Bunt fair or foul revisited ! !

[blarson]

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

[Tim C]

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.

[Rich Ives]

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'

[blarson]

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

[Tim C]

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.

[Rich Ives]

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]

[Tim C]

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.

[Rich Ives]

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.

[blarson]

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

:-)

Bob

[GarthB]

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

[Rich Ives]

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?

[Tim C]

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

[dani]

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.

[GarthB]

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.