Homerun?
 

I don't understand why they call it a homerun if a ball hits the top of the outfield wall, and bounces into the stands. 6.09d:
A fair ball passes over a fence or into the stands at a distance from home base of 250 feet or more. Such hit entitles the batter to a home run when he shall have touched all bases legally. A fair fly ball that passes out of the playing field at a point less than 250 feet from home base shall entitle the batter to advance to second base only;

But then there is 6.09 g:Any bounding fair ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands, or over or under a fence on fair or foul territory, in which case the batter and all runners shall be entitled to advance two bases

Neither rule really covers what to call when a ball hits the top of the outfield fence. Heck there was a ball hit in Seattle a few years ago that actually hit the outfield wall and bounced over the fence without touching the ground. What would the call be on that?

Bear in mind that I am posting this thread to seek explanations and not criticism. If you feel the need to come at me with a personal attack or a flame like you did in the "Batter Not Ready" thread, at least do so via private messaging.

The official interpretation is the same as the FED; (Rumble for FED and Deary for OBR):

"It is a home run if a batted ball hits on top of the outfield fence and then bounds over in fair territory."(I don't care for Rumble's use of the word "bounds" because it may be confusing, as you will see below.)

And J/R says this:

"If a fair, airborne batted ball strikes the top of the home run fence, it is no longer airborne, but can still become a home run if it proceeds over the fence over fair DBT (dead ball territory) and strikes DBT."

A bounding ball is one which has touched the ground, by definition. Notice that 6.09(e) describes a book rule double as "a fair ball, after touching the ground, bounds into the stands,..."

As you can see, it can be confusing.

Home run, as I just pointed out.

Hard to control the actions of others. You might not want to put it in their heads to personally attack you prior to them actually doing so. Just my opinion.

a "Bounding" ball is 1 that by def has struck the grd or foriegn object considered to be pt of the playing field. the outfield fence does not meet that definition.

I'm not reacting, I am trying to teach him something. Isn't that what this forum is about? He asked a question that deserved an answer just like anyone else.

I know from corresponding privately that he is sincere in learning umpiring and that his questions are genuine.

There are several trolls here, but he is not one of them. He's just young and foolish at times with his remarks, but then again so are most of us at times, even you Big T.

I hate to disagree with you here, but here goes:

<ol>1. There is no rule book definition for "bounding" ball. It is a made up term, that while contained within the rules, has no definition assigned to it (except in the dictionary).

2. The definition in Rule 2.00 for "IN FLIGHT" does not address this directly. It states "IN FLIGHT describes a batted, thrown, or pitched ball which has not yet touched the ground or some object other than a fielder."

Nowhere in there does it mention the fence or object considered part of the field. Just "some object."

3. In fact, the question of a ball hitting the fence and then rebounding directly over the fence is a "point not covered" in the rules, and must be found in interpretations such as the ones that I posted."</ol>

Other than that, I agree completely.:)

Concurred.

Long, long time ago,the fences were put up to keep the spectators off the field. The top of the fences were considered outside the field so they became HR territory.

http://www.cubune.com/comiskey.jpg

http://www.explorepahistory.com/imag...a0g0-a_349.jpg

fair enough!! i am corrected. thanks for the help mr Steve :)

Steve,

The jury is still out on this posters status as a troll. Just because you believe his PM's doesn't necessarily mean they are genuinel. I have a few from him that are priceless.

Tee may have been reacting to the fact that the young man has been posting here for six months now and has shown no interest in improving or understanding reality. Instead he paints himself as some sort of hero of the downtrodden and mediocre.

His question today are as inane and they were six months ago. It makes one wonder if someone so dense and slow can really exist, or is pulling our collective legs.

Maybe I'm spoiled. I've spent the majority of this summer with a number of umpires his age and younger, who are intelligent talented professional umpires. They are everything that he claims he is not allowed to be, when in reality the are everything that he could be if he worked hard, studied with real instructors and shut his mouth and opened his ears.

These umpires put lie that to your youngman's whining. He claims that he is discriminated against because he is young and short. The fine young umpires I spent the summer with work MiLB and are aged from 18 to 24. Most of them are under 6 foot. Many are 5'7" and 5'8". Thhe difference between them and him is that they choose to work hard and become professional umpires, whereas he has chosen to whine.

Here is the youngman's latest comments about himself in his profile:

I am an internet big shot's worst nightmare. I bring justice to this forum by challenging the trends of bullying and fascism that have been prevalent here for far too long. No matter how old you are, I will put you in your place.

What gibberish. This is what I would expect from a seventh grader.

When this young man decides to quit whining, quit blaming others for his shortcomings, truly work to improve and accept reality, he will prove he is what you think he is. Until then, he is either a troll or an immature spoiled and paranoid brat.

Would Jose Canseco's head be considered a foreign object?:D :D

Does this help any?
 

Because if it hits the top of the outfield wall, and bounces back into the field of play, it is not a homerun.
A homerun.

Yep. I sure do. Why? What is you do when someone correctly answers one of your questions or give you an opinion you ask for or explains how things work? You argue.

You ask for help; it is given and then you argue.

This is not the sign of someone trying to learn.

Two part answer: First, when you claim to be capable of levels that you clearly, by your owns words, are not qualified for, that is delusional, not confidence.

Second, what I was referring to was your constant finding of one excuse or another as to why you aren't better, or not accepted by others or given good assignments. As I have pointed out, there are many umpires your age and your height who are excellent umpires.

Instead of whining and finding excuses, they found the time and resources to get trained and learn their craft. When they asked quetions they learned from the answers. You want an excuse for why you are what you are? Look in a mirror.

You want to prove me wrong? Try going a month without whining. Go a month without arguing against the correct answers to your questions. Go a month without demonstrating that you either can't read the rule book or don't know the meaning of words. Your question in this thread is an example. The top of the wall is beyond the front plane of the fence, the ball has left the field.

Work and save your money. Sign up for a real clinic or camp instead of spending a week working small ball for free.

That's what most of are used to seeing from the younger members of our associations. Actions, not excuses.

Alternate answer: "Fair Territory"" is defined as "to the bottom of the playing field fence and perpendicularly upwards". A ball that hits the top of the fence has passed this line.

I think the physics of it would suggest that if the ball did hit the top of the wall it wouldn't bounce back into play. That tells me the instances you're thinking about have the ball hitting the front corner of the top of the wall rather than the top itself.


Tim.

Not to dogpile ... but when you ask questions like the one in THIS OP, (OMG, my 9 year old knows this rule) you prove to the rest of us that you are not "confident and discriminated against" as you claim, but rather simply a VERY inexperienced umpire who is probably treated exactly fairly by his bosses. An umpire who does not understand the simple rules you question is NOT qualified to work upper level games yet.

Feel free to try to learn here ... but don't complain about your assignments - it's extremely clear here that you aren't ready to move up.