Definition of a fair ball

[SAump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

Again you omit fact and add distortion and drop second pass attempt. Do MLBUM and JEA actually differ as presented by CoachJM below? Rather than make up my facts as you do, let me quote.

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Though specifically referring to OBR, rather than FED rules, we also have from the MLBUM: Quote:
If a batted ball strikes a loose helmet accidentally (no intent on part of runner to interfere) in fair territory, the ball remains in play the same as if it had not hit the helmet.
If a batted ball strikes a helmet accidentally (no intent on part of runner to interfere) in foul territory, it is a foul ball.

and JEA: Quote: ... [B]Any foul ball which contacts any object foreign to the natural ground (e.g. a helmet, a bat, a mask) shall be ruled "foul" regardless of where it settles or is touched.[B]
Any 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. ...

Since there is no FED rule or ruling/interpretation that contradicts these OBR rulings or suggests they would be treated differently in a FED-based game, I would be inclined to rule that any piece of equipment or clothing which is lying on the field of play and not properly attached as a "foreign object".

Absent any intent, if a fair batted ball hits it in fair territory, play on. If a batted ball hits it on or over foul territory while live, it's a foul ball.

What do you think?

JM

Did you happen to see the canumdrum presented. MLBUM and JEA are both correct. A fair ball is fair and a foul ball is foul. Did JEA actually explain the physics principles of foreign objects? Flying foreign objects may hit actually hit a baseball (ask Randy Johnson); but in most cases a baseball happens to hit a settled foreign object on the ground and then roll fair or foul.

I see the touched part, I see the fair ball, I see the cap, helmet or glove as as foreign object hitting the ball. What can "Made in Japan" have to do with any of this? Is equipment, now detached, a FLYING foreign object that settles on the ground or NOT? I can identify it and to whom it belongs by rule. How can a flying foreign object intentionally touch anything is beyond my level of comprehension. If possible, then I must also believe in UFO's. Otherwise, Absent any intent, if a fair batted ball hits it in fair territory, play on.

Care to take another shot? Oh, on another point, "SAy remember the divot."

[SAump]

How is a ball striking a loose helmet glove or hat interpreted any differently than a foreing object striking a ball by MLBUM dictates, which is FAIR BALL, PLAY ON. It can't be FOUL, if it's a fair ball before being blasted FOUL by an indiclicker, cap, or glove.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by SAump

How is a ball striking a loose helmet glove or hat interpreted any differently than a foreing object striking a ball by MLBUM dictates, which is FAIR BALL, PLAY ON. It can't be FOUL, if it's a fair ball before being blasted FOUL by an indiclicker, cap, or glove.

You don't get it.

It's not the first time you haven't gotten it.

We're going to start a pool on what the next thing you don't get is.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

You don't get it.

It's not the first time you haven't gotten it.

We're going to start a pool on what the next thing you don't get is.

Ball is touched over fair territory by defensive player, fair says everyone.
Ball hits bat; fair says Bob Jenkins.
Ball hits helmet; fair says CoachJM and just about everyone else.
Ball hits detached equipment, veers and settles foul; foul says Rich Ives and possibly CoachJM.
That doesn't settle well with my divot example.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Tim,

I am not aware of any FED reference that explictly delineates what is or is not a "foreign object" - I'm guessing that is at least partially the point you are raising.

I believe the proper interpretation is that "foreign objects" are man-made things and that "natural objects" are not.

I do believe there is precedent for considering equipment on the playing field (when not being worn/properly attached to the person of a player - or umpire, for that matter) to be a "foreign object".

From J/R (Rules Differences Edition):

Though specifically referring to OBR, rather than FED rules, we also have from the MLBUM:

and JEA:

Since there is no FED rule or ruling/interpretation that contradicts these OBR rulings or suggests they would be treated differently in a FED-based game, I would be inclined to rule that any piece of equipment or clothing which is lying on the field of playand not properly attached as a "foreign object".

Absent any intent, if a fair batted ball hits it in fair territory, play on. If a batted ball hits it on or over foul territory while live, it's a foul ball.


What do you think?

JM

I think you're making it UP. Play can not begin w/ these types of foreign objects laying around on the field. Rule change was made before I was ever born.

Until CoachJM comes back to explain how he reasoned that accidently detached playing equipment provided a FAIR ruling under MLBUM (see helmet) and also supported a FOUL ruling under JEA (where a ball settles after striking a foreign object in vicinity of the plate); what source would you have for YOUR FOUL call.

Please cite the source that states, "Should a detached fielder's glove or cap or HSM accidently strike a batted ball over fair territory, the result of any fair/foul decision shall lie upon the location upon where the baseball may settle."

I can't wait to be educated again. Remember it was I who stated that it met the conditions of a FAIR batted ball. If you have something that proves me wrong, well, I'm all eyes.

Perhaps answering my divot call would help too. Can a fielder accidently leave a trench along the fair/foul line with the heel of his cleat and then roll away from the ball in hopes that it goes foul?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by SAump

Ball is touched over fair territory by defensive player, fair says everyone.
Ball hits bat; fair says Bob Jenkins.
Ball hits helmet; fair says CoachJM and just about everyone else.
Ball hits detached equipment, veers and settles foul; foul says Rich Ives and possibly CoachJM.
That doesn't settle well with my divot example.

OK on the first one SA but

GONG! Nice try on the rest but . . .

Bob Jenkins Post:

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".

To which Bob Jenkins said: “Yep .. and I think this is the "correct" ruling.”

So Bob said it’s foul.



CoachJM Post 3:

foul, foul, and foul were his opinions. (Second one was hits helmet)


Coach JM post 7:

“I would be inclined to rule that any piece of equipment or clothing which is lying on the field of play and not properly attached as a "foreign object.
Absent any intent, if a fair batted ball hits it in fair territory, play on.”

