Definition of a fair ball

[SAump]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

I wouldn't argue with that.
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.

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.

Sounds good to me. Huh?

JM

What you said is that you don't know, it could end UP either. MLBUM doesn't say that. It says remains in PLAY. You contradict yourself in the same sentence. A ball remains live and in play "until" it ends up ultimately fair or foul. Interesting that MLBUM did not state those words. It stated remains in PLAY. I think you guys are making things UP. Yep, sounds good.

[SAump]

Oh PFISTO, I thought you made a comment here.
Somehow it quietly disappeared.
Now I wonder if GMBoy gonna be a pain in my rear.
Come back comment made by PFISTO, 39/40, missed #33.
I'll leave now, for I have little credibility.
Once again, it's been fun. Man, I love this thread. BYE-BYE.

[bob jenkins]

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.

I think (but it's hard to tell with your writing style), that you are mis-interpreting "play on" when the ball contacts an object in fair territory. It does not mean "the ball is fair"; it means "the ball is not yet fair or foul and what happens later will determine whether it becomes fair or foul."

IOW, if the ball touches a foreign object in foul territory, we recognize the though and declare the ball foul. If the ball touches a foreign object in fair territory, we ignore the touch and treat it just as if the ball took a funny hop.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SAump

A pebble in the real world is not an object foreign to the ground.
Baseball rules say it is.

Wrong. Again.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think (but it's hard to tell with your writing style), that you are mis-interpreting "play on" when the ball contacts an object in fair territory. It does not mean "the ball is fair"; it means "the ball is not yet fair or foul and what happens later will determine whether it becomes fair or foul."

IOW, if the ball touches a foreign object in foul territory, we recognize the though and declare the ball foul. If the ball touches a foreign object in fair territory, we ignore the touch and treat it just as if the ball took a funny hop.

I must explain that while discussing the issue w/ whiteshadow; I did my very best to explain myself as clearly as possible. Now the thread remained very civil, moving along down a path for two pages. Then it took a turn. I do apologize to my readers, who communicate more clearly than I, but I have tried to set the story UP as linearly as possible. The first page sets up the scene very well, the second page continues. Others, as well as myself, have put into motion a series of small climactic episodes (checks in a chessmatch) whether the situation should be ruled FAIR or FOUL. It all goes back to Tim C's original post on the first page. Some people understand that and others may not.

I am not interested in the FAIR or FOUL part of the ruling as I already undertstand that part of the picture. I am interested in how a helmet, a glove or a cap become foreign objects on a baseball diamond. That JUMP/STRETCH is particular helpful on a SB when a base hit contacts a runner's helmet over fair terrritory near 3b and veers FOUL. "Now we may have, better go get it. Or do we may have, "Time." If MLBUM dictates play on had the the helmet not been there, then how can it be FOUL?

[SAump]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Wrong. Again.

I agree. From page ONE:

Unless someone posts some ruling, I have foul for all these situations, if the ball settles in foul territory.

If after hitting one of those objects, it is touched while in fair territory, I've got a fair ball.

So in other words, to me, those objects are the same as a pebble.

We also have to assume the equipment became detached accidentally.

Again, I'm trying to understand this pebble = helmet analogy presented by others.

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.

See it does not say to follow the ball and rule FAIR/FOUL wherver it settles after hitting the helmet. Sorry, but it is worse if the equipment belongs to the defense and the offense loses a base hit. What in the helmet does "the same as if it had not hit a helmet" mean? How about the ball remains in PLAY wherever it goes after striking a helmet "as if it had NOT struck the helmet." Can it get any clearer?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SAump

Again, I'm trying to understand this pebble = helmet analogy presented by others.

If the pebble / helmet are in fair territory, then pebble = helmet. The ball does not become fair just by hitting the pebble / helmet.

If the pebble / helmet are in foul territory, then pebble <> helmet. The ball becomes foul by hitting the helmet, but does not become foul by hitting the pebble.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If the pebble / helmet are in fair territory, then pebble = helmet. The ball does not become fair just by hitting the pebble / helmet.

If the pebble / helmet are in foul territory, then pebble <> helmet. The ball becomes foul by hitting the helmet, but does not become foul by hitting the pebble.

You see it all so clearly right there in those two statements. That first morsel is significantly different from the second. I already understand the second morsel and completely agree. I trust your advice on the first morsel, but it leaves me wondering, doubting, thinking what the hell the rulemakers mean. Treating the pebble as a helmet over fair territory is that JUMP/stretch I thought had been made UP by the testmakers and my colleagues here. Of course it helps if I had the answers to the test. I thought it could have been slightly misinterpreted on the test. Little did I know that it was in complete agreement with the rule makers. Now I hope you know why I went through all this trouble to find OUT. I know you are tired of my shenanigans and I apologize for them.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SAump

Now I hope you know why I went through all this trouble to find OUT.

Uhhhh....denseness?

[SAump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Uhhhh....denseness?

