Strange, almost troll like, situation
 

At tonight’s HS association meeting we varsity umpires were discussing some situations that we have seen during our scrimmages. A couple of the guys, one a current college umpire & the other a pro-school grad, described a situation they had the other day and asked “what would you call?” It’s difficult for me to imagine this happening but they assured us that it did.

Situation: Fly ball lands between first & second almost in the grass, no IFF. It lands with so much spin, or hits something, that the ball comes back toward the infield and exits fair territory between home and 1B settling foul. The ball was not touched. The college ump was working the plate and called it foul. The pro-schooled ump thought it should have been called fair but didn’t indicate so. Neither coach argued the foul call.

Our group was split with fair/foul. I argued on the side of fair because the ball went beyond 1st & 3rd before it landed in fair territory. The fact that it doubled back and then went foul should be handled just like a ball which is hit down the line past either 1st or 3rd lands fair then rolls foul.

What would you call it?

This is a fair ball:

A FAIR BALL / FOUL BALL (Foul Ball included for explanatory purposes.) is a

Rule 2.00 (Fair/Foul Definition)
Official Notes - Case Book - Comments: If a fly ball lands in the infield between home and first base, or home and third base, and then bounces to foul territory without touching a player or umpire and before passing first or third base, it is a foul ball; or if the ball settles on foul territory or is touched by a player on foul territory, it is a foul ball. If a fly ball lands on or beyond first or third base and then bounces to foul territory, it is a fair hit.

Fair in FED because they specifically state that if it goes beyond a line from 1B to 3B it's fair.

Foul in NCAA and OBR.

The pro-schooled ump thought it should have been called fair but didn’t indicate so. Huh?

This is a fair ball. Once it bounds or lands beyond the bag, in fair territory, it is fair. Doesn't matter after that. That is everywhere.

I agree with Tim, although I originally envisioned the ball landing near the outfiled grass. Either way, he has it covered.

Sorry, I should have been clearer...it almost landed on the grass in the outfield.

I'm assuming that when the PU called foul all action stopped. I guess the BU figured what the heck, why rock the boat.

Could you tell me where I can find where FED states that if it goes beyond a line from 1B to 3B it's fair? I said the same thing but couldn't find anything to support my claim in the rule book or case book last night.

Thanks

FED sez that if the ball's on the ground and its called 'foul', it remains foul. There's no provision to make it fair, so the BU couldn't change it even if he wanted to.

Rule 2-5-1.b

I've made a diagram. The FED fair/foul line is in blue.

Would the OBR's equivalent to the FED fair/foul line be what i drew in red?

http://www.geocities.com/kugamonste/diagram2.JPG

That's the usual interp, yes.

Thanks Bob,

That's the one I was looking for but couldn't find it last night (I even looked in 2-5). I'll blame it on trying to complete my study guide questions in class or I was having an "old guy" moment...I hate it when that happens :D

Regarding those colored lines, I would draw the red lines on the inside of the bases. If a pop landed just to the fair side of 3B or 1B, I'd call it fair regardless of where it went after that. "Past the base," in other words, is past the leading (interior) edge of the base—thus past any part of the base, not necessarily entirely past the back edge.

This is to be consistent with the fact that a ball that hits the leading edge of the base is fair, and the fact that a ball that hits just inside 1B or 3B (but not past the back edge) and bounces over the bag and into foul territory would also be fair.

I'd move the blue line in slightly, too, to the "front" of the bags.

The OBR interp. is that a ball that touches the ground beyond the blue line in the above diagram is a fair ball, regardless of where it ends up.

What's the source for that interp? I'm not doubting you, I just haven't seen it (or don't recall seeing it).

I've been over Fed versus OBR a million times on this one and have never seen any evidence that OBR uses that "blue" line. In OBR, a ball that lands halfway between the mound and 2B is not considered to have landed "on or beyond first base or third base." If anyone can cite authoritative opinion otherwise, I'd love to know.

Interesting that Fed uses the blue line only for baseball and specifically inserts the 1B-3B line in its definition. Fed softball uses the same wording but omits mention of the 1B-3B line. So Fed softball uses the "red" lines (except that I would move them in to the front of the bases).

I'll have to try and remember, Bob, but trust me, from what I remember being told, it is a fair ball.

