Case Play 2013-06: Foul Bunt with Two Strikes

[Lindsay]

Lightning Case Play: Foul Bunt with Two Strikes. With two out and a 2-2 count in the 9th inning of the final game of the season, a pitcher throwing in his last career game is sitting on 1,999 career...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

View the full article

[basejester]

I don't see what the call was, so I don't know how to answer the poll.

[maven]

It was a strikeout as soon as it was touched, since that's when it became a foul ball.

So the ball was dead foul before it could be caught for an out: touching precedes a catch.

[johnnyg08]

It was a strikeout as soon as it was touched, since that's when it became a foul ball.

So the ball was dead before it could be caught for an out: touching precedes a catch.

I have a fly out to the catcher. An airborne bunted ball is nothing it is simply over fair territory or over foul territory. Once caught, the batter is out. If it is a strikeout runners wouldn't be liable to be put out on appeal which would not make sense with the rest of the baseball rules.

I don't have citations/interpretations, just trying to think through it.

1,999 strikeouts.

[maven]

 

It was a strikeout as soon as it was touched, since that's when it became a foul ball.

So the ball was dead foul before it could be caught for an out: touching precedes a catch.

I have a fly out to the catcher. An airborne bunted ball is nothing it is simply over fair territory or over foul territory. Once caught, the batter is out.

 

That's true as far as it goes, but you're missing the point. Once F2 touches the ball over foul territory, it becomes a foul ball. At that point, the batter has bunted foul and has thus struck out per 2.00.

 

That happens the instant F2 touches the ball. It happens before he can complete the catch, which is a longer process that includes voluntary release.

 

The catch counts, too, and I should not have said the ball is dead. The ball remains live on a caught foul ball, but the catch did not retire the batter, since it was foul before it was caught.

[basejester]

The thing that's odd is that when we yell "Foul!", it's implied that the ball is dead. Umpires don't much yell "Foul!" and then immediately afterward "Catch!". (Maybe that would be appropriate in this circumstance. *shrug*). But by rule the ball isn't dead until it is uncaught.

 

5.09 The ball becomes dead and runners advance one base, or return to their bases, without

liability to be put out, when—

. . .

(e) A foul ball is not caught, in which case runners return to their bases. The umpire in-

chief shall not put the ball in play until all runners have retouched their bases;

[Umpire in Chief]

It is not a foul ball b/c the ball will not be dead. It is a caught pop up.

[maven]

It is not a foul ball b/c the ball will not be dead. It is a caught pop up.

 

Well, every batted ball is either fair or foul. So you're implying every batted ball that's caught is a fair ball? You want to stick with that?

 

Your mistaken assumption is that every foul ball is a dead ball.

[basejester]

 

It is not a foul ball b/c the ball will not be dead. It is a caught pop up.

That would have been the elegant way to write the rules. It's not what we have, though.

[johnnyg08]

 

 

It was a strikeout as soon as it was touched, since that's when it became a foul ball.

So the ball was dead foul before it could be caught for an out: touching precedes a catch.

I have a fly out to the catcher. An airborne bunted ball is nothing it is simply over fair territory or over foul territory. Once caught, the batter is out.

 

That's true as far as it goes, but you're missing the point. Once F2 touches the ball over foul territory, it becomes a foul ball. At that point, the batter has bunted foul and has thus struck out per 2.00.

 

That happens the instant F2 touches the ball. It happens before he can complete the catch, which is a longer process that includes voluntary release.

 

The catch counts, too, and I should not have said the ball is dead. The ball remains live on a caught foul ball, but the catch did not retire the batter, since it was foul before it was caught.

 

 

 

So a runner would not be liable to be put out on appeal under your assertion?  Nor would a runner be required to retouch under your assertion?

[maven]

 

 

 

It was a strikeout as soon as it was touched, since that's when it became a foul ball.

So the ball was dead foul before it could be caught for an out: touching precedes a catch.

I have a fly out to the catcher. An airborne bunted ball is nothing it is simply over fair territory or over foul territory. Once caught, the batter is out.

 

That's true as far as it goes, but you're missing the point. Once F2 touches the ball over foul territory, it becomes a foul ball. At that point, the batter has bunted foul and has thus struck out per 2.00.

 

That happens the instant F2 touches the ball. It happens before he can complete the catch, which is a longer process that includes voluntary release.

 

The catch counts, too, and I should not have said the ball is dead. The ball remains live on a caught foul ball, but the catch did not retire the batter, since it was foul before it was caught.

 

 

 

So a runner would not be liable to be put out on appeal under your assertion?  Nor would a runner be required to retouch under your assertion?

 

No. Nothing I've said (excepted the bit I corrected about the ball being dead) would commit me to saying any of that.

 

The only way I can make sense of what you're saying is: with 2 outs and the batter making the third out on strike 3, no runner can be appealed nor needs to retouch. THAT I accept follows from what I'm saying, but it doesn't seem objectionable.

[Umpire in Chief]

You want to stick with that?

I'll stick to my answer - and try to word my self better. 

