Molina's Foul Tip

[Guest Carl]

If you haven't seen it:  https://www.mlb.com/cut4/yadier-molina-caught-a-foul-tip-in-his-lap/c-280984746

1.  It appears to me that the ball never touched Molina's mitt.  If so, does that make this actually a foul ball caught for an out rather than a foul tip strike three?

2.  It doesn't seem to matter for this play as Molina seems to pin the ball between his thigh and torso, but had the ball been trapped by his equipment, how would that change the call?  Perhaps if the ball had found it's way behind the chest protector, between his body and chest protector?

[Richvee]

A foul tip needs to be "sharp and direct" to the mitt. If it hit his mitt, then landed in his lap and he secured it, we have a foul tip. This, I believe, never touched Molina's mitt and as such should have been a foul ball. 

It is not a "foul ball caught" as you say., nor would it have mattered if it gets lodged in his equipment after contacting the bat....all foul balls. 

[noumpere]

A ball that goes "sharp and direct" [sic] foul can only be one of two things:

1) If it hits the mitt first, it becomes a foul tip if it's eventually caught by F2 (before touching any other player or the umpire).  If it's not caught, it's a foul ball.

2) If it hits anything else first, it's a foul ball.  This is the play in the video.

[Guest Carl]

Since the ball never touched the ground, why is it not a catch?

[noumpere]

1 minute ago, Guest Carl said:

Since the ball never touched the ground, why is it not a catch?

Because it didn't touch the mitt first.

The rules on foul-tips and foul-tip-like balls are different from  the rules on "normal" batted balls.

From OBR (but all codes are the same):

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.

[stkjock]

2 minutes ago, Guest Carl said:

Since the ball never touched the ground, why is it not a catch?

@Richvee gave you the answer, definition of a foul tip. the ball has to go "sharply and direct" to the mitt so it cannot be a caught foul tip.

 

if it was a batted ball in the field of play (or foul) that hit off a body part first then caught it's a different rule.

[Mudder]

3 hours ago, noumpere said:

A ball that goes "sharp and direct" [sic] foul can only be one of two things:

1) If it hits the mitt first, it becomes a foul tip if it's eventually caught by F2 (before touching any other player or the umpire).  If it's not caught, it's a foul ball.

2) If it hits anything else first, it's a foul ball.  This is the play in the video.

Point #2...you say the play in the video is a foul ball, could not be a foul ball if the batter was ruled out?   The batter was called out, the ump signalled a foul tip, so he must have thought the ball touched the mitt first, correct?

[maven]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

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.

The bolded sentence is the key, and sets this kind of foul ball apart from the scenario where a foul popup hits F3 in the head, bounces in the air, and F4 catches it. That would be a catch and the batter would be out.

[noumpere]

17 minutes ago, Mudder said:

Point #2...you say the play in the video is a foul ball, could not be a foul ball if the batter was ruled out?   The batter was called out, the ump signalled a foul tip, so he must have thought the ball touched the mitt first, correct?

Either he thought it touched the mitt, or he thought it went straight to the (free) hand, or he kicked the call.

[BretMan]

2 hours ago, Guest Carl said:

Since the ball never touched the ground, why is it not a catch?

Are you the same guy that was arguing for a "caught foul ball" on Facebook?

If so...then you'll get the same answer here.

[Guest Carl]

No, I am not the same guy.  I don't ask questions to be a troll.  I'm trying to understand the logic of the rules.  I have never seen a batted ball go sharp and direct toward the catcher and not either hit the catcher's hands or the ground.  

I have read the foul tip rule and always understood it to mean that it could not be a caught foul tip (strike, ball live) if it never touches the catchers hands.  I did not know that it also precluded a catch in general (caught ball, batter out).  Now I know. 

[Rich Ives]

51 minutes ago, Guest Carl said:

No, I am not the same guy.  I don't ask questions to be a troll.  I'm trying to understand the logic of the rules.  I have never seen a batted ball go sharp and direct toward the catcher and not either hit the catcher's hands or the ground.  

I have read the foul tip rule and always understood it to mean that it could not be a caught foul tip (strike, ball live) if it never touches the catchers hands.  I did not know that it also precluded a catch in general (caught ball, batter out).  Now I know. 

It's pretty common to see sharply deflected batted balls glancing off parts of the catcher without hitting his hands first. Think of those mask-knocker-offers for example.  I'm not sure what you are seeing.

When it says "it is not a catch" it means (ta da) it cannot be be a catch.  It has to be a catch to be an out. 

[umpstu]

8 hours ago, Guest Carl said:

If you haven't seen it:  https://www.mlb.com/cut4/yadier-molina-caught-a-foul-tip-in-his-lap/c-280984746

1.  It appears to me that the ball never touched Molina's mitt.  If so, does that make this actually a foul ball caught for an out rather than a foul tip strike three?

2.  It doesn't seem to matter for this play as Molina seems to pin the ball between his thigh and torso, but had the ball been trapped by his equipment, how would that change the call?  Perhaps if the ball had found it's way behind the chest protector, between his body and chest protector?

As a Cardinals' fan it was a great call.  Umpire was all over it.  Batter out. Next.

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, Guest Carl said:

No, I am not the same guy.  I don't ask questions to be a troll.  I'm trying to understand the logic of the rules.  I have never seen a batted ball go sharp and direct toward the catcher and not either hit the catcher's hands or the ground.  

I have read the foul tip rule and always understood it to mean that it could not be a caught foul tip (strike, ball live) if it never touches the catchers hands.  I did not know that it also precluded a catch in general (caught ball, batter out).  Now I know. 

You've never seen a batted ball go sharp and direct to the catcher's mask, or shoulder, or knee pad...or past the catcher and drill the umpire somewhere?   I'm pretty sure I see that almost every game.

This is one of those spirit of the rule, intent of the game thing...it is one of the many minor "holes" or contradictions in the rule book that are covered by either interpretation, or 150 years of that's how it's been done - a batted ball that goes sharp and direct to the catcher's helmet, goes straight up 50 feet, can't be "caught" for an out, though "technically" it is still a batted ball "in flight".   Basically, there's a standard for a "catch" for (potential) foul tips - the one type of catch is the difference between a foul tip and a foul ball...and a "catch" for everything else, which is the difference between out or not out.

[Guest Rock Bottom Mike]

So, I understand this this is NOT a foul tip, but the correct call would be a caught foul ball, is that right?  

[MadMax]

12 minutes ago, Guest Rock Bottom Mike said:

So, I understand this this is NOT a foul tip, but the correct call would be a caught foul ball, is that right?  

Nope. It is/was supposed to be a simple Foul ball. Batter should have still been at bat.