He did not say it was fair, he just said play continues. If the ball subsequently becomes a foul ball, it is foul. That's why his opinions were foul, foul, and foul.

[SanDiegoSteve]

It is a real shame when everybody but one person gets it, and the person that doesn't get it screams the loudest.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

OK on the first one SA but

GONG! Nice try on the rest but . . .

Bob Jenkins Post:

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".

To which Bob Jenkins said: “Yep .. and I think this is the "correct" ruling.”

So Bob said it’s foul.



CoachJM Post 3:

foul, foul, and foul were his opinions. (Second one was hits helmet)


Coach JM post 7:

“I would be inclined to rule that any piece of equipment or clothing which is lying on the field of play and not properly attached as a "foreign object.
Absent any intent, if a fair batted ball hits it in fair territory, play on.”

He did not say it was fair, he just said play continues. If the ball subsequently becomes a foul ball, it is foul. That's why his opinions were foul, foul, and foul.

I also can agree, Bob is correct and said it was foul. The ball was on or over foul territory at the time, see 2.16.1.d. He also stated about a case that was FAIR.

I am still waiting for CoachJM to explain those same exact opinions on a FAIR batted ball that is bunted, accidently hits a bat or helmet in FAIR territory and then carroms foul. I would be willing to state that he would PLAY ON, with a FAIR batted BALL.

I can agree that the the play continues and according to MLBUM/JEA post, no reference was made as to where the ball settles after striking a batter's bat or helmet over FAIR terrritory. So why is it NOT FAIR in this situation?

That is why I asked for an explanation. I gladly thank you and SDS for your effort to help and I apologize for being such a dumb bloke. I do not wish to create waves with you and several others who have politlely taken the time to help me out. The Lord knows I don't need to be addressed or vanished for not understanding an event like this. I already know that I am not MLB material. Just doing the best I can with what I got.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Hey, SA...WTF is a "canumdrum?" Did you mean conundrum?

[SanDiegoSteve]

SA sez: "I am still waiting for CoachJM to explain those same exact opinions on a FAIR batted ball that is bunted, accidently hits a bat or helmet in FAIR territory and then carroms foul. I would be willing to state that he would PLAY ON, with a FAIR batted BALL."

I would be willing to bet that he meant a ball that stayed in fair territory after hitting the foreign object.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

It is a real shame when everybody but one person gets it, and the person that doesn't get it screams the loudest.

Ball carroms off pitcher's plate into FBT behind home plate is a foul ball.
Ball carroms off pitchers foot into FBT behind home plate is a fair ball.
Ball carroms off detached helmet over fair territory is a fair ball.
Ball carroms off detached hat over fair territory is a foul ball.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Hey, SA...WTF is a "canumdrum?" Did you mean conundrum?

If a batted ball strikes a loose helmet accidentally (no intent on part of runner to interfere) in fair territory, the ball remains in play the same as if it had not hit the helmet.

Yep, that's what I meant to say.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by SAump

Ball carroms off pitcher's plate into FBT behind home plate is a foul ball.
Ball carroms off pitchers foot into FBT behind home plate is a fair ball.
Ball carroms off detached helmet over fair territory is a fair ball.
Ball carroms off detached hat over fair territory is a foul ball.

1- true
2- true
3- depends on where ball comes to rest
4- depends on where ball comes to rest

Look, there's a foul line involved here. Unless detached equipment is called by the umpire, a fair ball remains fair if it comes to rest fair. If it stops in foul territory, it's foul. I don't know how to break it down any simpler.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by SAump

Ball is touched over fair territory by defensive player, fair says everyone.

I wouldn't argue with that.

Originally Posted by SAump

Ball hits bat; fair says Bob Jenkins.

Actually, as anyone who can read will see, Bob Jenkins did NOT say that.

Bob did post the text of a FED case book situation which DOES say that. Bob also subsequently implied that he did not believe the case book situation he quoted offered the correct ruling on the play in question, but said it did offer support for ruling the ball fair because it touched the bat in fair territory.

Aside to WhiteShadow: I see you're kind of new here. As you've probably already figured out, different posters on this forum have different degrees of understanding of the proper application of the rules and, therefore, different degrees of credibility. In my opinion, Bob Jenkins is one of the MOST credible posters whos posts here. Others, in my opinion, are much more towards the other end of the credibility spectrum. So, if you ever read that Bob and I disagree on a point, I would encourage you to believe HIM. I do.

Originally Posted by SAump

Ball hits helmet; fair says CoachJM and just about everyone else.

Again, as anyone who can read will see, I said no such thing.

What I DID say was that a batted ball

(which has not yet touched anything since the bat)

which first touches a "foreign object", such as a helmet lying in the field of play

(which did not come to be there as the result of an intentional act by any player to affect the course of the play),

while on or over fair territory, remains live and in play.

Whether it will ultimately be fair or foul has yet to be seen at this point. It depends what happens after that, and it could end up either.

Originally Posted by SAump

Ball hits detached equipment, veers and settles foul; foul says Rich Ives and possibly CoachJM.

Sounds good to me.

Originally Posted by SAump

That doesn't settle well with my divot example.

Huh?

JM

[SAump]

If I was a rat coach and my batter laid down the perfect bunt down the line and a hat and a glove and an indicator accidently touched that ball and the ball was then declared foul after it settled 3 inches over foul territory and I knew there was no other possible way for the defense to make an out ....

I wouldn't scream. I would simply say PROTEST as politely as possible. Then again, I may as well go out shooting expletives and being tossed from the game. Can I not protest this foul call? Are you going to tell me that in your best judgment, the entire thing was accidental. Are we going to wait for MLB to rewrite the ruling? Do you expect a rat to believe that the rule book case that YOU cited to be correct?