Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rich Ives
OK on the first one SA but
GONG! Nice try on the rest but . . .
Bob Jenkins Post:
Originally Posted by TheWhiteShadow
2.16.1.D has almost the exact same scenario but it is ruled foul and it states that the "bat is considered to be part of the playing field".
To which Bob Jenkins said: “Yep .. and I think this is the "correct" ruling.”
So Bob said it’s foul.
CoachJM Post 3:
foul, foul, and foul were his opinions. (Second one was hits helmet)
Coach JM post 7:
“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.”
He did not say it was fair, he just said play continues. If the ball subsequently becomes a foul ball, it is foul. That's why his opinions were foul, foul, and foul.
|
I also can agree, Bob is correct and said it was foul. The ball was on or over foul territory at the time, see 2.16.1.d. He also stated about a case that was FAIR.
I am still waiting for CoachJM to explain those same exact opinions on a FAIR batted ball that is bunted, accidently hits a bat or helmet in FAIR territory and then carroms foul. I would be willing to state that he would PLAY ON, with a FAIR batted BALL.
I can agree that the the play continues and according to MLBUM/JEA post, no reference was made as to where the ball settles after striking a batter's bat or helmet over FAIR terrritory. So why is it NOT FAIR in this situation?
That is why I asked for an explanation. I gladly thank you and SDS for your effort to help and I apologize for being such a dumb bloke. I do not wish to create waves with you and several others who have politlely taken the time to help me out. The Lord knows I don't need to be addressed or vanished for not understanding an event like this. I already know that I am not MLB material. Just doing the best I can with what I got.