...So, with that logic, if it is hit fair, shouldn't the defense be required to attempt to field it instead of intentionally watching or coercing the ball to go foul. Remember Lenny Randle? How did that work for him?
And when it comes down to it, no one really knows if a ball "likely" to fair or foul will go fair or foul. I've seen many a ball allowed to roll the line looking as if the ball may be going foul only to have it not.
How about a slow roller? Is the umpire to borrow the stopwatch the base coach is now allowed to carry to time the speed of the ball, the likely distance that ball is to cover prior to coming to a stop and through a quick analysis of the landscape, the contour of the field and the rise in the seams and the rotation of the ball, determine whether the ball coulda, woulda, shoulda ended up in fair or foul territory?
Offer any opinion you want, I believe ASA's present interpretation offers consistency with the rest of the rules determining fair or foul (other than the foul line and foul pole actually being in fair territory crap). It also allows both sides to take advantage of a situation that apparently quite a few don't consider "fair play" when, IMO, it is exactly that.
Next thing you know, someone is going to suggest the umpire carry a level and check the ground every 10' along the lines to make sure there is no home cooking in the ground crew.
BTW, I'm still waiting to hear opinions about the runner on 3B contacting a bounding batted ball over foul territory that, IYO, could come back fair?