[SAump]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

I wouldn't argue with that.
Actually, as anyone who can read will see, Bob Jenkins did NOT say that.

Bob did post the text of a FED case book situation which DOES say that. Bob also subsequently implied that he did not believe the case book situation he quoted offered the correct ruling on the play in question, but said it did offer support for ruling the ball fair because it touched the bat in fair territory.

Aside to WhiteShadow: I see you're kind of new here. As you've probably already figured out, different posters on this forum have different degrees of understanding of the proper application of the rules and, therefore, different degrees of credibility. In my opinion, Bob Jenkins is one of the MOST credible posters whos posts here. Others, in my opinion, are much more towards the other end of the credibility spectrum. So, if you ever read that Bob and I disagree on a point, I would encourage you to believe HIM. I do.

Again, as anyone who can read will see, I said no such thing.

What I DID say was that a batted ball

(which has not yet touched anything since the bat)

which first touches a "foreign object", such as a helmet lying in the field of play

(which did not come to be there as the result of an intentional act by any player to affect the course of the play),

while on or over fair territory, remains live and in play.

Whether it will ultimately be fair or foul has yet to be seen at this point. It depends what happens after that, and it could end up either.

Sounds good to me. Huh?

JM

What you said is that you don't know, it could end UP either. MLBUM doesn't say that. It says remains in PLAY. You contradict yourself in the same sentence. A ball remains live and in play "until" it ends up ultimately fair or foul. Interesting that MLBUM did not state those words. It stated remains in PLAY. I think you guys are making things UP. Yep, sounds good.