Why is it foul?

[Carl Childress]

I'm finishing up the 2005 BRD, and I have what is to me an interesting problem. Let me lay out the text, exactly as it will appear in the book:

FED: If two umpires give differing decisions on the same play, the umpires in “consultation” decide which call will stand. (4.5.1) (added) EXCEPT: If the decisions involves fair or foul, the foul decision stands.

added Play 255: 0 on base: B1 lifts a high fly ball just past first base. The first baseman tries for the ball but drops it. The plate umpire “signals fair,” but the base umpire “signals foul.” Ruling: “This would not be considered a double call. The foul ball call of the first base umpire would prevail and B1 would return to the plate.” (adapted from FED CB 5.1.1b)

added Note 500: This play and ruling are more complex that one would think. They first appeared last year, and the “enthralling” point was that a foul ball could no longer become fair. I simply didn’t dig deeply enough into the play. Anyway, that’s my story — and I’m stickin’ to it. Three points:

1. I have indicated in the text of the BRD that the foul call in the casebook play stands because a call of foul cannot be changed. But:

2. Black letter law (5-1-1h) says that regardless of whether the ball is fair or foul, the call of foul stands when the umpire “verbally announces” foul. In CB 5.1.1b, neither umpire “verbally” announced the call; each signaled his decision. Therefore:

3. Is it possible the foul “signal” prevails because the call belonged to the base umpire? The editor took pains to indicate the fly ball was touched beyond the first base bag. With nobody on, that call belongs to — the base umpire.

I have about a week to include any pertinent comments before the PDF goes to the printer. The publisher, Right Sports, plans to begin shipment around the middle of January. Umpires should have it well before the FED season begins.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Dec 24th, 2004 at 12:33 PM]

[Rich]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
I'm finishing up the 2005 BRD, and I have what is to me an interesting problem. Let me lay out the text, exactly as it will appear in the book:

FED: If two umpires give differing decisions on the same play, the umpires in “consultation” decide which call will stand. (4.5.1) (added) EXCEPT: If the decisions involves fair or foul, the foul decision stands.

added Play 255: 0 on base: B1 lifts a high fly ball just past first base. The first baseman tries for the ball but drops it. The plate umpire “signals fair,” but the base umpire “signals foul.” Ruling: “This would not be considered a double call. The foul ball call of the first base umpire would prevail and B1 would return to the plate.” (adapted from FED CB 5.1.1b)

added Note 500: This play and ruling are more complex that one would think. They first appeared last year, and the “enthralling” point was that a foul ball could no longer become fair. I simply didn’t dig deeply enough into the play. Anyway, that’s my story — and I’m stickin’ to it. Three points:

1. I have indicated in the text of the BRD that the foul call in the casebook play stands because a call of foul cannot be changed. But:

2. Black letter law (5-1-1h) says that regardless of whether the ball is fair or foul, the call of foul stands when the umpire “verbally announces” foul. In CB 5.1.1b, neither umpire “verbally” announced the call; each signaled his decision. Therefore:

3. Is it possible the foul “signal” prevails because the call belonged to the base umpire? The editor took pains to indicate the fly ball was touched beyond the first base bag. With nobody on, that call belongs to — the base umpire.

I have about a week to include any pertinent comments before the PDF goes to the printer. The publisher, Right Sports, plans to begin shipment around the middle of January. Umpires should have it well before the FED season begins.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Dec 24th, 2004 at 12:33 PM]

My first thought is that it may not NECESSARILY be the base umpire's call in this situation -- if the ball is just past the bag, the BU may pivot in to clear the area and cede the call to the plate umpire. That would be my preference anyway.

It's clear that this isn't the direction your question was going, though, so....

I think the "verbally announces" FOUL is in there because this is the proper mechanic in this situation. ALL foul calls made should have some verbalization (whether loud, quiet or just under the umpire's breath).

So I think that it's irrelevant whether the umpire actually says foul or not. I think a signal is just as good as a verbalization here, since the runner may indeed SEE the signal being made by the BU "going out" in this situation.

Merry Christmas.

--Rich

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

My first thought is that it may not NECESSARILY be the base umpire's call in this situation -- if the ball is just past the bag, the BU may pivot in to clear the area and cede the call to the plate umpire. That would be my preference anyway.

It's clear that this isn't the direction your question was going, though, so....

I think the "verbally announces" FOUL is in there because this is the proper mechanic in this situation. ALL foul calls made should have some verbalization (whether loud, quiet or just under the umpire's breath).

So I think that it's irrelevant whether the umpire actually says foul or not. I think a signal is just as good as a verbalization here, since the runner may indeed SEE the signal being made by the BU "going out" in this situation.

Merry Christmas.

--Rich

I agree, generally. Of course, that's the right way to put it: We've all seen umpires (perhaps we've all been one) on the bases get turned around because of pressure from defenders and POINT the wrong way. It happened in the Little World Series with one of the most experienced umpires around.

In the OBR, a ball is not foul until the umpire says: "Time!" The only thing is: In the OBR they can change that call.

The casebook play confuses what was a simple (and bad) rule change.