Definition of a fair ball
 

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?

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

That's gotta be one heavy indicator.

TWS,

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

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

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?

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

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.

I've got nothing
 

Don't assume. The batter and fielder must accept responsibility for properly worn equipment. I have FAIR ball in all three situations, so play on Willie. Same as if the catcher chasing a PB/WP/throw stumbles and kicks it. He better get back up and PLAY. I really don't care how his glove/hat/helmet unintentionally came off. Coach JM hit the nail squarely on the head, "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."

I have FAIR ball in all three situations,

And you'd be wrong. "Play on" includes the possibility of the ball going foul - which it did, so it's foul.

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).

Willie must play on
 

The ball has met all of MY established criteria for a FAIR batted BALL. There is nothing either batter or fielder can unintentionally do to remove that. I don't care if a gust of wind rolls the ball foul after contact w/ hat, glove or helmet. Now if it was done intentionally, then I would rule otherwise and stop Willie immediately.

Please provide that ruling
 

2. Playing terms and definitions, 16. Foul, Foul Tip, A1. A foul is a batted ball, C. That first falls on foul territorty beyond first or third base. That is my INTERP, what is yours?

Bat is not hat, mitt, or helmet. I would like to know why you consider what 2.16.1.C scenario is ruled foul by reason of a deflection?

Deflection from wind or pebble, Foul.
Deflection from hat, mitt, or helmet, Fair.
JMLOHO

Play Naked?
 

Yes, in all juridictions of the USA. :D :D :D

No,
 

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.

Oops, sorry, typo, I meant 2.16.1.D.

Typos
 

I wish I could delete them too.

D has been discussed, first by CoachJM in post number 7, and I have already stated my opinion of the ruling. Perhaps, CoachJM will be kind enuf to expalin why he rules foul in all 3 situations covered in post #2. I defer the balance of my time here to others.

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?

DOO Over
 

See, I cannot understand you once again. I could cover 8.3.3.c which I have already mentioned. But I leave 8.3.3.f to someone with a little more updated info than I have in front of me or an understanding of 8.3.4 which penalizes defense for something else. Too many cherries and so little time to pick up on them all. Whiteshadow, let me know if your trolling through. Happy fishing.

Crabgrass
 

I vehemently disagree.

Edited to meekishly apologize, upon reading the words from our moderator below.
I was going into some "hands are part of the bat and the bat is part of the playing field, so the hands are now part of the playing field too" type of argument. Chalk it up to my inexperience and the dilemma presented to us by FEDlandia.

Yep .. and I think this is the "correct" ruling. But, until the FED removes / changes one case play or the other, then there is support to call it a fair ball, and I just meant to address CoahcJM's point that there was no FED interp that was the opposite of the OBR interp.

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.

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.

Just to clarify, I wasn't passing any judgment on your post, I was merely pointing out the conflict in the case book you are referring to.

As I mentioned in my original post, I'm just trying to understand 2-5-1-f. Does equipment need to be worn by the player when it touches the ball on/over fair territory? You answered yes and I appreciate that. Based on the answers of most of the others, I would assume they would answer the same way too. It sounds like if I were to interpret 2-5-1-f as that equipment must be worn by the player in order to call it a fair ball I would get little grief from coaches. And if I ever did get a coach questioning that call, I would now have an explanation for him.

Why did I bring up 8.3.3.F? Because you said I should just rule it as touching by a detached glove and be done with it, but 8.3.3.F states that if a glove is not intentionally thrown then there is no penalty and I was trying to come up with an example that was accidental touching so we would be forced to rule only on fair/foul. So, if there is a situation where, before the ball has gone beyond 1st/3rd base, a detached glove can touch a ball (in fair territory) and not be a penalty and then the ball rolls foul (without touching a player in fair territory), then it seems to me that most everyone would rule it a foul ball because the touching of the detached glove does not make it fair.

There is no trolling here. I wouldn't ask the questions if I already knew the answers. The only thing I am trying to do here is understand how to interpret the rule so that I know how to call it during a game and can then justify the call to an unhappy coach.

Getting there
 

Good for me. I really didn't know about that particular INTERP. I was aware of the pitfalls I make when taking a reading/skills test and this is one type of pitfall. I did know a case where the ball was hit so hard that it resulted in detaching a player's equipment, such as glove from a hand or a hat from a head, that would also be ruled PLAY ON. I would have thought the situation you described about the case play was designed as a trick question to get at my 3-base award response. Now I know better. Just hope I remember it.

So I presume, that a fielder's effort or B/R's effort to do what it is that each is suppose to be doing, ala tangle and untangle, is ruled PLAY ON. The deflection cannot CAUSE the ball to veer foul. Situation. Bunt down 1bl. Pitcher slips and falls on wet grass. Cleats dig canal into ground and ball gets kicked foul by flying divot or clump of wet grass from pitcher's shoe. Fair or FOUL? I rule: PLAY ON. But then again, I might learn something else as soon as I understand why CoachJM ruled FOUL in all three situations.

