I'm just looking for a clarification on a rule. USSSA or ASA Slow Pitch - what is the ruling when a batter foul tips the ball into the catcher's glove, the ball does not go over the batter's head, and the batter has 2 strikes already? Is it a different ruling if there are less than 2 strikes? And when does it matter if the ball goes above the batter's head? Thanks for any clarification.

If it's a real foul tip, a strike. If after the second strike, batter out on third strike. Above the batter's head is a fly ball, caught is an out. (ASA)

foul tips
 

ASA slow pitch -- with 2 strikes, batter out on any foul ball or foul tip (as defined by ASA rules -- i.e. directly to hand or glove, not higher than batter's head, and caught); less than 2 strikes, a foul tip is a strike just like a foul ball and the ball is dead since it's slow pitch; if the ball is popped up over the batters head (e.g. behind the catcher) with less than 2 strikes, the batter is out if the ball is caught. With 2 strikes it's an out regardless of if the catcher drops it or catches it.

USSSA slow pitch -- technically, you only get 2 strikes, so the batter already is struck out in your situation. Assuming only 1 strike, a foul tip (as definined by the rules) on stike 2 is a strikeout. If the catcher drops the ball, it's not a foul tip, just a foul ball (in USSSA, a "courtesy foul" so to speak -- now the batter would have one strike and one foul, so the next foul would be a strikeout). With one strike on the pop behind the catcher over the batters head, the batter is out if caught by the catcher. If not caught, this would be the batter's courtesy foul.

Endless discussion on many boards lately on foul tips. So let's see how everyone calls this (which happened to me a couple days ago).

NFHS JV game; one strike on batter, pitcher throws changeup (that is important because the ball doesn't have a lot of speed). Batter swings, contacts ball about waist height, ball rises off the bat about 6"-8" and starts to fall behind plate. Catcher reaches about a foot and makes catch. Visualization: the ball went from the bat to the catcher, but it had an 8" arc and was falling when caught.

Can't be a foul tip because it did not go directly (straight line) to the glove. Can't be a foul ball because it was caught. If it is not a foul tip nor a foul ball, can it be a strike? Or is it a fly ball caught in foul territory for an out?

WMB

I think we determined in a thread last October that "not higher than the batter's head" was superfluous and confusing in ASA.

Case book play 1-58 is no help, because though it supposedly deals with a foul tip, it uses a <i>fair</i> ball as its basis! The play does say that "because the catcher went to the ball, this should be ruled a legal catch," so we derived at least some wisdom from that.

In short, the consensus was that a foul ball could fail to rise over the batter's head and still be caught for an out (not a tip). For example, a ball that was softly blooped off the bat such that the catcher had to dive to the right for it would be a catch, not a foul tip.

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. The example you describe sound like a foul tip to me (probably any code). Above the batter's head it becomes a fly ball, so a catch is an out regardless of the number of strikes.

To be a foul tip, it must meet ALL of the criteria, and above the batter's head is no more and no less important than going directly to the catcher's glove (or hand) or being caught.

I agree with Cecil that going directly to the catcher's glove does not mean a straight line, but I disagree with his call.

This is a caught fly ball because the catcher's glove went to the ball rather than the ball going to the catcher's glove.

IOW, the catcher had to make a play other than just hold on to the ball that was tipped into her glove.

I agree with Dakota, caught fly ball, due to the fact that glove went to ball.

Dakota: "IOW, the catcher had to make a play other than just hold on to the ball that was tipped into her glove."

OMQ: "I agree with Dakota, caught fly ball, due to the fact that glove went to ball."

I've seen this "moving the glove to the ball" concept in many other discussions about foul tips - and I just don't buy it.

In my example above, what if that ball blooped a little higher (say to the batter's chin) and fell a foot deeper right into the catcher's glove. Are you going to call that a foul tip - strike on the batter?

What if the pitch was a fastball and the bat struck the top of the ball and deflected it down 3" - and the catcher had quick enough reflexes to turn her glove down and catch the ball (that came straight and fast directly from the bat). Are you going to call that a caught line drive - batter out?

WMB

Since much of the reliance on "moving the glove to the ball" derived from ASA case book play 1-58, I'll re-post it:

<b>(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.</b>

(Of course, this play deals with a <i>fair</i> ball, so the question is flawed from the beginning. But it is still what gave us that "went to the ball" stipulation. Does anyone know whether this concept appears anywhere else in ASA?)

Remember the discussion that if "over the head" always meant it was <i>not</i> a foul tip, then a pitch that was over the batter's head and swung at and barely ticked by the bat—but at a point over the batter's head—would be considered a fly ball out if the catcher caught it. We've all seen that happen. Has anyone ever seen it called anything other than foul tip?

If that's a foul tip, then clearly it is possible for a ball fouled over the batter's head <i>not</i> to be a fly out. If it's also possible for a ball under the batter's head to be a fly out because the catcher has to move to catch it, then the criterion of "not over the batter's head" means nothing.

Why is a foul tip a foul tip? IOW, why is it a strike instead of an out?

I'm no rules historian, but is seems plausible that the reason it is a strike is because the catcher did not make a play beyond what she would have done for a strike. If the catcher did nothing other than catch the pitch, it would be ruled a strike, regardless of whether it was technically a batted fly ball.

Hence, the going directly to the glove bit.

Hence, giving the catcher the benefit of the out if she actually made a play on the batted ball.

The principle of the case play applies if the catcher lunges anywhere else (besides into fair territory) to catch the batted ball.

In gray area plays, it is umpire judgment whether the catcher is making a play on the batted ball, or moving her glove to catch the pitch.

In WMB's example, the catcher moved her glove "about a foot." Seems beyond the gray area to me, but it is a HTBT - for example, what if the pitch was coming in to the outside - the catcher could have been moving her glove to catch the pitch and just lucked into the batted ball. However, WMB describes it as having an arc and as falling when caught. It seems to me that he is describing a catch, not a foul tip.

I like the baseball definition: a batted ball that goes sharp and direct from the bat to the catcher's hands and is legally caught.

To me "sharp and direct" is a straight line. It is the path from the bat to the glove, regardless of where the glove is. If the catcher moves the glove a eighth of an inch - or an inch - or 2" - or 4" - it is still a foul tip. Realistically, we don't see the glove move small increments. But if you are going to use "moves to the ball" as a disqualifying criteria, than 1/2" movement says that it is not a foul tip, but a caught line drive.

So if a ball rises and falls, it is not "sharp and direct." Whether it falls into the glove, or the catcher moves the glove 1/2" or 15", to me it is a caught fly ball.

And, Baseball doesn't use that dam*ed "not higher than the head" qualifier. It seems as though Softball (NFHS or ASA) is confused when all it needs is the simpler Baseball definition.

WMB

Technically, perhaps correct, but realistically, as you observe, you aren't going to see it, and if you do, these are movements that fall well within catching the pitch.

What the definition boils down to, for me, is ... was the catcher making a play on the batted ball?

I don't really give a horse's patoot what baseball does. My only issue with the "not higher than the batter's head" phrase is too many people (coaches, mostly, but also fans and some umpires) view this requirement as the be-all and end-all of the definition. IOW, if it is not higher than the batter's head, then it <u>must</u> be a foul tip. Baloney.

DOUBLE BALONEY!!!

It is a HTBT, but from the way it sounds, I've got a caught fly ball and an out.

Or that if it <i>is</i> 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.

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

-Kono

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? :D