Grey, you are incorrect that a ball that falls untouched halfway between 2nd and the mound then rolls foul would be foul. Even common sense would dictate otherwise.

The concept of the diagonal of the square was devised to determine just what "past first or third base" would be when the ball doesn't go straight down either line. There has to be a "point" at which the ball would be fair when it goes into the infield but rebounds back foul. Grey's logic would mean that theoretically, a ball that falls into center field untouched but ricochets back foul before first base would consequently be foul. No way, since it passed the line connecting first and third base. (Never mind the fact that it landed beyond second base.)

If a ball lands in center field, then it has first touched past a base (2B) and is fair. It has landed past the line connecting 1B and 2B, and the line connecting 3B and 2B.

I still maintain that a popup that lands a foot to the mound side of 2B and spins back foul without being touched is a foul ball. If there is any evidence—in the MLBUM, J/R, rule book, PBUC, BRD—that the Fed 1B-3B line is observed in OBR, I'd like to know where it is.

Therein lies your problem. You're thinking too linearly. "Past" first or third base doesn't mean one judges this by the line connecting first and second and third and second.

I wish I would recall just where my aging mind read this, but I'm telling you, I was emphatically told this was the OBR interpretation.

Has anyone ever seen a ball land beyond "the line" and spin foul? I see this more likely near to 1B or 3B, but have never seen one spin in this fashion.

Never say never. ;)

Fed conspicuously specifies something that OBR does not: "contacts fair ground on or beyond an imaginary line between 1B and 3B." OBR says something very different: "first falls on fair territory on or beyond first base or third base." These two wordings do not define the same thing.

Imagine a popup that hits two feet inside the 1B line (fair) and one foot short of the line connecting the front edges of 1B and 2B, and then spins foul between home and 1B. In Fed, this is fair. It first hit past the line between 1B and 3B. In OBR it is foul. It did not first fall on fair ground on or beyond first base.

Again, absolutely nowhere does OBR mention the 1B-3B line. Notice the wording in the J/R:

"It is a fair ball if any portion of a batted ball . . . that is airborne falls onto fair territory beyond first, second [my emphasis], or third base."

If OBR recognizes the 1B-3B line, then why is second base included in this definition?

I was emphatically told this was the OBR interpretation.

I believe you. But maybe the guy was wrong.

OBR does adopt some NFHS interps. when things are unclear. Regardless, you are looking at this the wrong way. Again, you're thinking is too linear. It is simple to think about "past first or third base." However, just where does this demarcation end? How far "in" does the ball have to go toward the shortstop position or second baseman position before one stops thinking about "past first or third base." So if a ball rolls toward first, goes "past" it on just to its left (second base) side, it's fair, but if it rolls toward the second baseman it can be foul if it somehow spins back into foul territory? Hogwash.

The entire concept of the diagonal of the square was devised to help provide some point of demarcation past which the ball is fair regardless of where it eventually ends up. Think of it this way: if you picture a straight line from home to first/third, it's 90 feet. Now take this same line and swing it, so to speak, to the other corner base. As you begin to swing it, keeping it straight, it doesn't disappear; rather, it--roughly speaking--extends to the aforementioned diagonal. Granted, it's not exact, since this diagonal is about 63.69 feet (one half of [90 X radical 2]) away, but it's used to make it easier to determine fair/foulness.

I understand exactly what you are saying. What's past 1B to you isn't the same as what's past 1B to me. To me, a ball that lands halfway between the mound and 2B did not go past a base. To you, it did. But however our conceptions differ is irrelevant. The question is, How does OBR define "on or beyond 1B or 3B"?

So let's find some authoritative evidence that OBR uses the 1B-3B line. I do not see it in the rule book, the J/R, the annotated rule book, the MLBUM, the PBUC, or the BRD. And this is a rule of major practical—not simply theoretical—importance, since uncaught popups could well fall near 1B or 3B and be fair under one interpretation but foul under the other. Somebody must have cited the 1B-3B line somewhere. It's in black and white in Fed. Where is it in OBR?

if you picture a straight line from home to first/third, it's 90 feet. Now take this same line and swing it, so to speak, to the other corner base. As you begin to swing it, keeping it straight, it doesn't disappear; rather, it--roughly speaking--extends to the aforementioned diagonal.

