Jump to content
  • 0

foul ball


Guest Chris

Question

situation 1: no one on, no count... Batter hits ball straight back to f2... Ball hits f2's chest protector and pops up in the air. The f2 catches the deflection in the air.

Situation 2: same scenario... Batter hits pop up to f5 in foul territory. He loses the ball In the sun... The ball hits his shoulder and pops in the air, he then catches the deflection.

Rule cite too please. Thank you!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Answers 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Posts

In the sandlot, the rules are established by whoever brought the ball because we all know what happens when he gets mad.

Judge whether it's a fly ball. If so, foul out. If not, foul ball. OBR 2.00 FLY BALL, FOUL BALL, CATCH, IN FLIGHT Catch, batter is out. OBR 2.00 CATCH, IN FLIGHT

No need to define the arc. The rule says "sharp and direct" that is all that is needed. It is either sharp and direct and the foul tip rules apply or it is not and can be caught for an out. No arc, fl

Recommended Posts

  • 0

 

Maybe I'm not understanding. So, if a ball was fouled back, struck the catcher's mask and popped up into the air far enough, most of you would call that a fly ball?

Nope. Once the ball hit the mask it became foul and cannot be caught for an out or become a foul tip (unless it hit the hand or glove prior to hitting the mask). 1

 

 

I agree that it becomes foul when touched (by F2) while over foul territory. I also agree that once the batted ball gets past F2's glove and hits his body, it can no longer be a foul tip.

 

How does any of that entail that it cannot be caught? It sure seems like a batted ball in flight to me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

 

I agree that it becomes foul when touched (by F2) while over foul territory. I also agree that once the batted ball gets past F2's glove and hits his body, it can no longer be a foul tip.

 

How does any of that entail that it cannot be caught? It sure seems like a batted ball in flight to me.

 

 

"Caught" in the generic sense of securing something in your hand, sure. But "caught" for an out, as defined in the rule book? No!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

"Caught" in the generic sense of securing something in your hand, sure. But "caught" for an out, as defined in the rule book? No!

 

 

Why not? I'm using the same definition of 'catch' you are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

 

Maybe I'm not understanding. So, if a ball was fouled back, struck the catcher's mask and popped up into the air far enough, most of you would call that a fly ball?

Nope. Once the ball hit the mask it became foul and cannot be caught for an out or become a foul tip (unless it hit the hand or glove prior to hitting the mask). 1

 

 

I agree that it becomes foul when touched (by F2) while over foul territory. I also agree that once the batted ball gets past F2's glove and hits his body, it can no longer be a foul tip.

 

How does any of that entail that it cannot be caught? It sure seems like a batted ball in flight to me.

 

One of us is missing something and I'm guessing it's me... a batted ball that goes directly to the F2's mask is a foul ball the moment it contacts the mask and cannot become anything else right? Then it can't be caught for an out can it? This wouldn't be the first time I totally misunderstood something. 1

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

 

"Caught" in the generic sense of securing something in your hand, sure. But "caught" for an out, as defined in the rule book? No!

 

 

Why not? I'm using the same definition of 'catch' you are.

 

Doesn't the definition of "foul tip" say it can't be caught if it doesn't hit the hand/glove first?  Sorry, my books are still at home and I'm not so I can't provide a specific reference (and I'm too lazy to look on-line ;) )

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

From Carl Childress' BRD (2014 edition):

 

Page 157, Section 258 Fly Ball: Definition

 

FED: A fly ball is a batted ball that rises an "appreciable height above the ground." (2-6-2)

 

Official Interpretation 261-258: Rumble: "Appreciable height" means the batted ball must rise above the batter's head before it can be caught for an out. (News #33, 4/87)

 

 

According to this source there are no official interpretations for NCAA or OBR. I checked the 2011 edition of the BRD and the same Fed official interpretation was listed then also.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest roothog66

 

 

1) is just a foul ball. It cannot be caught for an out.

 

2.00 A FOUL TIP is a batted ball that goes sharp and direct from the bat to the catcher’s

hands and is legally caught. It is not a foul tip unless caught and any foul tip that is caught

is a strike, and the ball is in play. It is not a catch if it is a rebound, unless the ball has first

touched the catcher’s glove or hand.

???????????????????????????????

