NFHS interpretation

[David Emerling]

Is it just me, or are some of the rule references that support many example plays tenuous, at best?

You read the play ... you read the ruling ... then look up the cited reference and find NO BASIS for the suggested ruling based on the reading of the rule. I see this happen time and time again.

Here's an interpretation that I just read from the NFHS website:

SITUATION 10: With 1 out and R1 on first and a count of 2-1, B2 hits a bouncing ball along the first base foul line. U1 mistakenly declares “Foul!” as F1 picks up the ball in fair territory. RULING: The ball is dead immediately. R1 returns to first. B2 continues at bat with a count of 2-2. (5-1-1h)

Seems reasonable enough.

The ball instantly becoming dead seems reasonable and is supported by the cited rule. But there seems to be some question as to whether an umpire can rule a foul ball strike on a ball that is clearly fair.

So, I looked up 5-1-1h.

Which says: Ball becomes dead immediately when the umpire handles a live ball or calls "Time" for inspecting or for any other reason, including items in Section 2 or gives the "Do Not Pitch Signal" or verbally announces "Foul Ball.

That certainly explains WHY the ball is dead. I doubt anybody would argue that. But what about the heated argument on the part of the defense that the ball was CLEARLY fair and that they were unable to register any outs which would have certainly resulted. Could the umpire that called "Foul!" honestly claim that the ball *was* foul?

Rule 5-1-1h does not address THAT issue, which, in my opinion, would be the more heated point of the debate.

The question is not so much is the ball dead or not; more importantly, the defense will be demanding whether the umpire is properly ruling a "strike" for a batted ball that EVERYBODY will admit was fair and would have almost certainly resulted in an out.

5-1-1h does not address THAT issue.

The bottom line is this: I seldom find the rule references for interpretations of any value since they seldom hit at the heart of the issue.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Jan 20th, 2005 at 03:22 PM]

[mcrowder]

And what about the heated argument from the offense that their runner would have beaten out the play at first - they don't get that either, and are penalized with a strike!

The ruling here is that the umpire yelling FOUL makes it FOUL. Right or wrong.

Now, at the risk of someone calling this a TWP (), what if the ball was a basehit to centerfield. Rookie BU on a bad day, for some reason had glanced away (perhaps watching a runner steal), saw something in his peripheral vision (perhaps even hearing something hit the fence), and yells FOUL!

Rulebook says it's Foul. And a strike. Do we, in this case, use 9-1-c to simply "do-over" or even place runners?

[ozzy6900]

Originally posted by mcrowder
And what about the heated argument from the offense that their runner would have beaten out the play at first - they don't get that either, and are penalized with a strike!

The ruling here is that the umpire yelling FOUL makes it FOUL. Right or wrong.

Now, at the risk of someone calling this a TWP (), what if the ball was a basehit to centerfield. Rookie BU on a bad day, for some reason had glanced away (perhaps watching a runner steal), saw something in his peripheral vision (perhaps even hearing something hit the fence), and yells FOUL!

Rulebook says it's Foul. And a strike. Do we, in this case, use 9-1-c to simply "do-over" or even place runners?

Well, if you are running a FED game and the ball was hit fair but the umpire called it foul, I guess you only have one choice here. The rules and interpertations are clear - the ball is dead and B1 has a strike placed on his count. There is nothing more that you can do about it - if you want to officiate by the book. Will they scream, pi$$ and moan? You betcha but that's the way it is!

[cowbyfan1]

I agree. While there will be moaning and groaning it is foul and a strike.

You want to make it more 3rd world? There are 2 strikes on the batter and he tries to bunt the ball and the BU or PU call foul even tho it is fair. Is the batter out? I say no but the rules state it is a foul ball and a bunted foul ball is strike 3 and an out.

[jicecone]

Originally posted by David Emerling
Is it just me, or are some of the rule references that support many example plays tenuous, at best?

You read the play ... you read the ruling ... then look up the cited reference and find NO BASIS for the suggested ruling based on the reading of the rule. I see this happen time and time again.

Here's an interpretation that I just read from the NFHS website:

SITUATION 10: With 1 out and R1 on first and a count of 2-1, B2 hits a bouncing ball along the first base foul line. U1 mistakenly declares “Foul!” as F1 picks up the ball in fair territory. RULING: The ball is dead immediately. R1 returns to first. B2 continues at bat with a count of 2-2. (5-1-1h)

Seems reasonable enough.

The ball instantly becoming dead seems reasonable and is supported by the cited rule. But there seems to be some question as to whether an umpire can rule a foul ball strike on a ball that is clearly fair.

