Fair or foul

[daniels012]

i have no idea whether this has been discussed before, but I love discussing this locally trying to find an answer.

A player in the field, he straddles the foul line behind a runner that is on 3rd base.

Would this be a balk, since he is not in fair territory?
Now, you may say that one foot in and one foot out is considered in fair territory.

I say if you have a runner running down this same line, he straddles the line. If the ball hits him in FAIR TERRITORY, he is out. If it hits him in FOUL TERRITORY, he is safe. The key word "Foul".


I hope this opens a lot of discussion and theories. Because "I think" it truly is interpretation of the RULE.

Michael

[bobbybanaduck]

the first scenario is not a balk. that penalty is only applied ot the catcher leaving his box. the second scenario is common knowledge. sorry, mike, but neither scenario will spark much discussion on here.

[kylejt]

Perhaps we can have a discussion about drinking and posting.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by daniels012

i have no idea whether this has been discussed before, but I love discussing this locally trying to find an answer.

A player in the field, he straddles the foul line behind a runner that is on 3rd base.

Would this be a balk, since he is not in fair territory?
Now, you may say that one foot in and one foot out is considered in fair territory.

I say if you have a runner running down this same line, he straddles the line. If the ball hits him in FAIR TERRITORY, he is out. If it hits him in FOUL TERRITORY, he is safe. The key word "Foul".


I hope this opens a lot of discussion and theories. Because "I think" it truly is interpretation of the RULE.

Michael

It's a myth that straddling the line is a "fielder's balk." It's specifically defined as legal in FED. It's not specifically defined under OBR, and different interps allow one foot, or require two feet in fair territory. But, it's only enforced if noticed, and it's just a "don't do that."

[daniels012]

bobbybanaduck,

the first scenario is not a balk. that penalty is only applied ot the catcher leaving his box

So it only applies to a catcher, so a player may play outside fair territory? (Interpretation of one foot in and one foot out)

kylejt,

Perhaps we can have a discussion about drinking and posting.

I like to bring up things that are not specifically in the rule books. I also am aware that there are some things you just don't call. But if you can't talk amongst your fellow "Blues" then who can you talk to? As far as drinking, yeah I have had 3 glasses of tea this evening.

bob jenkins,
Very well said.


Michael

[UmpLarryJohnson]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Perhaps we can have a discussion about drinking and posting.

yep, LOVE to see guys-w-2-posts put something up like its neverbeen heard of before 1 foot in foulground? wow yea THATs never happend on a baseball field.

"ilove to put up stuff not in th rule book" har har har, oh forgot, the rulebook is the ONLY place to find guidance

[greymule]

A player in the field, he straddles the foul line behind a runner that is on 3rd base.

The most interesting thing about this post is that it is the only one I have ever seen on this site that has contained a grammatical construction such as the above. In fact, it contains two of them (sort of), the other being

if you have a runner running down this same line, he straddles the line.

This device of simply naming the subject and then referring to it with a pronoun is not incorrect, but it's rather archaic and usually found in older poetry. "The smith, a mighty man is he . . ."

Anyway, the fielder, he can't balk.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by daniels012

bobbybanaduck,

So it only applies to a catcher, so a player may play outside fair territory? (Interpretation of one foot in and one foot out)

No one said a player, other than the catcher, may begin play in foul territory. RIF

What was said was that the penalty of a balk under this section only applied to when the catcher leaves his box early. This is explicit in the rule book. Again, RIF.

[bossman72]

cmon guys, go easy on the guy! he's trying to learn.

but bob has the correct interpretation. in NFHS he can have one foot out legally. in Pro rules, he technically has to have 2 in, but this is rarely enforced.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by bossman72

cmon guys, go easy on the guy! he's trying to learn.

No. He says he posts to create "discussion". He thinks he's teaching.

in Pro rules, he technically has to have 2 in, but this is rarely enforced.

The position by the original poster is that this may be a balk. It is not, in any code, a balk.

[Ump29]

The first instance would be a balk only if both feet were in foul territory. In the second instance , the runner would be out if the part of him over fair territory was hit by a hit ball. If he was hit in foul territory then it would be a foul ball.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Ump29

The first instance would be a balk only if both feet were in foul territory.

Oh, my God. Please read the rule and the Penalty.

If you have a new rule book, you'll see:

4.03 When the ball is put in play at the start of, or during a game, all fielders other than the catcher shall be on fair territory.

(a)The catcher shall station himself directly back of the plate. He may leave his position at any time to catch a pitch or make a play except that when the batter is being given an intentional base on balls, the catcher must stand with both feet within the lines of the catcher’s box until the ball leaves the pitcher’s hand.

PENALTY: Balk

You will then note that no penalty is listed for the other sections of 4.03


The penalty does not apply to fielders with one or two feet in foul territory. It doesn't apply to fielder pulling up a lawn chair and eating a sandwich in foul territory. The penalty of a balk applies ONLY to paragraph (a).

[PeteBooth]

Garth at one time this was ruled a balk but later changed.

Here's a little history FWIW

Jerry Remy of the BOSOX will be forever remembered in the umpiring community. Jerry did something during a game that baffled the umpires, and sparked a controversy that led to a ruling still in effect to this day in baseball everywhere.

During a game in the early 80's, with F1 on the mound and in contact with the rubber, Jerry entered foul territory to back-up an appeal attempt at first base.

Now, the umpiring crew that day knew what Jerry had done was illegal. At the start of play all fielders other than F2 are required to be on fair territory. Jerry was clearly on foul territory. But what the umpires didn't know was exactly how to penalize it. With no other feasible option, the umpires declared a balk.

That ruling rocked the umpiring world. They essentially created a new rule right there on the spot. It caused a grumbling at the highest levels of baseball officiating. Eventually the Director of Baseball Umpire Development at the time, the late Barney Deary, issued a ruling on the play. He declared that any play occurring with a fielder (other than the catcher) on foul territory should be nullified. It should not be ruled a balk.

The idea of nullifying play with less than 8 fielders in fair territory created one of the only, "do-overs," in baseball rules. And it was all because of Jerry Remy.

Pete Booth

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by GarthB

It doesn't apply to fielder pulling up a lawn chair and eating a sandwich in foul territory.

I have often wanted to work the bases in this fashion, especially on extremely hot days. Except I would set up my lawn chair in between B and C. I would dress in appropriate attire, including Broc-a-brella w/double beer holders.

[bobbybanaduck]

i've often thought of becoming a golf club...