Fed Rule Book

[Jake80]

Rule 2-5-1b - A fair ball is a batted ball which: contacts fair ground on or beyond an imaginary line between first and third base

What in the world does this mean? The way I look at it if the ball lands behind this imaginary line and has enough back spin to roll over the foul line before it has passed first or third it's obviously a foul ball. Or am I totally missing the point?


Rule 2-29-3 - When a runner adavances beyond a base to which he is forced without touching it, the force play remains.

Does this mean that if there is a runner at first and the ball gets by the fielder and the runner rounds second base but misses it that a throw to second would result in an out without an appeal or a tag if the ball beats him to the bag?

[ozzy6900]

Originally posted by Jake80
Rule 2-5-1b - A fair ball is a batted ball which: contacts fair ground on or beyond an imaginary line between first and third base

What in the world does this mean? The way I look at it if the ball lands behind this imaginary line and has enough back spin to roll over the foul line before it has passed first or third it's obviously a foul ball. Or am I totally missing the point?

If a batted ball deflects off the pitcher's mound and crossed the foul line it is a foul ball.

If a batted ball deflects off a rock in front of first base and crosses the foul line, it is a foul ball.

If a batted ball deflects off second base and crosses the foul line, it is a fair ball.

Rule 2-29-3 - When a runner adavances beyond a base to which he is forced without touching it, the force play remains.

Does this mean that if there is a runner at first and the ball gets by the fielder and the runner rounds second base but misses it that a throw to second would result in an out without an appeal or a tag if the ball beats him to the bag?

We no longer call runners out for missing bases. That ended three years ago. Just as in MLB, in FED we have to concider a runner that misses a base to have touched the base until properly appealed. If this was a forced runner, the force is in effect for the sake of the appeal.

[Jake80]

Originally posted by ozzy6900

If a batted ball deflects off the pitcher's mound and crossed the foul line it is a foul ball.

If a batted ball deflects off a rock in front of first base and crosses the foul line, it is a foul ball.

If a batted ball deflects off second base and crosses the foul line, it is a fair ball.


Yes, You are correct in each case above, but what does the imaginary line have to do with any of those situations.

We no longer call runners out for missing bases. That ended three years ago. Just as in MLB, in FED we have to concider a runner that misses a base to have touched the base until properly appealed. If this was a forced runner, the force is in effect for the sake of the appeal.

So what you're trying to say is they are trying to clarify that the force still applies if there is an appeal and missing a forced base may determine whether any runs score?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Jake80
Rule 2-5-1b - A fair ball is a batted ball which: contacts fair ground on or beyond an imaginary line between first and third base

What in the world does this mean? The way I look at it if the ball lands behind this imaginary line and has enough back spin to roll over the foul line before it has passed first or third it's obviously a foul ball. Or am I totally missing the point?

Jake: You're missing the point, at least according to black letter law of the NFHS. What is "obviously a foul ball" is a fair ball in FED.

[officialtony]

Jake80,
We were advised of the presence of Rule 2-5-1b when we covered Infield Fly rulings. If an Infield Fly lands beyond that imaginary line from 1st to 3rd and then rolls " foul ", it is ruled by definition a fair ball - for purposes of the infield fly, this is important. If defensive player does not catch the IF, and it rolls " foul ", batter is still out and ball is live. Runners may advance if the defense is not sharp enough to pick up on BU signal of fair/batter is out and immediately retrieve the ball. I don't know if that helps you or not.

On 2-29-3, I think we are looking at a timing play situation for purposes of the ruling. If a runner passes 2nd base ( and was forced there ) and he is tagged after he passes the bag, any run that scored on any part of that play - even if the runner is already past 2nd without touching it - the run does not score. Hope that helps.

[jicecone]

Originally posted by officialtony
Jake80,
On 2-29-3, I think we are looking at a timing play situation for purposes of the ruling. If a runner passes 2nd base ( and was forced there ) and he is tagged after he passes the bag, any run that scored on any part of that play - even if the runner is already past 2nd without touching it - the run does not score. Hope that helps.

Be careful here Tony, if that runner is tagged going into third base and it is the third out, with a run scoring, the defense must appeal the missed base at second, to gain and advantageous third out. Which would be a force, and therefore no run would score.

Now having said this, there is a chance I could be wrong. Since Fed has changed their appeal process and then subsequently made a little modification each year, and then complicated it my publishing what may or may not be correst case plays, (eg.8.2.3), well, they have done a good job in confusing the hell out of me on what I would think would be logical. Oh well, the rules were'nt written for me only.

[officialtony]

jiceone
You are correct. I guess I was thinking if he gets tagged at 2nd because he overran and was trying to get back, I believe the force play would still be in effect ( per the ruling ). However, if he goes to 3rd, obviously we have no force there.
Thank you for the correction. I do want my posts to be clear AND correct.

[Jake80]

Originally posted by officialtony
Jake80,
We were advised of the presence of Rule 2-5-1b when we covered Infield Fly rulings. If an Infield Fly lands beyond that imaginary line from 1st to 3rd and then rolls " foul ", it is ruled by definition a fair ball - for purposes of the infield fly, this is important. If defensive player does not catch the IF, and it rolls " foul ", batter is still out and ball is live. Runners may advance if the defense is not sharp enough to pick up on BU signal of fair/batter is out and immediately retrieve the ball. I don't know if that helps you or not.


ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!


On 2-29-3, I think we are looking at a timing play situation for purposes of the ruling. If a runner passes 2nd base ( and was forced there ) and he is tagged after he passes the bag, any run that scored on any part of that play - even if the runner is already past 2nd without touching it - the run does not score. Hope that helps.

