[greymule]

Is this reasoning relevant?

In Fed baseball, a spitball is an illegal pitch.

If the umpire sees spit flying off the ball on its way to the plate, he is supposed to call an illegal pitch immediately and a ball (with no runners) or a balk (with a runner), even if the batter hits the pitch over the fence. (I admit that I doubt many umpires would call the illegal pitch in this case.)

The rule against spitballs is supposed to protect the offense. In the case of the spitball hit for a home run, if the umpire goes by the book, the rule ends up hurting the offense.

I see a parallel situation with correcting an infield fly situation in which the defense messed up and everyone ended up safe.

Of course, if the defense fails to catch the ball and the offense benefits, you might say that the error is ipso facto proof that the ball could not have been handled with ordinary effort.

And thanks for the case book references, Dakota. (Can't find my case book at the moment.) ASA should make a case play for the reverse situation.

[Edited by greymule on Jun 24th, 2005 at 05:42 PM]