Uncaught 3rd Strike/Foul Tip
 

Not sure how I would have ruled this at game speed. Sure glad I saw it in a quiz on MyReferee (on Arbiter):

R1 is on first base with two outs and a 1-2 count on B1. The pitch bounces in front of the plate and B1 swings and fouls the ball sharply and directly to F2’s glove. The ball deflects off F2’s chest protector and F2 then firmly grasps the ball. B1 bolts for first and arrives safely at first without a play while R1 makes second base safely.

I'm prepared to take a razzing for not instantly knowing the call. The bounce before the foul tip got me... what happens after is basic stuff.

So, you ruled a Foul Tip, strike three, batter out, right?

What there a question there? :)

BTW, for ASA it is 7.4.E.Effect...."The batter is out if it is the third strike."

Besides what you're getting in the razzing, the other useful thing here is definition of a catch, a foul tip, and a batted ball.

(Though I noticed that at least in 2008 it actually contains an error, in that no ball can actually meet the definition of a foul tip since the ball must land to be a batted ball. But that mistake would break a lot of rules so I'd ignore it.)

I was correct at quiz-speed, & I think my instincts would have kicked in at game speed as well...

Um, no. "land" does not mean "hit the ground" (see def of fair ball and foul ball --- a batted ball which ... is first touched...)

I'm assuming that "toward the catcher's glove" means it actually struck and deflected off the catcher's glove before striking the chest protector and then being caught... correct?

Ummm, land does mean to hit the ground in ordinary usage. I mean it means to alight on a surface. And I suppose the ball could land on a surface other then the ground and meet the requirements of this rule. But a caught ball certainly has not landed as to the ordinary use of that word. Further it's not defined in the rulebook.
The rule for batted ball should say is first touched or first contacts something. But we all do know how to call this one with or without the mistake right?

Of course... but your assumption that land means hits the ground is simply incorrect. Look in several of the other definitions. Foul ball (includes:) - "a batted ball that ... is touched ... over foul territory"; and "a batted ball that, while over foul territory, touches (several things)"; and "a batted ball that touches the batter or the bat in the batter's hands a second time" ... all of these balls which have not yet touched the ground are a subset of "batted balls".

Fair ball includes several more examples just like this. If "a batted ball" did not include balls that touched something before hitting the ground (or never hit the ground), a great number of definitions would need twice as many subsets to cover the "non-batted ball" (one that has not yet hit the ground).

Obviously, a ball that is in the air is nothing ... yet... but once it hits ANYTHING (including the catcher's glove or equipment!), it has "landed".

By that kind of reasoning there could be no mistakes in the rule book. If the definition of batted ball were a ball which has alighted on the ground, you could argue that since a fair ball is so if it's touched and it's a subset of batted balls that alighted on the ground has to mean touched. But land and alighted on the ground are synonyms (excluding landing on another surface).
But even if you disregard that. There are plenty of rules about fielding a batted ball, (not a ball which will be batted once you field it, but a batted ball) are rules about fielding a batted ball really only for balls that have already been touched?

You don't see anything odd about inventing your own definition of "land", using it to say ONE rule is or was wrong, but then not applying your own definition of "land" and saying all the other rules are wrong too?

Hmm... ok.

I think the rulebook is wrong. It incorrectly conveys what the rules actually are because it has a definition of batted ball that couldn't possibly comport with the remaining rules in the book.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting I'm doing in being inconsistent in how I use land. (edit to add) And I didn't make up the definition I just looked it up.

Even more strange. You determine what you believe a meaning of a word is, a meaning that would cause about 10 rules to make no sense, and claim THE BOOK is wrong... instead of using a meaning of the word that would be consistent and make every one of those rules make perfect sense.

That makes sense.

Because land doesn't mean what you want it to mean. That's what's wrong with the book. If the book said a ball that incinerates in fair or foul territory and I said incinerates doesn't mean is touched would you make the same argument. You could, which proves their is a problem with your argument. The definition of land I used is straight from the dictionary and the dictionary definition matches how it's used.

uuhhh, what?