OKay GM
 

What does CoachJM have in post #2 that is missing from this discussion, and contradicts his argument at the end of his post #7? How would you rule, fair or foul? No, better tell why would you rule fair or foul. Whiteshadow, my apologies. I will sit back now and watch SDS land the big one.

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.

Incomplete pass
 

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.

Incomplete pass #2
 

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.

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."

Long Story Short
 

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.

I don't get it
 

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.

Well SDS and Mr. Ives, Waiting
 

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?

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.

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

If I may, Sir
 

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.

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

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.

Did I get this right
 

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.

Sttflt
 

Yep, that's what I meant to say.

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.

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

MLB Pressure
 

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?

Touchee?
 

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.

Pfisto, #33
 

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.

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.

Wrong. Again.

Thank You Sir
 

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?

My apologies
 

I agree. From page ONE: Again, I'm trying to understand this pebble = helmet analogy presented by others.

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?

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.

Eureka, I thing I found it.
 

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.

Uhhhh....denseness?

Tell tale signs were there for how long?
 

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.

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.

Well I'll get to that, later
 

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?

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?

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

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:

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.

That depends. Is it a day game or a night game?

Day-night doubleheader. And to make it even more confusing, they opened the top of the dome for the second game after it stopped raining.

Doesn't look like you get it yet.

Was it above or below 53 degrees?


(Aside to Tim: You've got your work cut out for you.)

:rolleyes:

Nobody believed me anyway
 

Coach JM was right in post #2. I had not paid much attention to it. Then he changed the ruling in post #7 and was right again. I had hung my hat on it. Coach JM later corrected his error in post #45 and was still right again. I kept asking for CoachJM to explain why he would first call one play foul, then fair, and then foul again. I wanted to know the difference between post 2, 7 and 45; or if anyone could help me understand what was going on. That "hat" I was relying on accidently fell off my head and hit the turf when I stumbled.

My entire argument rested on the fact that I had initially read "a fair batted ball hits it" in post #7. I got distracted and couldn't see why a fair ball could be foul. I now see he meant to say a batted ball all along and was unaware of his own mistake. I was also unaware of the difference until the rug was pulled out from under me. So much for the grand canal theory. But Coach, I would never ever change a foul call to fair. That was ugly.

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.

CoachJM answered in post 45.

You apparently missed that - or are deliberately ignoring it.

Posts 9, 11, 13 and 18
 

I'm not sure if its a context issue or a multiple redundancy issue? I added Bob's explanation as it is the closest one to being FAIR. It's one thing to write about a fair batted ball or a batted ball over fair territory as Bob has correctly pointed out. It's another to write about a fair batted ball in fair territory. Also that damn helmet/pebble analogy is tougher to understand than the helmet/bat anaolgy I expected (post 11 above) to find.

I had no intention of bringing up the same subject for another round of discussion. I was merely trying to point out why post 45 was necessary. I would like to thank Bob J again for pointing that out somehwere back around post 50. I can't understand how Bob understands me and why I still need a translator to get a point across. Did I miss something there GMBoy (not BOB)? Oh, PFISTO is a post deleter.

I should of stopped at 18, but getting here was more fun. I told you that a long time ago.

SAump:

If a batter removes his helmet and tries to hit a pitch, and misses, is it a strike?

2.00 A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which --
(a) Is struck at by the batter and is missed;

Doesn't say "struck at with his bat" after all.

Critical Anal-Ysist
 

I would caution young umpires to be careful reading that pebble = helmet argument. I find half of it to be very weak. A pebble is treated very differently. After reading through the material, I would say BOB also provides the best answer above. The play continues when the ball is touched or settles over fair territory and NO longer "remains in PLAY" if it is declared FOUL.
Butter one more UP by the way. I would be willing to entertain thoughts about a falling player loosing both his cap and glove after colliding with an umpire in the vicinity of home plate. {All for one and one for all.} Glad the coaches and fans I know don't really pay much attention to this rule because that umpire is highly QUALIFIED not to be there in the first place. I would be willing to bet the rules would change after a lengthy protest and another coaches poll. I would have missed test item #33 too. Please comment if you know of a real situation where the possibility of the likeness of any of these events may have occurred. Gotta get the word out to those pollsters.

Never suddenly go off your medication without your doctor's supervision.

Gone fishing yet?
 

A little S-N-L never hurt anyone. A lack of humor and of a lack of patience are a bad thing. Some folks are much too serious. Why didn't you SUM it all UP for us ONE more TIME? You may have learned something. FOUL or is it FOUL ball? :p

You just never know
 

-----------------------------------------
There is more in this thread than first meets the eye. Just to be SAFE, I own PART of it NOW!