 

I'm a little confused as to why you would have a question on this.  If the ball goes "sharply and directly" to the catcher and hits him first in other than the hand or mitt, it's a foul ball.  That's the OP.

 

If it hits the hand or glove first and is caught, it's a foul tip.

 

If there's an arc (iow, not "sharply and directly") and is caught, it's an out.

 

I'm finding it very difficult to imagine ascenario where the ball hits the catcher's chest protector and popus up into the air where it was not "sharply and directly."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

 

 

1) is just a foul ball. It cannot be caught for an out.

 

2.00 A FOUL TIP is a batted ball that goes sharp and direct from the bat to the catcher’s

hands and is legally caught. It is not a foul tip unless caught and any foul tip that is caught

is a strike, and the ball is in play. It is not a catch if it is a rebound, unless the ball has first

touched the catcher’s glove or hand.

???????????????????????????????

 

I'm a little confused as to why you would have a question on this.  If the ball goes "sharply and directly" to the catcher and hits him first in other than the hand or mitt, it's a foul ball.  That's the OP.

 

If it hits the hand or glove first and is caught, it's a foul tip.

 

If there's an arc (iow, not "sharply and directly") and is caught, it's an out.

 

I'm finding it very difficult to imagine ascenario where the ball hits the catcher's chest protector and popus up into the air where it was not "sharply and directly."

 

are you referring to the "red" ? 

 

If so, that's not what he's talking about

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

 

 

Maybe I'm not understanding. So, if a ball was fouled back, struck the catcher's mask and popped up into the air far enough, most of you would call that a fly ball?

Nope. Once the ball hit the mask it became foul and cannot be caught for an out or become a foul tip (unless it hit the hand or glove prior to hitting the mask). 1

 

 

I agree that it becomes foul when touched (by F2) while over foul territory. I also agree that once the batted ball gets past F2's glove and hits his body, it can no longer be a foul tip.

 

How does any of that entail that it cannot be caught? It sure seems like a batted ball in flight to me.

 

One of us is missing something and I'm guessing it's me... a batted ball that goes directly to the F2's mask is a foul ball the moment it contacts the mask and cannot become anything else right? Then it can't be caught for an out can it? This wouldn't be the first time I totally misunderstood something. 1

 

 

Well, compare this play: ordinary pop foul down 3B line, comes down and hits F5 in the head, bounces straight up in the air, and F5 catches it in flight.

 

Ruling?

 

How is that different from your play, other than the fact that in your play F2 makes the catch?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest roothog66

 

 

 

 

Maybe I'm not understanding. So, if a ball was fouled back, struck the catcher's mask and popped up into the air far enough, most of you would call that a fly ball?

Nope. Once the ball hit the mask it became foul and cannot be caught for an out or become a foul tip (unless it hit the hand or glove prior to hitting the mask). 1

 

 

I agree that it becomes foul when touched (by F2) while over foul territory. I also agree that once the batted ball gets past F2's glove and hits his body, it can no longer be a foul tip.

 

How does any of that entail that it cannot be caught? It sure seems like a batted ball in flight to me.

 

One of us is missing something and I'm guessing it's me... a batted ball that goes directly to the F2's mask is a foul ball the moment it contacts the mask and cannot become anything else right? Then it can't be caught for an out can it? This wouldn't be the first time I totally misunderstood something. 1

 

 

Well, compare this play: ordinary pop foul down 3B line, comes down and hits F5 in the head, bounces straight up in the air, and F5 catches it in flight.

 

Ruling?

 

How is that different from your play, other than the fact that in your play F2 makes the catch?

 

Because there is a rule covering this situation. OBR 2.00 makes this immediately a dead ball (foul) the minute it strikes the catcher without having first touched the catcher's glove or hand. A dead ball cannot be caught for an out. Your F5 situation is not covered by any other rule which declares the ball dead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

 

 

 

Maybe I'm not understanding. So, if a ball was fouled back, struck the catcher's mask and popped up into the air far enough, most of you would call that a fly ball?

Nope. Once the ball hit the mask it became foul and cannot be caught for an out or become a foul tip (unless it hit the hand or glove prior to hitting the mask). 1

 

 

I agree that it becomes foul when touched (by F2) while over foul territory. I also agree that once the batted ball gets past F2's glove and hits his body, it can no longer be a foul tip.

