Jump to content

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
Gfoley4

Foul tip?

Recommended Posts

I think he whiffed on it.

 

Side note - f barstool sports. They're horrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, udbrky said:

I think he whiffed on it.

 

Side note - f barstool sports. They're horrible.

ball is coming in straight, then moves to the left. Don't think contreras is going to whiff on a fastball. Plus, Souza clearly thinks something happened and turned around. You can also listen to sound here 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I mean he whiffed on catching it. That was 100% hit, just think it's a foul ball.

 

now Bleacher Nation is awesome. I've met him a couple times. Really good analysis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 9:08 AM, Haid D' Salaami said:

hand or glove is the rule.

Which should be re-worded correctly, as catchers wear a mitt, not a glove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That pitch changes direction... conveniently... at a point where the bat was in its arc so as to make contact with it. 

This is one of those events which Instant Replay was implemented for. I suppose that if PU doesn’t have contact (a clean swing), then there’s not much that the other 3 core umpires can help on at 100 feet away. If, though, PU is acknowledging contact, but is under the belief that it is a valid Foul Tip, he’d be mistaken, and an umpire conference, or a video review, would/should reveal that Contreras trapped that in his armpit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That pitch changes direction... conveniently... at a point where the bat was in its arc so as to make contact with it. 
This is one of those events which Instant Replay was implemented for. I suppose that if PU doesn’t have contact (a clean swing), then there’s not much that the other 3 core umpires can help on at 100 feet away. If, though, PU is acknowledging contact, but is under the belief that it is a valid Foul Tip, he’d be mistaken, and an umpire conference, or a video review, would/should reveal that Contreras trapped that in his armpit.
And you are 100% certain that the 'tipped pitch' doesn't hit the mitt AT ALL on its way to Contreras' armpit?

I'm not seeing it.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bat touching the pitch does not rule out the possibility that the ball also touched the mitt before getting trapped on F2's CP and I assume later secure in his hand (not shown on video). If that happened then this is a foul tip and and a strike out. The look from above gives the best view and I don't see any clear evidence that the ball didn't touch F2's mitt. I think that even if it was reviewed that the foul tip/strike out would stand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say there's a high likelihood the ball also nicked the mitt before the catcher secured it...it may very well have been audible enough to distinguish the two sounds.

18 hours ago, Aging_Arbiter said:

Which should be re-worded correctly, as catchers wear a mitt, not a glove.

I've always called it a decker.

And the first baseman's glove a trapper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

definitely hit the bat and definitely hit the glove prior to being recovered in the cradle of Contreras elbow. I have a Foul Ball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, smckin said:

definitely hit the bat and definitely hit the glove prior to being recovered in the cradle of Contreras elbow. I have a Foul Ball

The conclusion doesn't seem to follow the observation.  But, maybe I don't remember the OP (and I didn't go back to look) -- I'm assuming that it eventually became a "catch."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
definitely hit the bat and definitely hit the glove prior to being recovered in the cradle of Contreras elbow. I have a Foul Ball
If you're two definites are true, then you have a foul tip strikeout

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

And you are 100% certain that the 'tipped pitch' doesn't hit the mitt AT ALL on its way to Contreras' armpit?

I'm not seeing it.

No, I’m not 100% certain – which is why an umpire conference and/or video review should be undertaken.

What you can’t tell me is that a PU, in that position, at those speeds, in that environment can distinguish a pitch hitting the bat then hitting the mitt with absolute certainty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I’m not 100% certain – which is why an umpire conference and/or video review should be undertaken.
What you can’t tell me is that a PU, in that position, at those speeds, in that environment can distinguish a pitch hitting the bat then hitting the mitt with absolute certainty.
I only had issue with the fact that you said the PU would be mistaken if he ruled it a foul tip... You made it sound as if you were 100% sure it missed the mitt.

The PU has to rule on something. Even with video replay, we aren't 100% sure here. I don't know what you're asking of this crew...

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MadMax said:

No, I’m not 100% certain – which is why an umpire conference and/or video review should be undertaken.

What you can’t tell me is that a PU, in that position, at those speeds, in that environment can distinguish a pitch hitting the bat then hitting the mitt with absolute certainty.

 

19 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

I only had issue with the fact that you said the PU would be mistaken if he ruled it a foul tip... You made it sound as if you were 100% sure it missed the mitt.

The PU has to rule on something. Even with video replay, we aren't 100% sure here. I don't know what you're asking of this crew...

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 

We really don't know what the umpire ruled...only that he ruled it a K.  We don't know if he heard two sounds...or no sounds.  So we don't know the specifics...though I think from the video we can conclude he didn't think it hit the bat, as he made no foul tip mechanic (though I doubt that's always true).

So, the ruling on the field is a strikeout.

There is no conclusive evidence to overrule that call in video review, in totality.

I think it's conclusive that the ball hit the bat...but it's inconclusive whether or not the ball hit the mitt....so we revert to the call on the field, do we not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×