Foul Tip and Foul Balls

[greymule]

Or that if it is higher than the batter's head, it has to be considered a fly ball. At least in practice, that's not the case either.

I remember once in a high-level SP tournament (the kind where the catcher stands behind the batter's box opposite the batter and lets the ump get behind the plate for a better look at the pitch), a batter took a mighty cut and fouled the ball toward the catcher and up, where the catcher reached up and snagged it as if he were swatting a fly—about a foot over both their heads.

After he threw the ball back to the pitcher and was getting set for the next pitch, the catcher joked, "Hey, Blue, he's out. That was over his head."

The batter said, "Whaddaya mean? It went right back to your glove."

"Yeah, I know. Ha ha."

I would hardly claim that exchange to be definitive, and maybe the technically correct call was a fly ball out. But even though the ball was significantly deflected, it went sharply from the bat to the glove, so it looked to me and everyone in the park like a foul tip.

Now what if the catcher had dived backward and caught it just above the ground. I guess that would have looked like a fly ball.

Had this one earlier this year in FP: RH batter, bunt attempt on outside corner, ball hits bat and spins directly back over F2's right shoulder (not over the batter's head). F2 turns around, dives, brushes me, and snags the ball before it hits the ground. As I was pondering the various threads we've had on this subject, that batter ran to the bench and the crowd cheered the play. I never did make a call. Next batter.

But what if the catcher had managed to reach up and grab that same ball from her catcher's position, apparently just as it had left the bat? That would have looked much more like a foul tip.

I don't have the answer, but "not over the batter's head" should be tossed.

[kono]

I tend to agree with WMB - direct really means sharp and direct If you can discern an arc - that isn't sharp and direct.

-Kono

[CecilOne]

For a minute there, I thought we were all agreeing .

I said earlier "It doesn't have to be a straight line to be "directly" to the catcher's mitt. The "directly" means without touching anything else like the catcher's equipment or body, the ground, etc. ".

I will go along with the catcher obviously making a play as opposed to "just" catching a pitch, but I can't agree that it has to be a straight line. In fact, I don't think a ball can move in a straight line, coming past a bat that tipped it, which causes spin. Any physicists out there?