New Divot
 

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?

Please provide case ruling number. Thank you.

Foul. The ball meets the dfinition of 2.00-Foul without first meeting any of the definitions in 2.00-Fair

First, grass is considered a "natural object," so a ball that touches it and goes foul would be foul.

Second, where do people come up with this stuff? ;)

Don't ask, we don't tell. :rolleyes:

The Grand Canal
 

Now, say the same situation as the opening post were repeated; except that the ball rolled into the canal created by the pitcher who accidently fell over the baseline in his hurry to get to the ball. The ball changes direction in the canal and veers foul and settles there.

Does that ball meet the definition of 2.00-Foul without first meeting any of the definitions in 2.00-Fair? I now suppose the only reply necessary would be if the initial ruling were any different. Please provide source.

Sigh. Still a foul ball.

Conversely, if the "canal" was in foul territory, and the ball hit it and veered into fair territory and came to rest, it would be a fair ball.

It's the drugs. Either too many, or not enough...I'm not sure.

I was wrong again?
 

See, I thought that canal was the foreign object on the field that wasn't there at the time of pitch. I had thought that that canal was the reason the ball was ruled fair by MLB dictates which I will not repeat here. I thought that the pitcher stumbing near the foul line was baseball's equivalent to the fake actions of some of basketball's greatest actors. Nice to see that pitcher's have the advantage of getting away with something stupid like this now. It should be more exciting to watch. Thanks for setting me straight.

But what if there was water in that canal? What if the ball hit a teeny, tiny little boat in that canal? What if... :rolleyes:

Not unless it was an artificial canal, such as the Suez or Panama.

How do we know if it could have been the Suez or Panama Canals if it didn't try to be? Yeah, I know, it coulda been. But without the effort, the years of digging, fighting off disease, fighting underfunding, environmentalists and engineering nay-sayers, we'll never know. :D

Finally, your logic has completely failed you. Good to see.

Awwww. You disappoint me. I'd have thought you "coulda" seen I was being self-deprecating. But then, who knows what you coulda done when you don't try?:D

Uhhhh,

I understand there's an opening for a talented and upcoming canal in Nicaragua. Of course, in addition to having shown promise, you would also have to be willing to make some sacrifices and put in some long hard years in actually becoming a canal that could join two oceans.

JM

We have a river nearby that connects two lakes. I might mention it to it.

Oh, the horror that will be when the canals decide to strike. Is there an application form for those that would desire to cross the picket line?


Tim.

I want to be a rising fastball when I grow up.

Makes as much sense as the rest of this thread........

Son, times have changed
 

Know that USMC DS on tv? Read the following using his Semper Fi personna.

Do you wanna go through life being called Ball Hi, Jack?
Those MLB hitter's will just squat right under you or swat you OUT.
A caveman's 100 mph heater isn't good enuf to pitch through that stirke zone.
May have worked real good back then, but not in today's modern baseball.
Get a good downward spin on it and drop that rising fastball nonsense.

Warning
 

This is my thread and I'll post whatever I want on it too.

Behave, or I'll delete you.

But this is still my thread
 

Now that everyone took a little break to stretch their legs and get off a little steam; back to the subject of this baseball rule.

For one, the FOUL testing emperors can stop teasing the young FAIR socialites long enough to put on their robes. That foreign canal across the baseline can be placed there in any number of legal ways and all of which would suggest a FAIR BALL (play on no matter where the ball settles after) under FED 2.5.1E. Are we sure a bat is treated as a helmet and a helmet is treated as a pebble?

Something better be done to remove the doubt from both the FED and the OBR case rulings. Perhaps a better bridge to build a smaller gap in the same ole RULE inconsistency can be built. Perhaps dumming down the test and alerting everyone of the correct answer would work too. Only one is relevant to this thread and practical in application. That is FED 2.5.1F FAIR, their clothing or equipment, "attatched" or not.

I haven't had a weekend like this since the days WINDY use to drop in on us from time to time. Then he would have told me where I could find the simple rule. I may have not liked the way he told me, but he was always insistent upon telling me. Man, I miss WiNDY.

Makes me wish it was Tee's thread. :D