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.

[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.

[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...

[SAump]

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.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

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.

Sigh. Still a foul ball.

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.