 

How does any of that entail that it cannot be caught? It sure seems like a batted ball in flight to me.

 

One of us is missing something and I'm guessing it's me... a batted ball that goes directly to the F2's mask is a foul ball the moment it contacts the mask and cannot become anything else right? Then it can't be caught for an out can it? This wouldn't be the first time I totally misunderstood something. 1

 

 

Well, compare this play: ordinary pop foul down 3B line, comes down and hits F5 in the head, bounces straight up in the air, and F5 catches it in flight.

 

Ruling?

 

How is that different from your play, other than the fact that in your play F2 makes the catch?

 

@roothog beat me to it. It would be an out if an F2 gave chase and then the same thing happened as in your F5 sitch but if "sharp and direct' it's always (hate saying that) going to be a foul tip or a foul ball, no other choices. 1

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest roothog66

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe I'm not understanding. So, if a ball was fouled back, struck the catcher's mask and popped up into the air far enough, most of you would call that a fly ball?

Nope. Once the ball hit the mask it became foul and cannot be caught for an out or become a foul tip (unless it hit the hand or glove prior to hitting the mask). 1

 

 

I agree that it becomes foul when touched (by F2) while over foul territory. I also agree that once the batted ball gets past F2's glove and hits his body, it can no longer be a foul tip.

 

How does any of that entail that it cannot be caught? It sure seems like a batted ball in flight to me.

 

One of us is missing something and I'm guessing it's me... a batted ball that goes directly to the F2's mask is a foul ball the moment it contacts the mask and cannot become anything else right? Then it can't be caught for an out can it? This wouldn't be the first time I totally misunderstood something. 1

 

 

Well, compare this play: ordinary pop foul down 3B line, comes down and hits F5 in the head, bounces straight up in the air, and F5 catches it in flight.

 

Ruling?

 

How is that different from your play, other than the fact that in your play F2 makes the catch?

 

@roothog beat me to it. It would be an out if an F2 gave chase and then the same thing happened as in your F5 sitch but if "sharp and direct' it's always (hate saying that) going to be a foul tip or a foul ball, no other choices. 1

 

And I can't see a scenario where a ball is hit off the catcher's chest protector and bounces up in the air where it wouldn't be "sharp and direct." Anything else would simply skip back behind him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

From Carl Childress' BRD (2014 edition):

 

Page 157, Section 258 Fly Ball: Definition

 

FED: A fly ball is a batted ball that rises an "appreciable height above the ground." (2-6-2)

 

Official Interpretation 261-258: Rumble: "Appreciable height" means the batted ball must rise above the batter's head before it can be caught for an out. (News #33, 4/87)

 

 

According to this source there are no official interpretations for NCAA or OBR. I checked the 2011 edition of the BRD and the same Fed official interpretation was listed then also.

 

Fair enough. My BRD is at home, and I'm not, so we'll go with what you posted. But there seems to be some sort of disconect here.

 

Taking the "official interpretation" you posted at face value, saying that "a batted ball must rise above the batter's head to be caught for an out" is obviously not a true statement in relation to ALL batted balls hit anywhere on the field. Is the interpretation related only to balls fouled back toward the catcher and fielded over foul ground? Unless it is, then this interpretation make no sense. What is the context which the interpretation is being offered?

 

What is your ruling if:

 

1) Batter swings and ball is barely tipped. The ball goes straight up, only as high as the batter's nose, then straight back down and is gloved by the catcher, over foul ground, before touching anything else.

 

2) Same scenario, but this time the ball is caught directly over top of home plate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

 

"Caught" in the generic sense of securing something in your hand, sure. But "caught" for an out, as defined in the rule book? No!

 

 

Why not? I'm using the same definition of 'catch' you are.

 

 

Because rule and interpretation say it's just a plain old foul ball.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

From Carl Childress' BRD (2014 edition):

 

Page 157, Section 258 Fly Ball: Definition

 

FED: A fly ball is a batted ball that rises an "appreciable height above the ground." (2-6-2)

 

Official Interpretation 261-258: Rumble: "Appreciable height" means the batted ball must rise above the batter's head before it can be caught for an out. (News #33, 4/87)

 

 

According to this source there are no official interpretations for NCAA or OBR. I checked the 2011 edition of the BRD and the same Fed official interpretation was listed then also.

