Definition of a fair ball

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.