Actually, it is beyond the diagonal at all points. You'd have a 90 degree arc with radius 90 feet. On the direct line toward 2B, it would be 26+ feet beyond the diagonal. Under the 1B-3B rule, a ball could travel 65 feet and be considered as having traveled "past a base."

OBR does adopt some NFHS interps. when things are unclear.

I never knew this. Can you cite an example?

Has anyone ever seen a ball land beyond "the line" and spin foul? I see this more likely near to 1B or 3B, but have never seen one spin in this fashion.

In baseball, a few times over 30+ years. Yes, always near 1B or 3B. More often in softball, with the hard skinned infields and players who can't catch popups. I've seen balls land behind the mound and spin foul. And they are foul balls.

I shouldn't have used the word "adopt" when referring to OBR looking to NFHS; rather, it would have been more correct to say that there are a few things OBR does not clearly state and that an NFHS or NCAA interp. would be followed.

Also, I am aware that the line to which I referred above is beyond the diagonal. I explained this in my post above when I mentioned the diagonal is roughly 64' away.

Anyway, I did some thorough searching about this diagonal line issue, since I know I read it somewhere. Indeed, it was in an Email reply to me from Rick Roder (he was one of the classroom instructors at school the year I attended). I had Emailed Rick a question about this since it came up elsewhere. His explanation, to paraphrase him, was that if a ball should go past "a line drawn between first and third base" and somehow end up foul, it would be a fair ball because it did, in fact, pass first or third, just in a different geometrical manner, so to speak. I was the one who brought up this "diagonal" to him, asking him if he had heard of it; hence his reply back to me explaining that that was, in fact, the interpretation under OBR.

Well, UMP25, if Roder told you that, then that's certainly evidence that you are correct. I'm surprised that Rick hasn't included his interpretation in his publications.

Since (amazingly) no one but you and me has contributed to this thread in a while, I'm going to try to get a definitive answer from MLB.

Well, in his defense, there are a lot of "little things" that aren't included in the J/R manual. I don't remember exactly what every little thing is right now, but I had a few questions for him last year when I was asking him about the J/R electronic version for the classroom, and the questions I asked him dealt with ambiguities not mentioned in the J/R manual. He was kind enough to address what I asked.

Are you referring to the umpire's authority under 9.01(c)?

If not, could you provide an approved example?

I don't know if I'd label it "approved." My point in this thread is this: there are times when OBR doesn't address something, and the publication that discusses it often says something like "no official interpretation given--follow NFHS/NCAA."

This doesn't mean that OBR says it's supposed to follow NFHS or NCAA; rather, using some common sense, the ruling in NFHS or NCAA would also be the same thing that OBR follows.

Ahhh. So you are referencing the "BRD" and not OBR?"

Among other sources, yeah. I read so many of these d*mn publications every year I can't keep track of them all. :p

I just wanted to emphasize that the Official Baseball Rulebook doesn't specifically state to follow an NFHS or NCAA interp. However, it is accepted to do this in certain instances by what is explained in several sources.

I have the utmost respect for Carl's work. My confusion was that you appeared to be saying that OBR approved of using FED interpretations. It does not. I doubt if you will find anyone in a position of authority with MLB who would say such a thing.

The BRD gives that advice to amateur umpires when working under OBR and faced with such situations.

I'm smart enough to know this isn't the case at all.

Good. This is what confused me:

Which is why I felt it necessary to clarify my above statement, so old folks like you didn't get confused. :D:D:D

Notwithstanding how smart you are or aren't, when you said:

"OBR does adopt some NFHS interps. when things are unclear."

You most definitely left the impression with several of us - Greymule, Garth, and me - that you were saying authorities in professional baseball (i.e., those with authority over "the OBR") had approved the adoption of some FED rulings. When queried on that claim, it took you a couple of posts to crawfish back to a defensible statement.

The original statement was just plain wrong.

Oh, loosen up your panties already, will ya? I simply clarified something that you had to have a hissy fit over.

Sorry, but words mean things.

Loosen my panties? Hissy fit? With each post, it seems your ability to communicate deteriorates. I know all I need to know now about the reliability of the information contained in your posts. I won't trouble you further.

And so does misconstruing things, especially after something has been clarified.

Thank you for not troubling me. I will now sleep better knowing this.

The ability of people on this board to split hairs and get into arguments over the littlest things never ceases to amaze me. :rolleyes: