Definition of a fair ball

[TheWhiteShadow]

Originally Posted by SAump

Bat is not hat, mitt, or helmet. I would like to know why you consider what 2.16.1.C scenario is ruled foul by reason of a deflection?

Oops, sorry, typo, I meant 2.16.1.D.

[SAump]

I wish I could delete them too.

D has been discussed, first by CoachJM in post number 7, and I have already stated my opinion of the ruling. Perhaps, CoachJM will be kind enuf to expalin why he rules foul in all 3 situations covered in post #2. I defer the balance of my time here to others.

[TheWhiteShadow]

Originally Posted by SAump

Three base award on contact with thrown detached equipment.
Anyone who says it was unintentional was picking nits. See YA.
Don't make it harder than it is. It is plenty tough already.

OK, maybe this was a bad example, so I'll just ask it generically instead.

Is there any situation where a glove comes off and it truly is unintentional, or is a player always responsible for his glove and thus it is always intentional? If CB 8.3.3.F is to be believed, then if there is such a thing as unintentional touching by a detached glove, it is not a penalty.

And if there is such a thing as unintentional touching by a detached glove, then I'm assuming by your previous answer to my question that it would be a "nothing" until something else causes the ball to be fair or foul?

[SAump]

Originally Posted by TheWhiteShadow

OK, maybe this was a bad example, so I'll just ask it generically instead.

Is there any situation where a glove comes off and it truly is unintentional, or is a player always responsible for his glove and thus it is always intentional? If CB 8.3.3.F is to be believed, then if there is such a thing as unintentional touching by a detached glove, it is not a penalty.

And if there is such a thing as unintentional touching by a detached glove, then I'm assuming by your previous answer to my question that it would be a "nothing" until something else causes the ball to be fair or foul?

See, I cannot understand you once again. I could cover 8.3.3.c which I have already mentioned. But I leave 8.3.3.f to someone with a little more updated info than I have in front of me or an understanding of 8.3.4 which penalizes defense for something else. Too many cherries and so little time to pick up on them all. Whiteshadow, let me know if your trolling through. Happy fishing.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by TheWhiteShadow

2.16.1.D has almost the exact same scenario but it is ruled foul and it states that the "bat is considered to be part of the playing field".

(Originally this said 2.16.1.C, but that was a typo as I really meant 2.16.1.D).

I vehemently disagree.

Edited to meekishly apologize, upon reading the words from our moderator below.
I was going into some "hands are part of the bat and the bat is part of the playing field, so the hands are now part of the playing field too" type of argument. Chalk it up to my inexperience and the dilemma presented to us by FEDlandia.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by TheWhiteShadow

2.16.1.D has almost the exact same scenario but it is ruled foul and it states that the "bat is considered to be part of the playing field".

(Originally this said 2.16.1.C, but that was a typo as I really meant 2.16.1.D).

Yep .. and I think this is the "correct" ruling. But, until the FED removes / changes one case play or the other, then there is support to call it a fair ball, and I just meant to address CoahcJM's point that there was no FED interp that was the opposite of the OBR interp.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SAump

Three base award on contact with thrown detached equipment.
Anyone who says it was unintentional was picking nits. See YA.
Don't make it harder than it is. It is plenty tough already.

There is a specific case play where F5 (iirc) jumps for a line drive over his head, his gove comes off and contacts the ball. Ruling: Play on.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by SAump

Three base award on contact with thrown detached equipment.
Anyone who says it was unintentional was picking nits. See YA.
Don't make it harder than it is. It is plenty tough already.

This is ridiculous advice. The default setting in all cases of detached equipment is "unintentional." The umpire must use judgment, and determine if, in his opinion, the equipment was detached intentionally. If the umpire does not rule that it is intentional, play on, McDuff.

[TheWhiteShadow]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yep .. and I think this is the "correct" ruling. But, until the FED removes / changes one case play or the other, then there is support to call it a fair ball, and I just meant to address CoahcJM's point that there was no FED interp that was the opposite of the OBR interp.

Just to clarify, I wasn't passing any judgment on your post, I was merely pointing out the conflict in the case book you are referring to.

[TheWhiteShadow]

Originally Posted by SAump

See, I cannot understand you once again. I could cover 8.3.3.c which I have already mentioned. But I leave 8.3.3.f to someone with a little more updated info than I have in front of me or an understanding of 8.3.4 which penalizes defense for something else. Too many cherries and so little time to pick up on them all. Whiteshadow, let me know if your trolling through. Happy fishing.

As I mentioned in my original post, I'm just trying to understand 2-5-1-f. Does equipment need to be worn by the player when it touches the ball on/over fair territory? You answered yes and I appreciate that. Based on the answers of most of the others, I would assume they would answer the same way too. It sounds like if I were to interpret 2-5-1-f as that equipment must be worn by the player in order to call it a fair ball I would get little grief from coaches. And if I ever did get a coach questioning that call, I would now have an explanation for him.

Why did I bring up 8.3.3.F? Because you said I should just rule it as touching by a detached glove and be done with it, but 8.3.3.F states that if a glove is not intentionally thrown then there is no penalty and I was trying to come up with an example that was accidental touching so we would be forced to rule only on fair/foul. So, if there is a situation where, before the ball has gone beyond 1st/3rd base, a detached glove can touch a ball (in fair territory) and not be a penalty and then the ball rolls foul (without touching a player in fair territory), then it seems to me that most everyone would rule it a foul ball because the touching of the detached glove does not make it fair.

There is no trolling here. I wouldn't ask the questions if I already knew the answers. The only thing I am trying to do here is understand how to interpret the rule so that I know how to call it during a game and can then justify the call to an unhappy coach.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

There is a specific case play where F5 (iirc) jumps for a line drive over his head, his gove comes off and contacts the ball. Ruling: Play on.

Good for me. I really didn't know about that particular INTERP. I was aware of the pitfalls I make when taking a reading/skills test and this is one type of pitfall. I did know a case where the ball was hit so hard that it resulted in detaching a player's equipment, such as glove from a hand or a hat from a head, that would also be ruled PLAY ON. I would have thought the situation you described about the case play was designed as a trick question to get at my 3-base award response. Now I know better. Just hope I remember it.

So I presume, that a fielder's effort or B/R's effort to do what it is that each is suppose to be doing, ala tangle and untangle, is ruled PLAY ON. The deflection cannot CAUSE the ball to veer foul. Situation. Bunt down 1bl. Pitcher slips and falls on wet grass. Cleats dig canal into ground and ball gets kicked foul by flying divot or clump of wet grass from pitcher's shoe. Fair or FOUL? I rule: PLAY ON. But then again, I might learn something else as soon as I understand why CoachJM ruled FOUL in all three situations.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

This is ridiculous advice. The default setting in all cases of detached equipment is "unintentional." The umpire must use judgment, and determine if, in his opinion, the equipment was detached intentionally. If the umpire does not rule that it is intentional, play on, McDuff.

What does CoachJM have in post #2 that is missing from this discussion, and contradicts his argument at the end of his post #7? How would you rule, fair or foul? No, better tell why would you rule fair or foul. Whiteshadow, my apologies. I will sit back now and watch SDS land the big one.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by SAump

What does CoachJM have in post #2 that is missing from this discussion, and contradicts his argument at the end of his post #7? How would you rule, fair or foul? No, better tell why would you rule fair or foul. Whiteshadow, my apologies. I will sit back now and watch SDS land the big one.

Absent any intentionally detached equipment, which is the case in all 3 plays in CoachJM's post #2. Nobody threw their gloves, or hats, or any other piece of equipment.

In all 3 plays, the ball came to rest in foul territory.

Now, here is a different definition of Foul:

2-16-1a - A foul is a batted ball which settles on foul territory between home and first base or between home and third base.

Since the ball came to rest in foul ground in each case, all 3 balls should be ruled foul. Had the balls stopped a-rollin' in fair territory, then they would have been fair. The fact that in all three examples it was stated that the ball was contacted accidentally means that you cannot call detached equipment, and the play proceeds without penalty.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Absent any intentionally detached equipment, which is the case in all 3 plays in CoachJM's post #2. Nobody threw their gloves, or hats, or any other piece of equipment.

In all 3 plays, the ball came to rest in foul territory.

Now, here is a different definition of Foul:

2-16-1a - A foul is a batted ball which settles on foul territory between home and first base or between home and third base.

Since the ball came to rest in foul ground in each case, all 3 balls should be ruled foul. Had the balls stopped a-rollin' in fair territory, then they would have been fair. The fact that in all three examples it was stated that the ball was contacted accidentally means that you cannot call detached equipment, and the play proceeds without penalty.

Now why would CoachJM rule fair in post # 7.

The divot ball foul too?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by SAump

Now why would CoachJM rule fair in post # 7.

The divot ball foul too?

He didn't rule fair, he was referring to a ball which settles in fair territory after striking an object in fair territory. Read it one more time. Nowhere does he say any of the original situations were fair balls.

Also, in post # 7, he quoted Jim Evans:

"...fair ball which contacts any object foreign to the natural ground in the general vicinity of the plate shall be ruled fair or foul depending on where the ball settles or is touched." Touched in this case means intentionally, after the contact with the foreign object.