Just browsing the NFHS website and noticed something with the 2005 NFHS rule changes.

The introduction to one of the rule changes states the following:

<font color=blue>As a means of providing additional coverage to the definition of a foul ball, Rule 2-16-1e was added. It states that a ball inadvertently declared foul by an umpire <b><i>that touches the ground</i></b> is a dead ball.</font> (my emphasis)

If you recall, one of the emphasis items last season was that once a ball is declared foul by the umpire, no matter how incorrect, the ball is FOUL.

Yet, there is the following case play that appears under interpretations:

<font color=blue>SITUATION 3: With one out and a 1-1 count, the batter hits a high fly ball in left field near the foul line. The umpire declares “Foul Ball” as the fly ball is subsequently caught by the left fielder. RULING: Once the umpire verbally declares “Foul Ball,” the ball is dead and treated as foul ball. The batter will return to bat with a 1-2 count and still one out. (5-1-1h)</font>

The ball hasn't hit the ground, though. It seems that although this ball was inadvertantly called foul, since it did <i>not</i> hit the ground, that it could be rectified and properly ruled as a fly ball out.

It seems inconsistent to me. Am I missing something?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Jul 16th, 2005 at 03:01 PM]

Hmmm,
 

Yes.

Umpires simply need to be "patient" when calling a foul ball. I see many umpires call foul balls TOO soon.

Yes, yes ... I know. Umpires shouldn't rush into making a call.

But the discussion isn't about proper mechanics or patience. The discussion BEGINS with the umpiring already having made the mistake so there is no point in discussing how he SHOULDN'T have made that mistake.

It's a given. The mistake has been made.

A batter hits a screaming line drive that is curving foul that F3 surprisingly snatches out of mid-air ... just as the PU was raising his hands and yelling "Foul!"

Oops!

The verbiage on the NFHS website seemed to make an issue of the ball "touching the ground" with regards to these "inadvertant" foul calls.

What if it <i>doesn't</i> hit the ground ... as in my example above?

Yet, the NFHS has an interpretation where the ball does not hit the ground ... is ruled foul ... is caught ... and the official ruling is FOUL.

And yet, balls that are hit over the fence that are inadvertantly ruled foul can be changed to fair. Is that because it never "touched the ground?"

It all seems kind of dumb to me.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Well,
 

Golly Dave, I thought since you are a "super rat" you would know and understand all the rules.

--------

Unless I am reading your commments incorrectly here ya go:

For the 2005 season FED wrote a rule to cover poorly trained umpires in making "gross errors" in terms of calling balls "FOUL" too soon . . .

The rule was poorly written.

As you are aware even if a foul ball was hit five steps to the right of first base and if the umpire called it "FOUL" prematurely the ball was immedaitely dead and simply a strike was added (with two strikes it was treated simply as a foul ball not caught)and the ball could not be caught for an out.

With the spring interpretations it was made clear that ONLY a ball that left the field of play (i.e. a home run) would not be decreed a "foul ball." The FED logic behind this was that the ball leaving the field of play by the home run is what made the ball dead NOT the inadvertent call.

Now this year's change attempts to correct a poorly written rule.

It seems quite clear what they are attempting to do:

FED now wants only a ball that touches the ground and inadvertantly called foul to become dead. They recognize that they had written a poor rule. Now what they have done is just made it consistent with killing the ball only when there would be no chance of the catch.

So in answer . . . if it doesn't hit the ground it can now be caught for the out.

I am certainly confused how you find this confusing as it seems quite clear in the orginal error made by FED and this years correction of that error.

Tee

Re: Well,
 

Actually, I hadn't read the 2006 rule changes yet. I didn't realize that they updated that rule.

So, that explains it!

Even you can understand how it could be "confusing" since even YOU acknowledge that the rule was poorly worded. I guess I was just belatedly noting just HOW poorly it was written.

I'm glad they corrected that.

Thanks!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Re: Re: Well,
 

So you start a thread about the 2005 NF rule changes a few days after the 2006 ones come out? Just a tad bit late.

Re: Re: Re: Well,
 

Well, I went there looking for the 2006 rule changes and couldn't find them them. So, I started snooping around and started rereading some of the 2005 stuff and noticed that they didn't even give valid examples of their own rule change last season.

I don't think I noticed that before.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Well,
 

Then as a pure rat you did not read the spring interps.

Not surprised as that would take a skill, reading.

Tee

Notice that the modifying phrase, "that touches the ground," appears immediately after the noun, "umpire." Thus, the phrase modifies "umpire," not "ball." That is, when inadvertently declared foul by an umpire who is touching the ground, the ball is dead.

Clearly, the solution would be to leap into the air every time you call "foul ball!" That way, the provisions of this rule would not apply, and if you screw it up you can go back and fix it.

Poorly written rule? You betcha.

Actually, Dr. Mike, "that touches the ground" is a clause (subject/verb), not a phrase (subject or verb or adjective). (grin)

We're still looking for Part III.