This discussion came up on another board. Someone posted this link.

http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/baseb...ifications.pdf

Date: 4/20/01
Rule: 2-Fair Ball, Fair Territory

Play: A bunted ball rolls down the third baseline. It coemes to rest without contacting chalk, but a portion of ball is breaking the plane of the foul line.

Ruling: Fair Ball

Bob

And . . .
 

Carl made that point several times. That is an NCAA ruling.

While we wasted waaaay to much bandwidth on the issue. The NCAA ruling runs a foul (get it!) of actual baseball rules and traditions.

IMHO, I think the NCAA ruling is dumb! But it is THEIR rule.

Where the "fair ball" crowd is coming from:

What rule is it "a foul" of?

3D Demo you can do yourself at home:

Draw a foul line on the ground.

Place first base on the line in accordance with the rules.

Take a baseball and place it so it is 3/10 in fair territory and 7/10 in foul territory, and touching the base on the "home plate" side.

Per rule 2.00, this is a fair ball.

Now move the ball 1/8" toward home plate, keeping it 3/10 in fair territory and 7/10 in foul territory. It is now no longer touching first base. Try to convince any rational being that it is now a foul ball.

If it's fair at 1/8" it's fair at 45'

Oops
 

How did I miss that. I didn't see the Papa C post that there was a NCAA ruling.

Gees Rich,
 

I really don't think we need yet another senseless and time wasting display. We who think it is foul will always go back to where the ball is actually resting. If you want to continue name calling FINE . . . just look somewhere else.

I feel I am sane and rational (where's my meds) . . . the language in your example just tries to attack people that are actually correct by all but the NCAA Rule book.

I suggest you take your example, skills and attitude to a higher league.

Sorry I can't agree with your position so I must be an idiot.

Tim, all I did was post the rationale which, by the way, is shared by a significant number of umpires that debated it on eTeamz, and show an example of why they believe it to be correct.

Why you feel that presenting an opposing view, which is backed up by at least one official rules body, is harboring some type of "attitude" is beyond me.


[Edited by Rich Ives on Aug 13th, 2001 at 09:43 PM]

Gee Rich,
 

Read your condesending freakin' post . . .

If I disagree with your call I would be deemed "irrational" by your words.

You're the one starting a war, Bubba.

I stand my ground.

eTeamz had it 10-1 fair (w/o my opinion.)

The thread below had BJ Moose, Larson, and Gee fair - Carl foul. You get added to the foul column.

The NCAA has it fair.

Net so far = 13-3 fair plus one official ruling fair.

I suspect OBR and FED have not published a ruling as Carl would have it at his fingertips if they had.

Carl hasn't come back with his research on twhat the minor league ump ruled.

Carl bases his position on "touching" as did the dissenter on eTeamz

It seems to me to be a legitimate debate.

And yes, I think it is irrational (no basis in logic) as opposed to idiotic (just plain stupid) to call a ball that is touching 1B fair and one that is 1/8" short of the base foul, when they are in the same relative position to the foul line.

Yikes. I wish I saw (or remembered) Carl's post of the NCAA ruling. I didn't mean to start WW3.

:-)

Bob

Ahhhhh Memories
 

Rich has the score 13-3

If he checked the original thread at this site, he would know it was at least 13-4 or maybe better. I believe I stated my case in favor of foul before Carl checked in.

Anyway, it's obvious that the popular vote is meaningless or hands would be part of the bat, coaches would be right more often and Al Gore would be president.

GB

Garth, I did check the old list (thats where I picked up Moose, Carl votes etc.)but it was late and I missed yours. Sorry. I skipped over the ambivalent ones too or the ones which seemed more philosiphical where no definite stance was obvious.

I know it's not done by vote. The one official ruling is a precedent though.

We can all be surprised by official utterance too. The "advantageous fourth out at first" was one - even Carl was amazed. (See "Was Carl Wrong" in Carl's section on URC)

However, absent the official ruling, what's wrong with a debate?

I love debate but
 

I don't care for condesending, big time umpires that make it a personal war by their words.

I don't research threads . . . I have a real life.

Rich I have stayed out of the debate simply because I nothing new to add but I would have to agree with you, fair ball. I don't don't wish to be condesending to Tim or Carl but logic dictates it can't be foul. MHO

Kinda like the fair pole???
 

I have this ball over the line but not touching it as a fair ball.

