View Single Post
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 27, 2004, 11:45am
Kaliix Kaliix is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 555
The ball, being the subject of the sentence, was what was being referred to as being in foul territory.

He states earlier that the player's foot was in foul territory when hit ("and it hit his foot which BTW, as I said was in FOUL territory,").

I think your right about the ball just being inside on the handle of the bat, usually referred to as running it in on the hands (not meant as hands literally).

In that case, if the ball and the player are in foul territory and it hits the player it is a foul ball.

If the Umpire saw the ball hit the fielder in foul territory and somehow ruled that a fair ball, he kicked the call. That is one that shouldn't have been missed.



Quote:
Originally posted by LDUB
Quote:
Originally posted by JRSooner
I thought if a ball touched ANY player while in foul territory it was a foul ball.
You got it wrong. It dosen't matter where the player is when he touched it, the ball is judged on where it is when it is touched. He could have his one foot touching foul territory, and his kicking foot, could be over on the fair side of the line when it hits the ball.

Ohh and I think when he says "jammed on the hands" he mean that the batter hit the ball on the bat, but on the thin part close to his hands.
__________________
Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know. ~Socrates
Reply With Quote