So, I looked up 5-1-1h.

Which says: Ball becomes dead immediately when the umpire handles a live ball or calls "Time" for inspecting or for any other reason, including items in Section 2 or gives the "Do Not Pitch Signal" or verbally announces "Foul Ball.

That certainly explains WHY the ball is dead. I doubt anybody would argue that. But what about the heated argument on the part of the defense that the ball was CLEARLY fair and that they were unable to register any outs which would have certainly resulted. Could the umpire that called "Foul!" honestly claim that the ball *was* foul?

Rule 5-1-1h does not address THAT issue, which, in my opinion, would be the more heated point of the debate.

The question is not so much is the ball dead or not; more importantly, the defense will be demanding whether the umpire is properly ruling a "strike" for a batted ball that EVERYBODY will admit was fair and would have almost certainly resulted in an out.

5-1-1h does not address THAT issue.

The bottom line is this: I seldom find the rule references for interpretations of any value since they seldom hit at the heart of the issue.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Jan 20th, 2005 at 03:22 PM]

David, for some reason here I just don't see how an umpires inability to make a proper decision, has anything to do with the resultant activities, once that decision is announced. The rules clearly tell you what is to happen when this takes place.

The discussion of wether or not the decision was correct, fair to one team or just a terrible decision by the official, is entirely a differnt subject.

To say that the rule references for interpretations are of any value most of the time, is in itself a "foul" statement.
Or as you would imply, a incorrect decision, announced by you. But it still doesn't make it "true" or as you have implied already, "Fair".

Sorry, I just don't understand what you are trying to tell us.

[DG]

Originally posted by David Emerling
The question is not so much is the ball dead or not; more importantly, the defense will be demanding whether the umpire is properly ruling a "strike" for a batted ball that EVERYBODY will admit was fair and would have almost certainly resulted in an out.

The rule reference you are looking for to declare a batted ball that is called FOUL is under 2.00 STRIKE. The umpire erred, but a batted ball verbally called FOUL is a strike and with 2 strikes would result in an OUT. [FED]

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by DG

The rule reference you are looking for to declare a batted ball that is called FOUL is under 2.00 STRIKE. The umpire erred, but a batted ball verbally called FOUL is a strike and with 2 strikes would result in an OUT. [FED]

Uh, DG?
A foul ball [not bunted], with 2 strikes, is an OUT?
I thought this was a baseball question.

[DG]

Originally posted by cbfoulds

Uh, DG?
A foul ball [not bunted], with 2 strikes, is an OUT?
I thought this was a baseball question.

Correct, a bunted foul ball with a 2 strike count is an out. That is what I had on my mind and did not state it correctly.

[Edited by DG on Jan 22nd, 2005 at 10:56 AM]

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by jicecone
[/B]

David, for some reason here I just don't see how an umpires inability to make a proper decision, has anything to do with the resultant activities, once that decision is announced. The rules clearly tell you what is to happen when this takes place.

The discussion of wether or not the decision was correct, fair to one team or just a terrible decision by the official, is entirely a differnt subject.

To say that the rule references for interpretations are of any value most of the time, is in itself a "foul" statement.
Or as you would imply, a incorrect decision, announced by you. But it still doesn't make it "true" or as you have implied already, "Fair".

Sorry, I just don't understand what you are trying to tell us.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I probably didn's explain myself very well.

I have no problem with the interpretation. But the rule reference for the interpretation does not remotely address the most controversial aspect of the interpretation.

In other words, it's not as if the umpire, after making such a ruling, would be able to explain how a clearly inaccurate judgment must stand. The rule reference doesn't address the aspect about how the umpire MUST stick with a manifestly wrong call.

It begs the question: When an umpire makes a clearly inaccurate call - can he ever rectify it? Or, are there some calls he can rectify and some calls he cannot? And where does it say THAT?

And that's my point. The rule reference will not add any support to the assertion that the umpire SHOULD correct his clearly incorrect ruling.

Then again, that's the whole point of having interpretations - isn't it? Interpretations MUST exist for the simple fact that there *are* gray areas in the rules. The rules don't cover every possible situation. Not everything can be anticipated and codified.

I understand that. But let's not pretend that the application of some of these "interpretations" is in keeping with certain rules. In essence, most interpretations are "rules" all in themselves that stand independent of other rules.

A minor point - I guess.

It's just that whenever I read an interpretation and then go to the rule citation, I always seem to say to myself, "Now how and the hell am I going to convince anybody that this interpretation is correct based on THIS rule?"

