Hypothetical Rule Situation

[Amy in AZ.]

Isn't it the same as a ball rebounding off of any player or glove, before touching the ground?

 

[BretMan]

Isn't it the same as a ball rebounding off of any player or glove, before touching the ground?

On a ball that comes off the bat with a perceptible arc it is.

On a ball that goes sharply and directly "straight back" to the catcher, it's not.

 

[MTR]

I was at the fields tonight scouting a 14U game and saw a play that, quite honestly, I have no idea what the ruling would have been. The batter hit a sharp foul ball that ricocheted off the top of the catchers leg guard (the part that covers above the knee) and popped up a couple of feet in the air and to the right of the catcher. The catcher made a dive for the ball and missed. My question is what would the ruling have been had the catcher caught the ball. Would it have been treated as an out or did hitting the catcher equipment first cause it to be a dead ball? My gut is telling me it would have been an out but I am not sure.

Wow, this really turned into a mess. Speaking ASA, I see no reason why this would not be a batted ball caught in flight. The only rule preventing such a thing is 1.FOUL BALL.G which applies only when the ball is caught by another fielder.

 

[BretMan]

SoCalDads first post (which you quoted above) said the batter hit a "sharp foul ball". At first, I took that to mean "sharply and directly", as defined for a foul tip. If such a batted ball hits the catcher or her equipment, before touching her hands, that's just a foul ball.

The high school rules confirm this through several case plays. ASA seems to have the same interpretation in Rules Supplement #22. Neither seem to directly address this situation in their definition of a "foul ball".

SoCal's subsequent post clarified that the ball did NOTcome off the bat "sharply and directly", but rather with a perceptible arc. That changes everything! In this case, it is treated just like any other fly ball legally caught by any fielder.

 

[MTR]

SoCalDads first post (which you quoted above) said the batter hit a "sharp foul ball". At first, I took that to mean "sharply and directly", as defined for a foul tip. If such a batted ball hits the catcher or her equipment, before touching her hands, that's just a foul ball.

The high school rules confirm this through several case plays. ASA seems to have the same interpretation in Rules Supplement #22. Neither seem to directly address this situation in their definition of a "foul ball".

I disagree. ASA's RS #22 addresses only the difference between a foul tip and foul ball. The definition of foul ball clearly states that it is a foul ball if the ball "goes directly from the bat to any part of the catcher's body or equipment and is caught by another fielder." There would be no reason for the quantifier of "another fielder" if any ball off the catcher's body or equipment could not be caught for an out.

SoCal's subsequent post clarified that the ball did NOTcome off the bat "sharply and directly", but rather with a perceptible arc. That changes everything! In this case, it is treated just like any other fly ball legally caught by any fielder.

Not at all. "Sharply" onlly applies to a foul tip. As noted above, if the ball goes directly to and off of the catcher, another fielder cannot catch the ball for an out.

Just reading the rule.

 

[BretMan]

Well then, NFHS and ASA interpret this rule differently (which I didn't think was the case).

But...from R/S #22: "The definition of a foul ball has not changed. However, a foul tip is now defined as a batted ball that goes sharply and directly from the bat to the catcher's glove/mitt or hand and is legally caught by the catcher. It is not a foul tip unless caught and any foul tip that is caught is a strike (Speaking of "quantifiers": Why would it be necessary to say "any foul tip that is caught"? If it ain't caught, it ain't a foul tip!) and the ball remains live in Fast Pitch and Slow Pitch with stealing. It is not a catch if the ball rebounds off the catcher, unless the ball has first touched the catcher's glove/mitt or hand."

Isn't the last sentence there still dealing with a ball hit sharply and directly to the catcher? It must be, because we know that if the ball came off the bat with a perceptible arc, it CAN be legally caught if it rebounds off the catcher, regardless of it it first touched the hands/mitt.

If it's not a catch, it can't be a foul tip. If it's not a catch, then it can't be a catch of a fly ball for an out. All that leaves us with is a batted ball first touched over foul ground by a defensive player- a foul ball.

 

[MTR]

Well then, NFHS and ASA interpret this rule differently (which I didn't think was the case).

But...from R/S #22: "The definition of a foul ball has not changed. However, a foul tip is now defined as a batted ball that goes sharply and directly from the bat to the catcher's glove/mitt or hand and is legally caught by the catcher. It is not a foul tip unless caught and any foul tip that is caught is a strike (Speaking of "quantifiers": Why would it be necessary to say "any foul tip that is caught"? If it ain't caught, it ain't a foul tip!) and the ball remains live in Fast Pitch and Slow Pitch with stealing. It is not a catch if the ball rebounds off the catcher, unless the ball has first touched the catcher's glove/mitt or hand."

Isn't the last sentence there still dealing with a ball hit sharply and directly to the catcher? It must be, because we know that if the ball came off the bat with a perceptible arc, it CAN be legally caught if it rebounds off the catcher, regardless of it it first touched the hands/mitt.

Again, talking about the difference between a foul tip and foul ball. Even the Fed rules only address another fielder catching a deflected ball. The case book does cover a ball which hits off the catcher and falls into the hands/glove, but if that is what the Fed wants, that is fine. Like I said, I'm just reading the rules.

If it's not a catch, it can't be a foul tip. If it's not a catch, then it can't be a catch of a fly ball for an out. All that leaves us with is a batted ball first touched over foul ground by a defensive player- a foul ball.

Think about that statement. If that were the case, a batted ball could never be caught in flight for an out.

 

[BretMan]

Think about that statement. If that were the case, a batted ball could never be caught in flight for an out.

Already thought about it!

As I'm reading the R/S, I am taking it that the part I quoted above is referring ONLY to a batted ball that goes "sharply and directly" to the catcher. Look at the sentence that is underlined. If that sentence was referring to a ball that came off the bat with an arcing path, it would be FALSE. Therefore, it must be referring to a ball that went "sharply and directly" to the catcher. Of course, a batted ball can be caught in flight for an out. But this type of batted ball- one taking the "sharp and direct" path toward the catcher- is not treated as other batted balls.

- If the ball goes "sharp and direct" and first touches the catcher's hands/mitt, it can be caught by the catcher, even if it bounds from her body/equipment before being secured: foul tip.

- If the ball goes "sharp and direct" and first touches the catcher's hands/mitt, rebounds, then is caught by a different fielder: foul ball.

- If the ball goes "sharp and direct" and first touches the catcher's body/equipment, before touching her hands/mitt: foul ball.

- If the ball comes off the bat with "perceptible arc", it's treated as any other batted fly ball. It doesn't matter where it first touches the catcher, so long as the subsequent catch meets the standard definition of "a catch".