Quote:
Originally posted by Jake80
Bob and everyone else:
I'm sorry if anyone took offense. My response was not meant to question the poster just my surprise at that actually being the FED interpretation. I can just imagine trying to explain to a coach that the ball landed behind an "imaginary" line between first and third and then rolled foul without being touched is fair for the purpose of the infield fly. And would that also apply to a non infield fly situation?
Just so I have this clear in my mind then, the OBR rule on this would be a foul ball based upon the ball coming to rest in foul territory?
|
Jake: Just a couple of points. First, don't write
your reply in bold face. That's used by the progam to identify quoted material. When you also use the bold attribute, it's hard to tell where the quote stops and your comment begins.
Second, the FED simply wrote in their book something that had been long discussed - and agreed to - by rule experts. The FED casebook for 1982 says: "The addition to this rule [ball hitting beyond imaginary line is fair] was made simply to clarify a long-standing ruling." Of course, it's a theoretical discussion only: In four thousand games,
mas o menos, where I've been on the field, I've never seen it happen.
Finally, you don't need to "explain" to a coach that such a ball is fair. It's black letter law, just like three strikes, four balls, and the plate is in fair territory. {"Really?" the assistant coach from Kansas once asked me.)
BTW: If that play happened on my field, I'd point "fair," and I'd bet ten dollars to a penny nobody would say anything.