Imagiine had I not been aware of PFISTO's post? I would have continued to blunder for another 6-7 pages. You guys should thank Bob and PFISTO. I would like to ask why PFISTO deleted his orignal post.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by SAump

What you said is that you don't know, it could end UP either. MLBUM doesn't say that. It says remains in PLAY. You contradict yourself in the same sentence. A ball remains live and in play "until" it ends up ultimately fair or foul. Interesting that MLBUM did not state those words. It stated remains in PLAY. I think you guys are making things UP. Yep, sounds good.

Please use a little common sense here, and realize that "remains in PLAY" means that the baseball does not become immediately dead upon contact with the foreign object, but indeed remains in play for the time being.

The ultimate disposition of said ball is determined when one of 3 things occurs: 1) it is touched by a player, or 2) comes to rest in fair or foul territory, or 3) hits a foreign object in foul territory.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Tim C

"Please don't give me that weak/lame excuse Tee has been riding for the last two years. I think . . . "


Speak English MF, WTF does this comment mean?

Help us all learn from your great wisdom, great LL umpire.

Regards,

Check ruling 2 Playing Terms and Defn(s) Sec. 5 Base Hit, Fair Ball Art. 1 ... A fair ball is a batted ball which: f. while on or over fair territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, their clothing or equipment. Nothing says the equipment must be attached or detached. I suppose if the defense left their equipment lying on the infield, a batted ball striking that equipment would be ruled a fair batted ball if bounding foul before 1B. It would make a travesty of the game to be playing without wearing their gloves. But no more than if #33 (39/40) were to be CORRECT and to rule FOUL. Let them chase that fair batted ball barefoot too. FAIR?

[SAump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Please use a little common sense here, and realize that "remains in PLAY" means that the baseball does not become immediately dead upon contact with the foreign object, but indeed remains in play for the time being.

The ultimate disposition of said ball is determined when one of 3 things occurs: 1) it is touched by a player, his clothing or equipment or 2) comes to rest in fair or foul territory, or 3) hits a foreign object in foul territory.

Don't forget a wee bit of the rule book. Makes a big difference on the proper ruling, FAIR, play on no matter where the ball settles. Don't you think?

[SanDiegoSteve]

You really are the guy that "tastes the buttery crust," aren't you?

[TheWhiteShadow]

Originally Posted by SAump

Mr. Whiteshadow - check ruling 2 Playing Terms and Defn(s) Sec. 5 Base Hit, Fair Ball Art. 1 ... A fair ball is a batted ball which: f. while on or over fair territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, their clothing or equipment. Nothing says the equipment must be attached or detached. I suppose if the defense left their equipment lying on the infield, a batted ball striking that equipment would be ruled a fair batted ball if bounding foul before 1B. It would make a travesty of the game to be playing without wearing their gloves. But no more than if #33 (39/40) were to be CORRECT and to rule FOUL. Let them chase that fair batted ball barefoot too. FAIR?

SAump, that was my original question:

2-5-1-f: A fair ball is a batted ball which while on or over fair territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, their clothing or equipment.

Does clothing/equipment need to be worn by/attached to player/umpire?

If I scroll down to the bottom of the first page in this thread, you answered:

Originally Posted by SAump

Yes, in all juridictions of the USA.

Do the smilies mean that you were joking or were you serious?

The rule as written seems to me to be ambiguous as to whether the equipment needs to be attached, which is why I asked the question. I scoured the rule book for clarification and tried finding relevant situations in the case book and the only ones I could find were the two Bob and I already pointed out which seem to contradict each other. So I figured that maybe I was missing something (please, no brain jokes here) and that more experienced umpires could point me in the right direction.

CoachJM introduced the concept of "foreign objects". I understand what a foreign object to the ground is and I see how it applies to foul balls because 2-16-1-d specifically mentions foreign objects in the rule. So determining when a ball was foul was never a problem for me. But 2-5-1-f does not say anything about foreign objects, only clothing and equipment.

So to be honest, although the majority of you have convinced me to consider detached equipment (not intentional) as a nothing (treat it like a pebble), I'm still not convinced that I can completely justify that ruling to myself via the rule book and case book. And I don't know if Tim C was just playing Devil's advocate, or having some fun with me, or serious, because I don't know him that well yet, but I know who he is (and since he already outed me in his first post, I might as well tell you that I am a beginning umpire in the PBUA, so over time I'm sure I will get to know him better), and if he was serious with his first post, then that only adds to my indecision.

I understand that detached hats and gloves and helmets and shoes and indicators and catcher's masks and anything else that can fall off of a player or umpire is a very rare event, and the significance of this discussion may be next to nothing. But I hate having that little nagging doubt in the back of my mind that I won't know how to rule on something that most likely will not, but possibly could happen in a game.

So to put this issue to rest (because I really didn't think it was going to create this much discussion), instead of asking a question, I am going to make a statment:

Under 2-5-1-f, it is only ruled a fair ball if the clothing/equipment is attached to/worn by the player/umpire.

If you don't agree, please, go right ahead and prove me wrong. I would really appreciate it.