Is the bunt fair or foul?

[blarson]

I'm not yanking your chain. Here is the way I see it, the ball touching the dirt but the last 1/8 of the ball or so, I'm estimiting here is over the line. If the same ball was at the pole, the ball would hit it.

Now I have to admit...when I've seen it, I didn't get on all fours to check, so maybe there was a smidgen of the ball touching the ground on the chalk.

:-)

Bob

[mick]

A foul ball is a batted ball that settles on foul territory.
Foul territory is that part of the playing field outside not on....

The ball's curvature may have been in the perpendicular plane, but the ball was settled off the line, on foul territory.

mick

[Gee]

[QUOTE]Gee: The major league umpire is trying to determine if the ball is TOUCHING the foul line.
---
I thought he was trying to determine if the ball was on or over the foul line.
------

Give me a break. You're 70 years old and from home plate you could not tell if the rightside quadrant of a batted ball broke the plane of the leftside quadrant of the foul line at the bag. You couldn't do it if you were 18. Ted Williams (20/10) couldn't do it in his prime.
---------

Who is talking about passing over the bag? We are talking about a still ball very close to the foul line and trying to determine if the ball is on or over fair territory. As was stated in the original thread, it is. Simple, fair ball.
----------


It's ridiculous to discuss it further, and I bow out now.

BTW: How do you stand on a batted ball that passes through the plane of the foul pole (but doesn't touch it) and over the fence? Home run, Gee?
-----------

If I understand you correctly and I think I do. I've got a home run. G.

[GarthB]

1. Imagine the ball in the exact same position relative to the line, only about five feet in the air, and F5 knocks it down. What are you going to call it?

FOUL BALL!!!

Foul ball in the air, foul ball on the ground.


2. What do you ususally call a close fair/foul when you honestly aren't sure?

Me? I gotta "see" a fair ball.

[Patrick Szalapski]

Me? I gotta "see" a fair ball.

Really? I've always had the opposite attitude. A batted ball is fair until it is proven to me otherwise. Is this not good to have?

P-Sz

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski

Really? I've always had the opposite attitude. A batted ball is fair until it is proven to me otherwise. Is this not good to have?

P-Sz

Pat:

The answer to your question is: That is not "good to have." It's the principle of "benefit of the doublt," which all veteran umpires understand.

Consider: (1) If you don't see a tag, the runner is .... (2) If you don't see the batter swing, it is a ....

Thus, if you don't SEE the ball fair, it is ....

(Of course, the opposite would be true, but that is not in keeping with the clear tradition of calling instances 1 and 2 above.)

There's a philosophical point embedded in the nature of baseball: Pointing a ball "fair" is a decision that instantly affects the progress of the game. Calling that ball "foul" merely postpones the moment of truth. So, if you are guessing about fair/foul, your best chance of NOT affecting the outcome is to signal "foul."

[mick]

Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski

Really? I've always had the opposite attitude. A batted ball is fair until it is proven to me otherwise. Is this not good to have?

P-Sz

Sounds right, P-Sz

[mick]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Pat:

The answer to your question is: That is not "good to have." It's the principle of "benefit of the doublt," which all veteran umpires understand.

Consider: (1) If you don't see a tag, the runner is .... (2) If you don't see the batter swing, it is a ....

Thus, if you don't SEE the ball fair, it is ....

(Of course, the opposite would be true, but that is not in keeping with the clear tradition of calling instances 1 and 2 above.)

There's a philosophical point embedded in the nature of baseball: Pointing a ball "fair" is a decision that instantly affects the progress of the game. Calling that ball "foul" merely postpones the moment of truth. So, if you are guessing about fair/foul, your best chance of NOT affecting the outcome is to signal "foul."

Carl,
Perhaps what P-Sz was implying, and I am in agreement with regard to the fair/foul ball, a batted ball is live until it is dead. ;-)
mick

[Bfair]

Originally posted by mick
Perhaps what P-Sz was implying, and I am in agreement with regard to the fair/foul ball, a batted ball is live until it is dead. ;-)
mick [/B]

I am the opposite, Mick. For me, when close to the line it is foul until proven to me to be fair.

WHY???............because "if I am wrong".........

If I call call it fair, and "if I am wrong", then I have just taken the ball out of the pitcher's hands. There is nothing else he can do to offset my error of being wrong.

If I call it foul, and "if I am wrong", then I may have taken a hit away from a batter, but he is still at the plate with the bat in his hands. I did not take the bat out of his hands. There IS something he can do to offset my error. Hell, he may even hit a HR instead of the single.

Bottom line, when IN DOUBT on a fair/foul call, I will always call foul. I do less damage if I am wrong. By having this philosophy going into the game, it makes my game more consistent on this type call, and I have learned to react in accordance with the philosophy.

Certainly if I know it is fair, that is what I call---regardless of how close it was to being foul.

Just my opinion,

Freix

[mick]

Originally posted by Bfair

I am the opposite, Mick. For me, when close to the line it is foul until proven to me to be fair.

WHY???............because "if I am wrong".........

If I call call it fair, and "if I am wrong", then I have just taken the ball out of the pitcher's hands. There is nothing else he can do to offset my error of being wrong.

If I call it foul, and "if I am wrong", then I may have taken a hit away from a batter, but he is still at the plate with the bat in his hands. I did not take the bat out of his hands. There IS something he can do to offset my error. Hell, he may even hit a HR instead of the single.

Bottom line, when IN DOUBT on a fair/foul call, I will always call foul. I do less damage if I am wrong. By having this philosophy going into the game, it makes my game more consistent on this type call, and I have learned to react in accordance with the philosophy.

Certainly if I know it is fair, that is what I call---regardless of how close it was to being foul.

Just my opinion,

Freix [/B]

Freix,
On those 'tweener batted balls down those unmarked outfield lines, I've got fair almost every time.
If I have to guess, I guess to keep the game goin'.

Yet, your rationale does makes sense to me.

It's fortunate that neither you, nor I, have ever kicked one of those calls.
mick

[Patrick Szalapski]

Message Deleted, please see new thread '"Benefit of the doubt" - when is it applicable?'

P-Sz

[Edited by Patrick Szalapski on Jul 26th, 2001 at 12:46 PM]

[blarson]

I stumbled on to an article about fair/foul the other day while looking for some online umpire reading. I asked the author of the article/quiz about the question we are posing here. He said fair and cited this rational,

"The actual ground coverd by the width of the foul line
is all fair. So if any part of the ball is over the
actual line, the part of the the ball is over fair
territory - making it a fair ball. Ratioanle: Suppose
the ball where to continue to roll in this position over
the line directly along the line with 1/3 of the ball
foul and the rest over the line (fair). Eventually it
would hit the bag and, by rule, it would be a fair
ball! How could a ball having the exact same position
with respect to the foul line, rolling up the line, be
foul one momment and fair the next (upon touching the
bag) when its position over the foul line never has
changed?"

This is from a fairly respected umpire, one who has your respect as well. I have seen you two disagree (friendly of course) from time to time though.

Bob