the ball, the catcher made a play on the ball, and then the ball did not go directly to the glove.

The play as you described it was an out - a caught fly ball.

WOW, I feel guilty that I am taking people away from work to read and respond to theis forum. But this is a great resource

Tom, I had not considered the catcher going to the ball.
I certainly thought there should be an benefit to the defense somewhere in this play. My problem was the ruling that this is simply a foul. If this is a caught foul ball, the ball is still live for the offense to capitalize on or be put out by a quick throw to a base.

Thanks for your input.

Andy and Tom are dead on here.............

Foul ball out (any runners are free to re-touch and advance at their own risk)...........

If a coach ever comes out and questions you on your "out" call..........you can give them a quiz...........

Coach - "But Blue.........the ball never got over my batter's head........how can you call her out?"

You. - "Your right coach.......BUT, it also was not sharp and direct to the catcher's glove........so it cannot be a foul tip."

Coach - "But Blue.........the ball never got over my batter's head........how can you call her out?"

You - "I already answered your question coach......let's play ball."

Coach - "But Blue.........the ball never got over my batter's head........how can you call her out?"

<i>You finish the rest of the scenerio</i>............grin

Joel

Larry,

What tournament were you working? Saw the same play this weekend
myself. This was in the AFA Nationals in Beaumont, Texas.
Ruling was batter is out. In this situation no one questioned
the call.

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/Gif/papa.gif

glen

Did some research on this and found some possible "holes" in ASA's definitions and wordings.

First, the definition of a foul tip: "A batted ball that goes directly from the bat, not higher than the batter's head, to the catcher's hand(s) or glove and is legally caught by the catcher."

So a foul tip must meet three conditions. Notice that they were careful to add the "s" to "hands" so that no one could argue that the catcher caught it with both hands and not just one.

However, if a batter swings at a pitch over her head, nicks it slightly, and it goes directly into the glove of the catcher, who has raised her glove high to catch it, the ball has met only two of the conditions. Are we to call that an out? I've seen that one a thousand times and it's been a foul tip every time. Is that a "hole" the rules writers need to fill?

Case book play 1-58:

(FP Only) The batter, with a 1-ball, 1-strike count, bunts the ball in front of the plate. The catcher lunges and catches the ball before it touches the ground. The ball did not go higher than the batter['s] head, so the umpire rules this a foul tip and returns the batter to the batter's box with a 1-ball, 2-strike count.

Ruling: This is not a foul tip, for the ball did not go directly to the catcher's glove from the bat. Because the catcher went to the ball, this should be ruled a legal catch, similar to F3 or F5 making the catch.

OK. But why say "in front of the plate"? That's a <i>fair</i> ball that has nothing to do with a foul tip. (Why FP only? Or is that in there just to legalize the bunt?) Is the operative phrase "catcher went to the ball"? If so, then "not higher than the batter's head" is superfluous verbiage.

I've been using the height of the batter's head as the criterion. Baseball doesn't mention that, so why does softball? Can anyone give me an example of a play in which the height of the batter's head is the determining element? Any ball going higher than the batter's head would <i>have</i> to be a ball the catcher "goes to," except for the obvious play mentioned above.

I suspect that ASA might say that a foul ball perceptibly slowed and deflected to the side and caught by a lunging catcher--but not over the batter's head--would be a foul tip and not an out. However, I certainly couldn't prove that in court using their definition or case book example.

[Edited by greymule on Aug 5th, 2002 at 10:52 PM]

The rule doesn't require that the catcher hold her glove stationary, only that she not make a play on a batted ball. This is where that wonderful umpire judgment comes in. Was the catcher reacting to the pitch or to the batted ball? Pitch - foul tip. Batted ball - out.

The "not higher than the batter's head," to me, is meant to rule out little pop ups from being called foul tips. It really doesn't address the location of the pitch, but by strictly applying the rule, the high pitch "foul tip" would not be a foul tip, but I seriously doubt you'd ever get an argument on calling it a foul tip if it goes directly from the bat to the glove of the catcher.

Where most of the arguments come in with the "higher than the batter's head" stuff is on the other side - wanting a clear play on the ball to be a foul tip rather than an out because the ball stayed below the batter's head.

Ok Guys,

I agree with all that has been said. Let me add this about a pitch swung at by a batter over her head. For a ball to be a foul tip, it must not go over the batters head. The key here I think is it must not go over the batters head OFF THE BAT. A pitch that starts over the batters head and is tipped with the bat is a foul tip, because the hitting of the bat does not cause it to go over her head.

Chew on that for a while, and let me know what you think???

Bob

Glenn,
I was at ASA nationals.

You're right, Del-Blue. Calling an out on a high foul tip would get you run out of town. But I do think that the rules and case book examples should be more definitive.

It's seems ironic that ASA's rule writers took the care to put the "s" on "hands," as if the verbiage had to pass legal scrutiny, but still managed to leave so much ambiguity.

In slow pitch, I have on several occasions had a relevant play. These days, especially at the higher levels, the catcher stands on the opposite side of the catcher's box from the batter. I stand directly behind the plate with an unobstructed view. This gives the catcher much more range than if he is down in the squatting or kneeling position. Batters have swung at waist-high pitches and hit balls that go directly back and up into the catcher's glove, easily over the batter's head. In SP, it's certainly not the same "directly into the catcher's glove" as it is in FP. But only once has a catcher even joked about "Hey, over his head--that's an out."

Bob, I agree. I was trying to make that point. You did it better.

Maybe we can get a definitive ruling on the FP play in which the batter swings at a knee-high pitch and hits a spinning ball, perceptibly altered in direction and speed, up and backward toward the catcher, who catches it in hand or glove at about the height of the batter's neck.

Here in our leagues and tournaments we've been calling that a foul tip and haven't heard a peep of argument. However, I haven't seen every variation (runner stealing on the play, ball deflected out away from the catcher, ball hitting catcher's mask first, etc.). And just because we're great at selling calls doesn't mean we've been calling that play correctly.

The definitions of both foul ball and foul tip include the verbiage "not higher than the batter's head." Would that be in there twice if it wasn't key to the call?

The key to this call, IMO, is did the catcher make a play on the batted ball? If yes, then the ball did not go directly from the bat to the glove, but rather the glove went to the ball, hence, an out.

The higher than the batter's head <u>is</u> key to the call in that if it goes higher than the batter's head off the bat, it is not a foul tip. Staying below the batter's head, however, does not mean it is always a foul tip.

Why is it so?
 

The key to understanding the foul tip rule is (like so many of the poorly understood rules) why the rule is there in the first place.

In fastpitch it is relatively common to have the ball 'tip' the bat and go straight back into the catcher's glove and be caught with no effort at all by the catcher, apart from closing her glove. Not having an out which is not really deserved is one theory.

A second theory is that it takes away the uncertainty of wheter the ball tipped the bat or not. In modern times, with alloy bats, it is common to hear it rather than see it. Perhaps with wooden bats it was often impossible to tell - so lets just call it a strike and stop the arguing coach!

I wasn't around when the rule was introduced so I ask "are there any historical buffs out there that can add to the origin and lessen the confusion?"

Martin
p.s.
Ball goes to hands - foul tip
Hand goes to ball - out (but it's a judgement call - but the lower the player skills & speed of pitch the more difficult it gets...)