[jicecone]

Originally posted by Jake80

OK , I'll ask? Your point is?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Jake80

Jake --

You asked for help interpreting the rule. You received the correct interpretation -- it clarifies the statement "lands beyond first or third base" (or something like that) in OBR (other interps are equally "valid" -- this is just the one that FED chose).

So, now I need to ask, what's the point of your outburst?

[Jake80]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Jake --

You asked for help interpreting the rule. You received the correct interpretation -- it clarifies the statement "lands beyond first or third base" (or something like that) in OBR (other interps are equally "valid" -- this is just the one that FED chose).

So, now I need to ask, what's the point of your outburst?


Bob and everyone else:

I'm sorry if anyone took offense. My response was not meant to question the poster just my surprise at that actually being the FED interpretation. I can just imagine trying to explain to a coach that the ball landed behind an "imaginary" line between first and third and then rolled foul without being touched is fair for the purpose of the infield fly. And would that also apply to a non infield fly situation?

Just so I have this clear in my mind then, the OBR rule on this would be a foul ball based upon the ball coming to rest in foul territory?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Jake80
Bob and everyone else:

I'm sorry if anyone took offense. My response was not meant to question the poster just my surprise at that actually being the FED interpretation. I can just imagine trying to explain to a coach that the ball landed behind an "imaginary" line between first and third and then rolled foul without being touched is fair for the purpose of the infield fly. And would that also apply to a non infield fly situation?

Just so I have this clear in my mind then, the OBR rule on this would be a foul ball based upon the ball coming to rest in foul territory?

Jake: Just a couple of points. First, don't write your reply in bold face. That's used by the progam to identify quoted material. When you also use the bold attribute, it's hard to tell where the quote stops and your comment begins.

Second, the FED simply wrote in their book something that had been long discussed - and agreed to - by rule experts. The FED casebook for 1982 says: "The addition to this rule [ball hitting beyond imaginary line is fair] was made simply to clarify a long-standing ruling." Of course, it's a theoretical discussion only: In four thousand games, mas o menos, where I've been on the field, I've never seen it happen.

Finally, you don't need to "explain" to a coach that such a ball is fair. It's black letter law, just like three strikes, four balls, and the plate is in fair territory. {"Really?" the assistant coach from Kansas once asked me.)

BTW: If that play happened on my field, I'd point "fair," and I'd bet ten dollars to a penny nobody would say anything.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Jake: Just a couple of points. First, don't write your reply in bold face. That's used by the progam to identify quoted material. When you also use the bold attribute, it's hard to tell where the quote stops and your comment begins.

Second, the FED simply wrote in their book something that had been long discussed - and agreed to - by rule experts. The FED casebook for 1982 says: "The addition to this rule [ball hitting beyond imaginary line is fair] was made simply to clarify a long-standing ruling."

Of course, it's a theoretical discussion only: In four thousand games, mas o menos, where I've been on the field, I've never seen it happen.

Finally, you don't need to "explain" to a coach that such a ball is fair. It's black letter law, just like three strikes, four balls, and the plate is in fair territory. {"Really?" the assistant coach from Kansas once asked me.)

BTW: If that play happened on my field, I'd point "fair," and I'd bet ten dollars to a penny nobody would say anything. Here's why:

The rules at every level state something like this: "[A fair ball is one that] first falls on fair territory on or beyond first base or third base." If that line is drawn between first and third, and if that ball falls behind that line, hasn't it hit "on fair territory ... beyond first base or third base"?

Think about it!

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Jake80
Bob and everyone else:

I'm sorry if anyone took offense. My response was not meant to question the poster just my surprise at that actually being the FED interpretation. I can just imagine trying to explain to a coach that the ball landed behind an "imaginary" line between first and third and then rolled foul without being touched is fair for the purpose of the infield fly. And would that also apply to a non infield fly situation?

Just so I have this clear in my mind then, the OBR rule on this would be a foul ball based upon the ball coming to rest in foul territory?

Jake: Just a couple of points. First, don't write your reply in bold face. That's used by the progam to identify quoted material. When you also use the bold attribute, it's hard to tell where the quote stops and your comment begins.

Second, the FED simply wrote in their book something that had been long discussed - and agreed to - by rule experts. The FED casebook for 1982 says: "The addition to this rule [ball hitting beyond imaginary line is fair] was made simply to clarify a long-standing ruling."

Of course, it's a theoretical discussion only: In four thousand games, mas o menos, where I've been on the field, I've never seen it happen.

Finally, you don't need to "explain" to a coach that such a ball is fair. It's black letter law, just like three strikes, four balls, and the plate is in fair territory. {"Really?" the assistant coach from Kansas once asked me.)

BTW: If that play happened on my field, I'd point "fair," and I'd bet ten dollars to a penny nobody would say anything. Here's why:

The rules at every level state something like this: "[A fair ball is one that] first falls on fair territory on or beyond first base or third base." If that line is drawn between first and third, and if that ball falls behind that line, hasn't it hit "on fair territory ... beyond first base or third base"?

Think about it!
[/B][/QUOTE] [/B][/QUOTE]

[UMP25]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
... just like three strikes, four balls, and the plate is in fair territory. {"Really?" the assistant coach from Kansas once asked me.)

No kidding, Carl. This weekend I'm working the dish on an NCAA game. The batter tops the ball, hitting it off the plate. The ball bounces up and spins backward in the air behind the catcher. Sure, it's foul because where it ended up. However, the catcher keeps yelling to me, "Plate, Blue! Plate, Blue!" I asked him, "What about it?" He replies, "Just letting you know the ball hit the plate, so it's foul."

I smiled and politely corrected him, explaining otherwise. The look of disbelief on his face was priceless.