Maybe I have too much time on my hands.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[DG]

Originally posted by David Emerling

[/B]

I have no problem with the interpretation. But the rule reference for the interpretation does not remotely address the most controversial aspect of the interpretation.

In other words, it's not as if the umpire, after making such a ruling, would be able to explain how a clearly inaccurate judgment must stand. The rule reference doesn't address the aspect about how the umpire MUST stick with a manifestly wrong call.

It begs the question: When an umpire makes a clearly inaccurate call - can he ever rectify it? Or, are there some calls he can rectify and some calls he cannot? And where does it say THAT?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN [/B][/QUOTE]

The reason 5-1-1h is the correct reference for this ruling is that is says the ball is dead when an umpire "verbally announces "Foul Ball". Once verbally called Foul this can not be changed, even if it is an obvious erroneous call. See page 299 of 2005 BRD. This is a FED ruling.

PBUC lists a number of plays that lend themselves to consultation and correction. 1) Deciding whether a fly ball that left the playing field was fair or foul, 2) Deciding whether a batted ball left the playing field for a home run or ground rule double, 3)Cases where a foul tip is dropped by the catcher, causing it to become a foul. 4) Cases where an umpire clearly errs in judgement because a ball is dropped or juggled after making a tag or force, 5)Spectator interference plays, 6) Balks called by an umpire who clearly did not realize the pitcher's foot was off the rubber.

A FED umpire who verbally announces "FOUL BALL" is stuck with that call.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by David Emerling
Is it just me, or are some of the rule references that support many example plays tenuous, at best?

You read the play ... you read the ruling ... then look up the cited reference and find NO BASIS for the suggested ruling based on the reading of the rule. I see this happen time and time again.

Here's an interpretation that I just read from the NFHS website:

SITUATION 10: With 1 out and R1 on first and a count of 2-1, B2 hits a bouncing ball along the first base foul line. U1 mistakenly declares “Foul!” as F1 picks up the ball in fair territory. RULING: The ball is dead immediately. R1 returns to first. B2 continues at bat with a count of 2-2. (5-1-1h)

Seems reasonable enough.

The ball instantly becoming dead seems reasonable and is supported by the cited rule.

David: I have an even stranger play, one given by Kyle McNeeley of the NFHS rules committee at the TASO state meeting.

B1 pops up in foul territory behind first base. The umpire calls "Foul ball." F3 catches the pop-up. And the answer is:

It's just a dead ball, and the batter stays at bat!

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
David: I have an even stranger play, one given by Kyle McNeeley of the NFHS rules committee at the TASO state meeting.

B1 pops up in foul territory behind first base. The umpire calls "Foul ball." F3 catches the pop-up. And the answer is:

It's just a dead ball, and the batter stays at bat! [/B]

You gotta be kidding me?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[DG]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

David: I have an even stranger play, one given by Kyle McNeeley of the NFHS rules committee at the TASO state meeting.

B1 pops up in foul territory behind first base. The umpire calls "Foul ball." F3 catches the pop-up. And the answer is:

It's just a dead ball, and the batter stays at bat!

How about this. Home team trailing by 1 run, bottom of the 7th, two outs, runner on 2B. The batter hits a line drive that strikes the foul pole in flight in LF. PU calls "foul ball". What a sh*th**se that will be.

Based on this rule my future mechanic for FED games will be to keep my mouth shut unless I am absolutely positive the ball is FOUL. I may "signal" foul, which leaves me an out to change the call. But verbalizing FOUL is not changeable.

[Edited by DG on Jan 24th, 2005 at 12:12 AM]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by David Emerling

You gotta be kidding me?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN [/B]

Would I kid one of my favorite writers?

The moral is: Keep your mouth shut on fly balls. (Or ignore the NFHS rule.)

Note: The ball is immediately dead when the umpire calls "Foul ball!" My question: Can a dead ball be caught for an out?

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by DG
How about this. Home team trailing by 1 run, bottom of the 7th, two outs, runner on 2B. The batter hits a line drive that strikes the foul pole in flight in LF. PU calls "foul ball". What a sh*th**se that will be. [/B]

Well, according to your list of occurrences that can result in umpire consultation and correction, this would be ONE of them.

Apparently, if there is no question that a batted ball has not left the park and "Foul!" is called, no matter how outrageously incorrect - such a ruling must stand - even if everybody in the park realizes it is was fair - even the umpire who made the ruling.

On the other hand, if the ball has clearly left the park, and has been outrageously ruled "Foul!", it can be changed.

Is that where we are?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN