Quote:
Originally posted by mcrowder
Let's pick this nit then.
If it was caught, over foul territory, it WOULD be foul. By definition, a ball that is first touched over foul territory is a foul ball. It is not, however, a DEAD ball, obviously. We would not holler "FOUL BALL!" (implying to the players that the ball is dead) on a caught foul fly, but that doesn't make it not foul.
I agree that a ball in flight has no foul-fair designation (until it leaves the park), but once it's touched, it is either fair or foul by definition.
I'll have to dig, but one of the caseplays mentions (or mentionED) a caught foul fly ball.
|
Isn't a ball
CAUGHT in foul territory nothing more than a "caught ball?" Once a ball is caught, in flight, it is of no circumstance as whether it was first touched in fair or foul territory, provided it is
CAUGHT.
Now, baseball has some special interpretations regarding fielders who are interfered with while attempting to field a ball over foul territory. I don't know (or, am not aware) of any special interpretations in any code of softball in this regard ... not that one may not exist. But if one *did* exist, some of the shock expressed regarding the seemingly unfairness of the play in this thread would not exist.
The problem with any set of rules is that it is nearly impossible to construct them in such a way that a flaw doesn't emerge that requires the rule to be modified, or, an official interpretation has to be made to cover an unanticipated occurrence.
It seems the baseball community and the softball community simply have different approaches to these "unanticipated occurrences." Baseball just rectifies it by adding to their already lengthy list of "unwritten rules" that are codified in places other than the official rulebook. Yet, these are dubbed "official interpretations" and are as enforceable as the rules that appear in the official rulebook.
Softball tends to simply allow the chips to fall where they may. The rules are what they are. If a circumstance comes up that a specific rule covers, but not in a very logical way ... too bad. The rule is the rule.
Baseball approach, "Damn! We have to
fix that!"
Softball approach, "The rules are the rules. Oh well."
I find both approaches perfectly acceptable. The baseball approach requires the umpire to keep up with the latest developments and to have access to manuals far beyond what's available in the rulebook. That's a pain in the as$. Yet, there are very few situations that can be contrived in baseball that result in a consensus of unfairness in the ruling. Baseball is very quick to rid themselves of unfair situations, even if they have to create a book of official interpretations that is thicker than the original rulebook.
The softball approach simply requires the umpire to firmly understand the rules as they are written - warts and all. The umpire can rule by the letter of the law, and if the participants don't like it, they can take it up with the sanctioning body. The umpire is just the messenger. Don't shoot the messenger!
I can live with that.
Although, the softball approach would tend to put the umpire in more uncomfortable situations. The play in this thread being such an example.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
[Edited by David Emerling on Feb 27th, 2006 at 06:54 PM]