 

Fair enough. My BRD is at home, and I'm not, so we'll go with what you posted. But there seems to be some sort of disconect here.

 

Taking the "official interpretation" you posted at face value, saying that "a batted ball must rise above the batter's head to be caught for an out" is obviously not a true statement in relation to ALL batted balls hit anywhere on the field. Is the interpretation related only to balls fouled back toward the catcher and fielded over foul ground? Unless it is, then this interpretation make no sense. What is the context which the interpretation is being offered?

 

What is your ruling if:

 

1) Batter swings and ball is barely tipped. The ball goes straight up, only as high as the batter's nose, then straight back down and is gloved by the catcher, over foul ground, before touching anything else.

 

2) Same scenario, but this time the ball is caught directly over top of home plate.

 

out in both 1 & 2.

 

Just my opinion as I have nothing with me at work to back it up but I think the whole "appreciable height" or over the batters head thing should be applied to a something like an IFF to differentiate it from a line drive. Or to simply identify it from another kind of batted ball. These "types" of batted balls do not come into play when judging a foul tip. 1

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Because there is a rule covering this situation. OBR 2.00 makes this immediately a dead ball (foul) the minute it strikes the catcher without having first touched the catcher's glove or hand. A dead ball cannot be caught for an out. Your F5 situation is not covered by any other rule which declares the ball dead.

True, a dead ball cannot be caught for an out. But ordinarily a foul ball is not dead until it touches the ground (or something other than a player). That hasn't happened here: I see that this has to be foul, but not that it's "immediately" dead. What part of 2.00 are you looking at?

 

I agree that a foul ball hitting anything soft on F2 probably won't bounce up high enough. The scenario I'm envisioning, I guess, is a foul ball deflecting off F2's helmet up "high" (enough) in the air and subsequently caught. That would still be TWP, but more plausible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

Because there is a rule covering this situation. OBR 2.00 makes this immediately a dead ball (foul) the minute it strikes the catcher without having first touched the catcher's glove or hand. A dead ball cannot be caught for an out. Your F5 situation is not covered by any other rule which declares the ball dead.

True, a dead ball cannot be caught for an out. But ordinarily a foul ball is not dead until it touches the ground (or something other than a player). That hasn't happened here: I see that this has to be foul, but not that it's "immediately" dead. What part of 2.00 are you looking at?

 

I agree that a foul ball hitting anything soft on F2 probably won't bounce up high enough. The scenario I'm envisioning, I guess, is a foul ball deflecting off F2's helmet up "high" (enough) in the air and subsequently caught. That would still be TWP, but more plausible.

 

I'm not following the bolded section. If it is a foul then it is "dead", right? The last line of 2.00 ...unless it is a rebound... So by rule if sharp and direct to the catchers hand/glove FIRST then it can be caught for an out even if it bounces off F2's head 9 times but if mask/CP first then it cannot in any way be caught for an out. I think we are all in agreement on this but can't come together on why? maybe? 1

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

 

Because there is a rule covering this situation. OBR 2.00 makes this immediately a dead ball (foul) the minute it strikes the catcher without having first touched the catcher's glove or hand. A dead ball cannot be caught for an out. Your F5 situation is not covered by any other rule which declares the ball dead.

True, a dead ball cannot be caught for an out. But ordinarily a foul ball is not dead until it touches the ground (or something other than a player). That hasn't happened here: I see that this has to be foul, but not that it's "immediately" dead. What part of 2.00 are you looking at?

 

I agree that a foul ball hitting anything soft on F2 probably won't bounce up high enough. The scenario I'm envisioning, I guess, is a foul ball deflecting off F2's helmet up "high" (enough) in the air and subsequently caught. That would still be TWP, but more plausible.

 

I'm not following the bolded section. If it is a foul then it is "dead", right? The last line of 2.00 ...unless it is a rebound... So by rule if sharp and direct to the catchers hand/glove FIRST then it can be caught for an out even if it bounces off F2's head 9 times but if mask/CP first then it cannot in any way be caught for an out. I think we are all in agreement on this but can't come together on why? maybe? 1

 

 

No - only an uncaught foul is dead.