 

Your mistaken assumption is that every foul ball is a dead ball.

 

Every foul ball IS a dead ball. Remember that it isn't a foul until it:

• Comes to a stop in foul territory before passing 1st/3rd base
• Is touched in foul territory by a player, umpire or unnatural object -- The rule reads touched not caught
• First touches the ground in foul territory beyond 1/3
• bounds past 1/3 on foul territory

None of these conditions were met. 

  

Well, every batted ball is either fair or foul. So you're implying every batted ball that's caught is a fair ball? 

 

Not quite-- Every batted ball is either in fair territory or foul territory.

 

 

 

 

[maven]

Warren, you need to let this go.

 

1. When a fielder touches a fly ball while it's over foul territory, it becomes a foul ball (and I've already said as much). What doesn't make sense is your claim that a caught fly ball is not a foul ball. How can it be caught without being touched?

 

2. Being in fair or foul territory is irrelevant and does not determine whether it's a fair ball our foul ball. I'll grant that a batted ball's status might not be determined yet (fly ball in the air), but it will always end up being either a fair ball or foul ball. You still seem to be committed to saying that every caught fly ball is fair, which is false.

[johnnyg08]

No. Nothing I've said (excepted the bit I corrected about the ball being dead) would commit me to saying any of that.

 

The only way I can make sense of what you're saying is: with 2 outs and the batter making the third out on strike 3, no runner can be appealed nor needs to retouch. THAT I accept follows from what I'm saying, but it doesn't seem objectionable.

 

No.  Consider this scenario:

 

R1, zero out. 

 

2-2 count on the batter.  

 

R1 is off on the pitch

 

Batter bunts the ball in the air over foul territory and is caught by F2 in foul territory.

 

If this is a strike out as you suggest, is R1 liable to be put out at 1B upon proper appeal?

 

If this is a fly out to F2, we all agree that R1 is liable to be put out at 1B upon proper appeal.

 

If this is a strike out, R1 is not liable to retouch, not liable to be put out on appeal, and acquires 2B as a stolen base.  

 

Because of this, my assertion is that this is a fly out to F2.

[maven]

 

No. Nothing I've said (excepted the bit I corrected about the ball being dead) would commit me to saying any of that.

 

The only way I can make sense of what you're saying is: with 2 outs and the batter making the third out on strike 3, no runner can be appealed nor needs to retouch. THAT I accept follows from what I'm saying, but it doesn't seem objectionable.

 

No.  Consider this scenario:

 

R1, zero out. 

 

2-2 count on the batter.  

 

R1 is off on the pitch

 

Batter bunts the ball in the air over foul territory and is caught by F2 in foul territory.

 

If this is a strike out as you suggest, is R1 liable to be put out at 1B upon proper appeal?

 

If this is a fly out to F2, we all agree that R1 is liable to be put out at 1B upon proper appeal.

 

If this is a strike out, R1 is not liable to retouch, not liable to be put out on appeal, and acquires 2B as a stolen base.  

 

Because of this, my assertion is that this is a fly out to F2.

 

 

Ah, I see the issue now.

 

You're assuming that it's EITHER/OR: if it's a strikeout, then it's not a caught fly ball, and vice versa. That's a mistake.

 

Compare: R1, R2, no outs, batter pops up to short. The batter is out for IFF, but if F6 catches the ball, the runners must retouch and are liable to be put out on appeal.

 

The OP is similar. The batter is out on the strikeout, but his fly ball is still caught. Any runners would have to retouch and would be liable to be put out on appeal.

[basejester]

 

• Is touched in foul territory by a player, umpire or unnatural object -- The rule reads touched not caught

:-)

All catches are touches. Not all touches are catches. Catch and touch are not mutually exclusive sets.

[bam]

Why is everyone claiming these two concepts are mutually exclusive.  It's a strikeout in the book, but runners are required to retouch, else they are laible on appeal. 

 

Simple

[maven]

All catches are touches. Not all touches are catches. Catch and touch are not mutually exclusive sets.

Indeed, as your first point entails, one includes the other.

[johnnyg08]

 

Why is everyone claiming these two concepts are mutually exclusive.  It's a strikeout in the book, but runners are required to retouch, else they are laible on appeal. 

 

Simple

 

 

I can buy that. 

 

 

No. Nothing I've said (excepted the bit I corrected about the ball being dead) would commit me to saying any of that.

 

The only way I can make sense of what you're saying is: with 2 outs and the batter making the third out on strike 3, no runner can be appealed nor needs to retouch. THAT I accept follows from what I'm saying, but it doesn't seem objectionable.

 

No.  Consider this scenario:

 

R1, zero out. 

 

2-2 count on the batter.  

 

R1 is off on the pitch

 

Batter bunts the ball in the air over foul territory and is caught by F2 in foul territory.

 

If this is a strike out as you suggest, is R1 liable to be put out at 1B upon proper appeal?

 

If this is a fly out to F2, we all agree that R1 is liable to be put out at 1B upon proper appeal.

