Definition of a fair ball

[TheWhiteShadow]

Just trying to make sure I understand completely. Please bear with me.

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? For example:

a) On a bunt down the base line, the infielder's hat falls off while he is attempting to field the ball and the hat hits the ball in fair territory which then rolls into foul territory before passing/touching the base (and nothing else touched the ball other than the hat)

b) Similar as above but runner's helmet falls off (unintentional) and hits ball in fair territory before it goes foul

c) Another bunt, umpire takes off his mask when following the ball down the line but in doing so he accidentally loses his indicator and it hits the ball in fair territory and then rolls foul

Are these fair or foul?

[UmpJM]

Whiteshadow,

a) Foul

b) Foul

c) Foul

One of the trickier concepts regarding fair/foul is contact with an object "foreign to the natural ground". Hitting one of these foreign objects in FAIR territory does NOT determine the fair/foul status of a batted ball. Hitting a foreign object on/over foul territory makes the ball Foul.

JM

[LMan]

That's gotta be one heavy indicator.

[bossman72]

TWS,

Here's a good link to help you out with the fair/foul rule:

http://www.amateurumpire.com/others/rs/rs08.htm

[TheWhiteShadow]

Originally Posted by Tim C

When is something "foreign" to the field?

You say a hat does not count . . . what about a glove (not on hand)?

I was worried about asking this question at first because I thought I was missing something obvious and would get flamed for it. But if Tim C has the same question, then maybe I'm not such a newbie after all

OK, so the batter bunts down the base line and the pitcher is running over to field the ball but he trips over his own feet and in the act of falling to the ground his glove comes off and it hits the ball while in fair territory and then the ball settles in foul territory before the base and no one else has touched it. According to CB 8.3.3.F, if a detached glove is accidental then it is not a penalty. What do you have? Does the glove cease to become a player's equipment as soon as it leaves his hand? Does the touching not count because the player was not wearing the glove?

[SAump]

Originally Posted by TheWhiteShadow

I was worried about asking this question at first because I thought I was missing something obvious and would get flamed for it. But if Tim C has the same question, then maybe I'm not such a newbie after all

OK, so the batter bunts down the base line and the pitcher is running over to field the ball but he trips over his own feet and in the act of falling to the ground his glove comes off and it hits the ball while in fair territory and then the ball settles in foul territory before the base and no one else has touched it. According to CB 8.3.3.F, if a detached glove is accidental then it is not a penalty. What do you have? Does the glove cease to become a player's equipment as soon as it leaves his hand? Does the touching not count because the player was not wearing the glove?

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.

[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?

[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.

[UmpJM]

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):

Unnatural objects would include a base, pitching rubber..., rosin bag, helmet, any portion of a broken bat,.... or similar object that may be on the playing field.

...

Birds, animals, rocks, and dirt clods are all considered to be natural objects. ...

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

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:

...
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.
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 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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

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,

FED 2.5.1E The batter hits the ball, drops the bat and it unintentionally hits the ball a second time in ... (c) fair territory and is either touched by a fielder and/or comes to rest in foul territory. Ruling: In ...(c) the ball is fair.

[TheWhiteShadow]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

FED 2.5.1E The batter hits the ball, drops the bat and it unintentionally hits the ball a second time in ... (c) fair territory and is either touched by a fielder and/or comes to rest in foul territory. Ruling: In ...(c) the ball is fair.

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).

[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?

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by SAump

What do I think? I think a fair ball stays fair, no matter where it settles.

For a moment, it sounded like you got it... then you lost it again.

If a ball hits a pebble in fair territory, and rolls foul before passing 1st or 3rd base, what do you call?

Now ... change pebble to helmet and your answer should be the same.

If you don't get that, stop umpiring.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

For a moment, it sounded like you got it... then you lost it again.

If a ball hits a pebble in fair territory, and rolls foul before passing 1st or 3rd base, what do you call?

Now ... change pebble to helmet and your answer should be the same.

If you don't get that, stop umpiring.

I think he's pointing out that there's a difference between "a batted ball in fair territory" and "a ball that has been judged to have become fair because of meeting one of the requirements." The phrase "fair ball" is often used to describe both, when perhaps "batted ball" should be used for the former and "fair ball" for the latter. Shrug. IMO, context will usually tell you which meaning is being used.