New Divot

[SAump]

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SAump

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

[UMP25]

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?

[SAump]

Originally Posted by UMP25

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.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SAump

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

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

[SAump]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

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.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

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

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by SAump

See, I thought that canal was the foreign object on the field that wasn't there at the time of pitch.

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

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by GarthB

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.

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

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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?

[UmpJM]

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

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

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.