foul ball or strike out

[Dakota]

Originally posted by JustDHaley
Really the ump will determine--- does he like you or not..

.. the blue calls what sometimes gives him more a warm fuzzy than the other. ... I don't argue with blue because I know the rules that we must play by(real and political/good ole' boy). ... And you know, being human, we all make mistakes, so.... Hell, I certainly have. ...Truthful, yes, though obviously, you don't like it.

I don't like it either. There is a big difference between making an error - even an error because the umpire doesn't know the rules - and being biased.

Your original statement is broadly stated, as if all (or most) umpires will make these kinds of calls based on bias. That is an insulting thing to say to the vast majority of umpires who call the game with integrity.

Since you state you have been an umpire for years, I'll interpret your remarks as applying to yourself only.

[Skahtboi]

That is exactly the way that I took that statement Tom! I am glad to see that you feel the same way that I felt about it. Any umpire who is working a game anywhere, Savannah included, who admits to being biased and still calling games is not only ignorant, but a disgrace to the profession of umpiring. Not to mention the fact that they are conciously ripping off the association that is paying their game fees.

Scott

[Skahtboi]

Honestly, reading over JustDHaley's comments again, I get the feeling that herein is a frustrated player that wants to blame all of their inequities on the officiating.

Scott

[Elaine "Lady Blue"]

From this lively discussion, I hope everyone can tell the difference between Atlanta Umpires and Georgia Umpires. After calling with both on ASA as well as NFHS, I can tell you that the Atlanta Metro Umpires are better umpires all around. Better trained and better attitudes towards the game.
Hey Dee Dee, learn how to be a better umpire, work and learn from us sometime here in the Big 'A'. I hope my daughter doesn't have to play in any games that Savannah umpires call or you'll see me climbing the fence. LOL
.......and as to this topic, FOUL BALL!!

[Andy]

Originally posted by greymule
1-59 The ball goes directly from the bat, (a) touches the catcher's glove or hand and then rebounds from the catcher or his equipment, (b) from the bat, strikes the catcher's body, his protective equipment or the umpire. In both cases the ball rebounds into the glove or hand of the catcher and is held. Ruling: In (a) it is a foul tip and a strike, in (b) it is a foul ball. The ball cannot be a foul tip if it first touches anything other than the catcher's glove or hand.

I have a question related to this statement: Why is situation b a foul ball and not an out? I can understand that the ball cannot be caught for an out if it rebounds off of the umpire, but why not if off of the catcher's equipment? If a ball was hit and rebounded off of any other player and caught before it hit the ground, it would be considered an out. Why not in this specific situation? I just want to understand the reasoning behind the rule.

[greymule]

That's right. A ball going directly from the bat to the catcher's mask and then to the mitt cannot be a foul tip, but it supposedly could be an out if "the catcher went to the ball." In theory, a catcher moving toward a ball slowed and spun off to the right could be hit in the mask or chest protector first and then catch the ball for an out, even if it did not go over the batter's head.

We had a play yesterday where the batter swung on a 1-0 count and slowed a ball considerably. The ball—definitely not over the batter's head—spun over the catcher's left shoulder, slowed enough that she had a chance to dive backward toward the plate ump, who had time to move and give her room. The catcher dived but couldn't quite hold the ball, and some fans, hoping for an out, moaned. The offensive coach looked over and told them, "Wasn't over the batter's head."

I think something's rotten in the state of ASA's case book. Case book play 1-58 is the only instance I can find in ASA where "the catcher went to the ball" is mentioned. It claims to define a foul tip but instead deals with an obviously FAIR ball. Somehow, I suspect that no fair ball can be ruled a foul tip.

I'm going to try to find an authoritative opinion on this.

[IRISHMAFIA]

ASA 8.2.C: BATTER-RUNNER IS OUT...when, after a fly ball is hit, the ball is caught by a fielder before it touches the ground, any object or person other than a defensive player.

ASA 1: A fly ball is any ball batted into the air.

Please note there is no height nor fair/foul requirements and if the ball wasn't batted to the ground, though many would consider this a "technicality", it could be sold as a fly ball. In turn, 8.2.C would then apply.

And if you think about it, most line drives back to the pitcher do not get above the batter's head.

The only place I see a reference to the ball being over the batter's head is a negative one under the definition of Foul Tip.

[Dakota]

What about paragraph G under the definition of a foul ball?

Basically, that says that a would be foul tip that hits the catcher's equipment first and is then caught, is a foul ball.

This is situation "b" in the case play, and it uses the phrase "not higher than the batter's head..."

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota
What about paragraph G under the definition of a foul ball?

Basically, that says that a would be foul tip that hits the catcher's equipment first and is then caught, is a foul ball.

