Definition of a fair ball

[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

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.

[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

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.