 

And in the current discussion the ball is uncaught by rule, and has been touched in foul ground so it's foul.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest roothog66

Just so we understand each other, if the batted ball is not "sharp and direct" but does hit the catchers mask and is then caught we have an out. If B1 tried to bunt a slow breaking ball and it just popped up and off the F2's mask and then he caught it we've got an out if you don't judge it sharp and direct. 1

OK. This is the scenario I failed to consider. yes, I think if a ball were fouled up in the air so that it came down and hit the catcher on the helmet or shoulder, it may be caught for an out. I wouldn't see it any different than a pop up in foul territory. I think we've all seen one of those hit a catcher's arm or chest before being caught. The OP's example seemed more of a "fouled back" into the catcher's chest protector scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

 

 

Because there is a rule covering this situation. OBR 2.00 makes this immediately a dead ball (foul) the minute it strikes the catcher without having first touched the catcher's glove or hand. A dead ball cannot be caught for an out. Your F5 situation is not covered by any other rule which declares the ball dead.

True, a dead ball cannot be caught for an out. But ordinarily a foul ball is not dead until it touches the ground (or something other than a player). That hasn't happened here: I see that this has to be foul, but not that it's "immediately" dead. What part of 2.00 are you looking at?

 

I agree that a foul ball hitting anything soft on F2 probably won't bounce up high enough. The scenario I'm envisioning, I guess, is a foul ball deflecting off F2's helmet up "high" (enough) in the air and subsequently caught. That would still be TWP, but more plausible.

 

I'm not following the bolded section. If it is a foul then it is "dead", right? The last line of 2.00 ...unless it is a rebound... So by rule if sharp and direct to the catchers hand/glove FIRST then it can be caught for an out even if it bounces off F2's head 9 times but if mask/CP first then it cannot in any way be caught for an out. I think we are all in agreement on this but can't come together on why? maybe? 1

 

 

No - only an uncaught foul is dead.

 

And in the current discussion the ball is uncaught by rule, and has been touched in foul ground so it's foul.

 

I understand what you're saying but we (umpires) don't announce a foul until it can't be anything else. Prior to it becoming a foul or fair ball it is just a batted ball over or on foul or fair territory. I think we are all in agreement about this part of the topic. 1

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

 But ordinarily a foul ball is not dead until it touches the ground (or something other than a player).

 

This play is the exception that proves the rule.

 

This is from J/R (and, yes, I know we don't always like to use it as a reference) (emphasis added):

 

(5) it is a foul tip.

2.00

A foul tip occurs when pitch nicks the bat and goes sharply and directly to the

catcher's glove or hand and is caught by the catcher unassisted. A nicked pitch

that initially strikes something other than the catcher's glove or hand (e.g., the

ground, batter, umpire, mask, protector) cannot be a foul tip; it is simply a nick

and foul. The ball remains in play after a foul tip; thus, it is equivalent to a pitch

that is swung at, missed, and caught. A foul tip can be an illegally batted ball (see

p. 16).

 

Honestly, I am not surprised to see the on-going discussion about this; I am surprised at who is keeping the discussion going.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Noumpere. I can clear up your confusion. Your fellow umpire is confused because he is an imperfect human being. He is suppose to be your brother. Stop the condescending remarks.

Every winter we break out our books and every winter we all have a brain lapse on a rule that we have known, or we thought we knew. My brain lapse this year is on foul tip. The MLB manual is clear that a foul tip can first hit the catcher's glove sharply and directly and then hit his chest protector and then be caught for a strike and if it's the 3rd strike the batter is out. The manual is silent about the mask. I started to question whether a foul tip can go directly to glove and then mask and be caught. I don't have casebook I think the same principle applies. If the pitch is nicked and goes directly to the catcher's glove and then bounces off any part of his gear, I think we have a catch. I would appreciate knowing for sure. I am embarrassed that I don't know for sure. I would rather be embarrassed on this site rather than the diamond.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Since Rick Roder is used by MLB and the plate umpire for game 7, Jeff Nelson, uses his book to teach, who is anyone on this site to criticize J/R?

3 of 7 World Series umpires are quoted in the front of J/R saying the manual is the book they use. " ... It is still the one I use when I need clarification on a tricky play. It is what many MLB umpires use when they need to know how to rule on a play'. - Ted Barrett. "There's no better baseball rules manual anywhere.'- Jeff Nelson

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.






×
×
  • Create New...