Son at bat. There is a runner on first and third with two outs. The count was 2-2. Son foul tips the ball, the ball hits the catcher in the chest protector first and then he catches the ball. The umpire calls son out on caught strike three. Is this not a trap and should have been called a foul ball?

If the ball hit the catcher's chest protector first it is not a foul tip but simply a foul ball. To be a foul tip the ball must first contact the catcher's glove or hand and then be legally caught. The ump goofed on this one.

I've never quite understood this rule. Why wouldn't he just be out on the caught foul ball?

An infielder can bobble a ball and then catch it to make an out, why can't the catcher? As long as the ball doesn't touch the ground, or someone else, I think it would be the same, right?

See if this makes sense.
I wasn't a foul ball, it was a foul tip that wasn't caught.

Thanks for the answer. The coach argued this point but the umpire would not listen. Don't know what son would have done with his at bat, but it is frustrating to have the bat taken out of his hands by a uninformed call.

Important to understand this is not a foul tip because it did not go directly into the catcher's mitt because grimages said it never touched the catcher's mitt but was fouled into his chest protector. Therefore we have to ignore the foul tip rule or caught third strike etc. --- but I think it still qualifies as a foul ball that didn't rebound off the umpire (which would have eliminated a legal catch). My only concern is the rules states a player cannot use the protector to catch the ball and I think "hitting" the protector as this ball did is different than "using" the protector to catch the ball so I say it qualifies as a legal catch of a foul ball and the batter is out.
Fungo

I always thought it had to be a "clean" catch for strike 3. Meaning straight from the bat to the glove.

Wrong call by the umpire.

ORB 6.05 (b) "... If smothered against his body or protector, it is a catch provided the ball struck the catcher’s glove or hand first."

Since it did not touch his hand or glove before touching the chest protector it is a foul ball.

perhaps the umpire thought it tocuhed the glove first though. It is tough to see. But a catcher can smother the ball against his equipment just as an outfielder could trap a ball against his chest as long the catcher has it touch his hand or his glove first.

After reading the rules I have to change my answer to a foul ball and the batter would stay alive because the offical rule states: 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 changes my answer because I think this ball would be considered a rebound since it didn't hit the glove first.
Fungo

quote:

Originally posted by catcher09:
I always thought it had to be a "clean" catch for strike 3. Meaning straight from the bat to the glove.

This is incorrect, as long as the ball is tipped straight to the glove, it can be muffed and then caught/trapped (against chest protector) for strike 3. The problem here is that the OP said it went to the CP first, which makes it a foul ball.

quote:

Originally posted by Fungo:
After reading the rules I have to change my answer to a foul ball and the batter would stay alive because the offical rule states: 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 changes my answer because I think this ball would be considered a rebound since it didn't hit the glove first.
Fungo

this is correct

quote:

Originally posted by gimages:
Thanks for the answer. The coach argued this point but the umpire would not listen. Don't know what son would have done with his at bat, but it is frustrating to have the bat taken out of his hands by a uninformed call.

The question of "did it hit his glove first" is a judgement call and with having been there to hear/see it myself I will not criticize this umpire's judgement. On the other hand, if he saw/heard that it did NOT hit/tick off of the glove first and he was contending that a ball that goes bat to chest protector and is then caught qualifies as a Foul tip and a strike, then it is a mis-application of the rules.

Great discussion about a rule you rarely see needed to be inforced. I asked my son for more detail about the situation. The pitch was a low curve ball, catcher goes to his knees with glove between his knees in an attempt to block the ball. Son swings and tips the ball and hits the catcher in the chest protector then ball drops into the cathers glove. It was clear to everyone that the ball hit the chest protector first then the glove. I bet we can go to a thousand games before we see that play again. Good to know the rule and the correct ruling.