I liken it to a ball that goes directly over the fair pole down one of the lines. The pole is imaginarily (is this a word?) extended above the actual pole. If the ball would have touched the imaginary pole I have a HR.

In the real world
 

Rich:

All my posts and references to this "play" have been made with the real world and real time in mind. I do not envision myself on all fours taking a magnifying glass out to see whether or not a fraction of the ball is over but not touching.

Like I said originally, if I saw a ball with the same realtionship to the baseline in flight touch the fielders glove, I would rule foul. That's because to a normal person when 70% of the ball appears foul, it all appears foul.

The same thing on the ground. This would either appear as foul or as a "not sure" and I am believer that to call fair, I have to absolutely know it was fair. When in doubt, or view blocked on one that can go either way: its foul.

Bottom line, in real time, even to at least half of those who say they would rule it fair, it would be foul.

I can deal with the "looked foul" concept on a <b>moving</b> ball. Carl makes the same point. That's how it's going to be called. It's real world. Also, any coach will view the call as correct or incorrrect based solely on whether it's to his adavantage and half the people in the park will be on your case no matter what. And as others have pointed out, the ball is far, far away and the touch is too fast to get a perfect look anyhow.


So let's lighten up, there's no game in progress, no real call to be made, and get back to the "let's get technical 'cause it's fun" part of the program . . .

R1 - batter lays one down the 3B line - R1 sees the ball there so he stops at 2B - BR stops at first - the ball stops a foot short of the bag in the contested position - F5 just stands looking at the ball - all action has ceased - call will not affect an outcome - U1 (his call to the base) comes up, takes a good look, and calls <b>????</b>

A Law Professor Once Asked Me:
 

Would you answer a hypothetical question if I asked one?

I think I gave him the same answer I have for your "condition wrapped" play, and that is: " "

Seriously, though, I prefer not to engage in technicalities for the sake of technicalities. Baseball, even with third world plays, exists in a real world with real time.

Presented with your scenario, and assuming that a fielder did not glove the ball to make it appear even more foul, which I believe is far more likely than F5 standing around picking his nose, I would as PU <b>NOT</b> walk up to study the ball, I would take several steps make my decision based on the position of the ball, and yell <b>foul ball</b> real loud as soon as it stopped moving.

Any round object that is factually 70% in foul territory is going to appear 100% in foul territory in the real world.

Hmmmmmmm....we know.....

.....if he calls foul....the defense picks up the ball and the game continues with little issue, but

.....if he calls fair....the defense leaves the ball untouched on the spot as they continue to argue.

Right???

Just my opinion,

Freix

jumping in late, but...
 

If a one hopper is fielded in front of either 1st or 3rd and near the line, then fair/foul is based on the position of the ball relative to the foul line when first touched, i.e. any portion of the ball over the line is a fair ball.

So, how is a ball which stops with a minute portion over but not touching the foul line ruled any differently?

The difference is, Rog
 

all in perception. Our perception of the ball rules our judgment.

Some have decided to take this issue to what I consider an absurd direction and would have us kneel down, bring out scientific instruments and measure precisely the position of the ball.

My point is and has been, and there are vision studies that confirm, when an orb object, say a baseball, is sitting 70 percent in a specific location, it will appear to the human eye, at most distances, to be entirely in that position. Thus a ball 70% fould will APPEAR to the normal umpire to be entirely foul whether on the ground or caught in the air above the basepath.

Both in the exercise of this thread and your example, most umpires, in real games, in real time, would yell foul. That is my point.


Good to hear from you. How are the Redwings doing this season?

I just noticed Bfair's post -

re: "Hmmmmmmm....we know.....
.....if he calls foul....the defense picks up the ball and the game continues with little issue, but
.....if he calls fair....the defense leaves the ball untouched on the spot as they continue to argue.
Right???"

To which I have to comment: If the umpire "calls fair", should they be shot in dispair?

Now, on to the subject of AAA ball and an alleged baseball team, namely the Rochester Red Wings. How are they doing, you ask. Well now, does the expression "they suck big time this year" ring any bells. But then, I guess they could be worse; after all, they are only "THIRTY" games out of 1st place!!!!!!!!!!

As to the foul call - whatever the umpire happens to believe the call to be, make it and live with it (so long as it is close and Ray Charles isn't disputing it).

:cool:
GOOD CALL Rog,

However, I believe Stevie (Wonder) had a better
view than Ray.

Thirty???Does not sound so bad, unless you have
less than thirty left in the season, then you
are in trouble.

glen