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.

[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

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

sorry, mike, but neither scenario will spark much discussion on here.

Now thats funny!!!!

[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

[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.

[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

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

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

To correctly relate historical fact, that statement should read:

"Garth, at one time this was incorrectly ruled a balk by an umpring crew, only to be later corrected by their supervisor."

There has never been a rule that penalized this action as a balk, just a terrible decision similar to the one being suggested in this thread.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by 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

When I went to umpire school (years ago) had a similar situation on the first rules quiz we were given. I missed it, because the classroom instructor had told us in earlier in class that we should, for the most part, "screw the team who screwed up". The test question had to do with "Team A has 8 defensive players on the field, and the leadoff batter for Team B hits a homerun. Then it's noticed Team A was missing a left fielder. Ruling?" I figured "screw the team who screwed up", so I counted the run. Of course the rule book said "...the defensive team must have 9 men on the field". It was one of only two test questions I missed out of 234. Probably cost me a shot at the Bigs...

JJ

[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.

[Richard_Siegel]

Daniel posted this situation, he wanted to start a dicussion,

As a discussion was created, Daniel got what he wanted,

Daniel posted a case play that is oft times called a balk,

A rules myth is what it is, the interpretation he has to learn.