Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve
He didn't rule fair, he was referring to a ball which settles in fair territory after striking an object in fair territory. Read it one more time. Nowhere does he say any of the original situations were fair balls.
Also, in post # 7, he quoted Jim Evans:
"...fair ball which contacts any object foreign to the natural ground in the general vicinity of the plate shall be ruled fair or foul depending on where the ball settles or is touched." Touched in this case means intentionally, after the contact with the foreign object.
|
Again you omit fact and add distortion and drop second pass attempt. Do MLBUM and JEA actually differ as presented by CoachJM below? Rather than make up my facts as you do, let me quote.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CoachJM
Though specifically referring to OBR, rather than FED rules, we also have from the MLBUM: Quote:
If a batted ball strikes a loose helmet accidentally (no intent on part of runner to interfere) in fair territory, the ball remains in play the same as if it had not hit the helmet.
If a batted ball strikes a helmet accidentally (no intent on part of runner to interfere) in foul territory, it is a foul ball.
and JEA: Quote: ... [B]Any foul ball which contacts any object foreign to the natural ground (e.g. a helmet, a bat, a mask) shall be ruled "foul" regardless of where it settles or is touched.[B]
Any fair ball which contacts any object foreign to the natural ground in the general vicinity of the plate shall be ruled fair or foul depending on where the ball settles or is touched. ...
Since there is no FED rule or ruling/interpretation that contradicts these OBR rulings or suggests they would be treated differently in a FED-based game, I would be inclined to rule that any piece of equipment or clothing which is lying on the field of play and not properly attached as a "foreign object".
Absent any intent, if a fair batted ball hits it in fair territory, play on. If a batted ball hits it on or over foul territory while live, it's a foul ball.
What do you think?
JM
|
Did you happen to see the canumdrum presented. MLBUM and JEA are both correct. A fair ball is fair and a foul ball is foul. Did JEA actually explain the physics principles of foreign objects? Flying foreign objects may hit actually hit a baseball (ask Randy Johnson); but in most cases a baseball happens to hit a settled foreign object on the ground and then roll fair or foul.
I see the touched part, I see the fair ball, I see the cap, helmet or glove as as foreign object hitting the ball. What can "Made in Japan" have to do with any of this? Is equipment, now detached, a FLYING foreign object that settles on the ground or NOT? I can identify it and to whom it belongs by rule. How can a flying foreign object intentionally touch anything is beyond my level of comprehension. If possible, then I must also believe in UFO's. Otherwise,
Absent any intent, if a fair batted ball hits it in fair territory, play on.
Care to take another shot? Oh, on another point, "SAy remember the divot."