This is situation "b" in the case play, and it uses the phrase "not higher than the batter's head..."

Tom,

Duh! No wonder I didn't see paragraph G, it was right under my nose!

You didn't note which case play to which you are refering, however, 1-58 does not have an a/b scenario. But, nowhere in 1-59 does it mention the ball going higher than the batter's head.

There are irrelevant, though. In the definitions and case book, there is still nothing excluding any fielder including the catcher from going after and catching a foul ball for an out.

[Andy]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

There are irrelevant, though. In the definitions and case book, there is still nothing excluding any fielder including the catcher from going after and catching a foul ball for an out.

So, Mike....what would you call a batted ball that went directly back into the catchers chest protector without touching the catchers glove or hand and was caught by the catcher before it hit the ground?

By definition in 1-59b, it's a foul ball. A foul ball is dead and cannot be played on. This would contradict your statement above.

I do not like this interpretation because it makes an exception for one player. I say if the catcher has the reflexes to catch a ball as I described above, reward him/her by calling the out.

[Dakota]

Couple of things...

I apologize for my fractured syntax, above. The phrase "higher than the batter's head" is used in Rule 1 - FOUL BALL - G, not in the case play.

The case play I was referring to was the one referenced earlier in this thread - 1-59(b), where the batted ball is a foul ball by definition.

Finally, not to be overly anal, but it does help us keep things clear - there is no such thing as a caught foul ball for an out. There can be a caught foul ball (e.g. a re-bound off the back stop), but that ball is dead, and it is not a legal catch for an out. And, there can be a caught fly ball over foul territory, but that is not a foul ball, it is a live ball out.

Rule 1-FOUL BALL-G defines the special case of a "foul tip" (so to speak) that rebounds off the catcher's equipment and is then caught by "another fielder," as a foul ball. Case play 1-59(b) explains that this "another fielder" also includes the catcher.

[Skahtboi]

Originally posted by Dakota

Finally, not to be overly anal, but it does help us keep things clear - there is no such thing as a caught foul ball for an out.

And this is what many people seem to forget. They often think that because a fly ball is caught over foul territory, that it is already a foul.

I guess it is easy to allow the visual senses to sometimes drive the way we think.

Scott

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Andy

So, Mike....what would you call a batted ball that went directly back into the catchers chest protector without touching the catchers glove or hand and was caught by the catcher before it hit the ground?

By definition in 1-59b, it's a foul ball. A foul ball is dead and cannot be played on. This would contradict your statement above.

I do not like this interpretation because it makes an exception for one player. I say if the catcher has the reflexes to catch a ball as I described above, reward him/her by calling the out.

Andy,

You have a very good point and I did think of it after posting, but decided not to edit. However, as I stated before, the definition of a fly ball is a ball hit into the air and I stated that if it wasn't hit down to the ground, it must be up into the air. I failed to allow for the ball which stayed relatively parallel to the ground before contacting an umpire, player, fence or whatever. My fault of omission.

This is definitely a HTBT and see it, but if I have a ball which raises above the point of contact and the catcher makes a catch, I believe you can rule an out. Please take into consideration that I am not suggesting an umpire "guess" or suppose this as an out. I would definitely have to see this ball rise (not necessarily above the batter's head as that is not a requirement) off the bat to rule an out.

[greymule]

Darned if I didn't have TWO of these plays on the last weekend of the season. Batter bunts, and the ball spins off to the catcher's right, never going more than about 4 feet off the ground. The catcher takes a step and lunges to her right to spear the ball just before it would have hit the ground. I called an out. Naturally, the offensive coach claimed the ball had not gone over the batter's head. I just said, "The catcher went to the ball, coach," and he bought it.

Later in the same game. A girl bunted and the ball just died in the air right at the spot it was bunted—it rose an inch or two above the bat and dropped straight down. It even stopped spinning. The catcher lunged forward and almost caught it, but hit it just barely on the foul side of the plate. I was glad she didn't catch it.

On balls like that, maybe you rule that if the catcher leaves the box to make the catch, it's an out. If she stays in the box, it's a foul tip. Still not sure.

[SamNVa]

To me a foul tip is a ball that responds as though it was not touched by the bat at all; that is, it more or less continues along it's original path into the catcher's glove and is caught. I have yet to see a catcher with quick enough reflexes to catch a tipped ball that deviates more than an inch or so from it's original trajectory. If the ball's trajectory (that's direction and speed) is altered significantly enough to allow the catcher to move her glove and/or her body to catch it, that is a caught fly ball and an OUT.

I'm not sure if my description makes the issue any clearer for the3 rest of you folks, but I know it when I see it.

SamC