 

If this is a strike out, R1 is not liable to retouch, not liable to be put out on appeal, and acquires 2B as a stolen base.  

 

Because of this, my assertion is that this is a fly out to F2.

 

 

Ah, I see the issue now.

 

You're assuming that it's EITHER/OR: if it's a strikeout, then it's not a caught fly ball, and vice versa. That's a mistake.

 

Compare: R1, R2, no outs, batter pops up to short. The batter is out for IFF, but if F6 catches the ball, the runners must retouch and are liable to be put out on appeal.

 

The OP is similar. The batter is out on the strikeout, but his fly ball is still caught. Any runners would have to retouch and would be liable to be put out on appeal.

 

 

Yep, makes complete sense. 

[RichMSN]

 

Why is everyone claiming these two concepts are mutually exclusive.  It's a strikeout in the book, but runners are required to retouch, else they are laible on appeal. 

 

Simple

 

 

If you take a look at (forgotten) rule 10, you'll see the answer:

 

10.15 (4).

 

It's a fly out, not a strikeout.  QED.

[Umpire in Chief]

Warren, you need to let this go.

 

Not quite yet

 

1. When a fielder touches a fly ball while it's over foul territory, it becomes a foul ball (and I've already said as much).

 

Absolutely !   

 

What doesn't make sense is your claim that a caught fly ball is not a foul ball. How can it be caught without being touched?

 

I am saying in my interpretation (and unfortunately the only interpretation manual I have available at work does not cover catch vs. touch) the rule states touch specifically and not catch. (And we all know how well the rules are written at all levels).

Lets break down the rule as written:

 

A FOUL BALL is a batted ball that settles on foul territory between home and first base, or between home and third base, or that bounds past first or third base on or over foul territory, or that first falls on foul territory beyond first or third base, or that, while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, or any object foreign to the natural ground.

 

1. "that settles on foul territory between home and first/third base"

- Ball is dead

2. "that bounds past first or third base on or over foul territory"

- Ball is dead

3. "that first falls on foul territory beyond first or third base"

- Ball is dead

4a. "that, while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire"

- Ball is dead

4b. "that, while on or over foul territory, touches the person of a ... player"

- This specifically mentions touch not catch.

- We can agree that if it touches the fielders arm or even glove but is not caught, the ball would be dead. 

4c. "that, while on or over foul territory, touches ... any object foreign to the natural ground"

- Ball is dead

Remember we are talking the world of baseball not physics. Each term has specific meaning and in baseball definitions a catch is exclusive to a touch. Touch has a separate definition from catch in the rules as such had they meant catch the rule would/should cover catch.

 

You still seem to be committed to saying that every caught fly ball is fair, which is false.

 

Not at all.

 

I am saying every caught fly ball will be in either fair or foul territory.

 

Just because I am not terming a fly ball caught in foul territory a foul ball does not mean that it is fair. It is simply a fly ball caught in foul territory. As such the ball remains live and runners may attempt to advance at their own peril or be subject to appeal for leaving early upon proper appeal. 

[maven]

Warren, your list explores criteria for a foul ball, not for a dead ball. Yes, if it touches a player over foul territory it's foul. How do you infer that it's therefore dead?

 

Wait, your confusion goes the other direction: since you think it's not dead, you're concluding it cannot be a foul ball. Do I have that right? You still haven't answered how it might be caught without being touched, and therefore foul.

 

And you also think that some batted balls end up neither fair balls nor foul balls? So there's a third category, caught-but-not-fair?

[bam]

This is from FED, which probably follows OBR:

 

ART. 4 . . . A strikeout is credited to the pitcher when a third strike is delivered

to a batter even though the batter might reach first base because the third strike

is a wild pitch or is not caught. It is also a strikeout if an attempted third strike

bunt is an uncaught foul.

 

And this from MLB rulebook:

 

(4) bunts foul on third strike, unless such bunt on third strike results in a foul fly

caught by any fielder, in which case the official scorer shall not score a strikeout

and shall credit the fielder who catches such foul fly with a putout.

[maven]

 

 

Why is everyone claiming these two concepts are mutually exclusive.  It's a strikeout in the book, but runners are required to retouch, else they are laible on appeal. 

 

Simple

 

 

If you take a look at (forgotten) rule 10, you'll see the answer:

 

10.15 (4).

 

It's a fly out, not a strikeout.  QED.

 

 

Hmph. They need to fix that.

[johnnyg08]

This is from FED, which probably follows OBR:

 

ART. 4 . . . A strikeout is credited to the pitcher when a third strike is delivered

to a batter even though the batter might reach first base because the third strike

is a wild pitch or is not caught. It is also a strikeout if an attempted third strike

bunt is an uncaught foul.

 

And this from MLB rulebook:

 

(4) bunts foul on third strike, unless such bunt on third strike results in a foul fly

caught by any fielder, in which case the official scorer shall not score a strikeout

and shall credit the fielder who catches such foul fly with a putout.

 

 

Yeah baby!  I should've just looked it up.  Thanks for doing the work on that.