|
O.K. I'm speaking Fed now but here are a couple of interesting thoughts.
1- What is the status of a batted ball that is on or over foul territory but is not yet foul?
We know a batted ball is not foul untill (Fed 2-25) one of seven things happens. (a) settles {ie stops moving} on foul territory before 1st or 3rd, (b)goes past 1st or 3rd in foul territory,(c)first falls on foul territory beyond 1st or 3rd, (d) while over foul territory touches something foreign to the natural ground, (e)while the ball is over foul territory a runner interfers with a defensive player attempting to field the batted ball, (f)touches the batter who is in the box, or (g)goes directly from the bat to the catchers body or equipment.
(d) is the only clause we can apply, and then only because of the detached equipment touching the ball.
The ball is this sitch was not yet foul, and according to the sitch the defensive player saw that it was about to become fair.
We can't discount our judgement about what the ball would become, because literaly in the rule book and case book we are told to award 4 bases if the illegally touched ball would have crossed the fence in fair territory. (Also we must judge the projected path of a batted ball which has a chance to become fair that is struck a second time by a batter. Fed 7-4-k Note)
The old Fed rule (through the 2001 season) had 3 clauses to cover detached equipment touching a batted ball. (a) on or over fair ground; (b)a fair ball while on or over foul ground; and (c) over foul ground in a situation that it might become a fair ball. The change in language in 2002 only speaks of touching a "fair batted ball".
Fed does not list this under "Rule Changes" (as it does other changes in Rule 8. There are no case plays covering this in 2002. I'll check 2003 today, but I don't recall any new plays in that section.)
Therefor, I ask again, what is the status of a moving batted ball, that appears to be heading toward fair territory? It is not yet foul, and it is not yet fair.
Does the touching by detached equipment make the ball foul before the detached equipment touches it, or does it make it foul when it touches and therefore no penalty should be applied even though the defensive team gains an advantage not intended by the rules? (Improper advantage being deduced from the prohibition of the rule makers of touching a batted or thrown ball with detached equipment)
Now, sit back and enjoy the protest committee trying to sort out that arguement. Oh, and while they are at that maybe they can decide which came first, the chicken or the egg.
Roger Greene
|