A little help please

[Comp]

The test question which was posted is actually the exact same question from the ASA 2007 case book. The above the head statement has no bearing as this wording was removed from the rule book in 2006. The ruling is, if the catcher moves to the ball after it has contacted the bat, it is a caught foul ball, not a foul tip.

So the answer would be, if in the umpires judgement the catcher had to move their glove at all from its original position to receive the pitch it is not a foul tip but a caught foul ball.

 

[Greenmonsters]

From rules supplement 22. "Umpires only need to judge wether the ball moves "sharply" and "directly" versus a ball that has perceptable arc and / or if the catcher moves their glove / mitt to catch the ball after contact with the bat."

There is plenty of information in the question. The ball did not travel sharply and directly to the catchers glove. If the catcher had to lunge for the ball, they obviously moved their glove.

If only you were just willing to admit that the question was poorly worded...

With your experience I'm surprised that you haven't previously noticed that the catcher's glove moves every pitch and that on several occasions you may even have seen a catcher lunge to catch a mis-located pitch. As the catcher moves the glove to catch every pitch they have to assume that the pitch will not be affected by the batter (i.e., hit or fouled), otherwise the umpire becomes the de facto catcher. Understanding that, the catcher has to move their glove at least a little bit on every caught foul tip because the path of the ball is altered from what they were expecting before the batter made contact.

 

[Ajaywill]

..... but it could've been a high pitch and the catcher lunged downward and caught a ball that was bunted directly down one foot behind the plate....

This would be a good example of reading into the question....

 

[Comp]

A catcher moving their glove to receive a pitch that missed its location, and a catcher moving their glove to catch a ball that has changed direction after hitting the bat is 2 completely different things.

 

[MTR]

No it isn't. You have assumed that the ball did not go sharply and directly to the catcher. The question only stated that the ball did not go over the batters head AND that the catcher lunged for it. Now its more likely that you are correct in your assumption, but it could've been a high pitch and the catcher lunged downward and caught a ball that was bunted directly down one foot behind the plate. Just admit that the test question was vague and poorly written.

If the catcher had to move for the ball, the ball did not go sharply and directly to the hands or glove (for a foul tip) or the catcher's body and/or equipment (other than the glove) for a foul ball ruling.

There is zero assumption here and there isn't a problem with the manner in which the question was posed. The only problem is people are trying to make the question and/or ruling something that either is not.

 

[Greenmonsters]

A catcher moving their glove to receive a pitch that missed its location, and a catcher moving their glove to catch a ball that has changed direction after hitting the bat is 2 completely different things.

True, but you previously answered the question by providing the following contradictory statement

"So the answer would be, if in the umpires judgement the catcher had to move their glove at all from its original position to receive the pitch it is not a foul tip but a caught foul ball."

No question about the answer that was being sought, but that still doesn't change the fact that the question was written poorly.

Here's my real beef. IMO, there are too many omnipotent weekend umpires already without encouraging others to read into the rule book to introduce their own form of justice and "correct" percieved inequities. No disrespect intended to those of you umpires here who put in the time and effort to study and know the applicable rule sets and take their work seriously, but there are too many we've run into over the years that haven't and don't.

 

[Umpire]

So the answer would be, if in the umpires judgement the catcher had to move their glove at all from its original position to receive the pitch it is not a foul tip but a caught foul ball.

No, no, no. Directly refers to the movement of the BALL. You think that if the catcher's glove moves an inch after the ball contacts the bat you are going to have a caught foul fly ball for an out? What if the glove moved a bit but could have caught the ball anyway?

Your definition taken and put into reality on the field would mean that there are virtually no foul tips whatsoever.

 

[chinamigarden]

True, but you previously answered the question by providing the following contradictory statement

"So the answer would be, if in the umpires judgement the catcher had to move their glove at all from its original position to receive the pitch it is not a foul tip but a caught foul ball."

No question about the answer that was being sought, but that still doesn't change the fact that the question was written poorly.

Here's my real beef. IMO, there are too many omnipotent weekend umpires already without encouraging others to read into the rule book to introduce their own form of justice and "correct" percieved inequities. No disrespect intended to those of you umpires here who put in the time and effort to study and know the applicable rule sets and take their work seriously, but there are too many we've run into over the years that haven't and don't.

Are you arguing the "original position". A bit semantic don't you think. Would that be the catchers bag? Or the Box the mitt was In When it was under the Xmas tree. Or maybe Dicks sporting goods. How about the Rawlings factory?

 

[SoCal_Dad]

Reality check on whether a catcher can react to a foul tip in time to move their glove before the ball hits it.
- A 50 MPH ball is moving 73.3 ft/sec.
- A foul tip only travels 1-3 feet.
- This only gives the catcher .014-.041 seconds to react.
- The mean reaction times for Olympic sprinters are .166-.189 (male-female) and their best per 1,000 starts is .109-.121.

I think catchers aren't moving their glove until after the ball hits it.

 

[Greenmonsters]

Reality check on whether a catcher can react to a foul tip in time to move their glove before the ball hits it.
- A 50 MPH ball is moving 73.3 ft/sec.
- A foul tip only travels 1-3 feet.
- This only gives the catcher .014-.041 seconds to react.
- The mean reaction times for Olympic sprinters are .166-.189 (male-female) and their best per 1,000 starts is .109-.121.

I think catchers aren't moving their glove until after the ball hits it.

FWIW Your reaction time analogy is flawed. Compare sprinter's reaction times to drag racers, there's a real difference as the sprinters don't have the advantage of anticipating the gun. A catcher is even less burdened because they aren't restricted to any specific starting time or fixed location and are already in motion moving the glove in response to the trajectory. However, I don't disagree that the reaction time is super-human and that a catcher doesn't have the time to see and react to a foul tip and that caught foul tips are principally a function of dumb luck. My personal experience was that there were more than a handfull of times where I instinctually continued moving my glove past the original interception point and caught a foul tip. Considering that Chuck Norris catches the entire game blindfolded, I'm inclined to believe that nothing is impossible if you have the right attitude.