FED - Three-Foot Running Lane

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Settling "on or over" fair territory is only in the NCAA rules. Both OBR and FED require the ball to settle ON fair territory to be fair.

NCAA: 2.27
OBR: 2.00 FAIR BALL
FED: 2-5-1-a

I never realized this before looking it up just now. I have not heard of interpretations to the contrary.

OBR says "on or over" for balls bounding past 1st/3rd and for when first touched - for BOTH fair an foul. It just says "on" for a settled ball - for BOTH fair and foul.

Based on the concept that if any part of the ball touches 1st ot 3rd or a foul pole it is a fair ball, then the "on or over" must logicaly apply to a settled ball being fair if on OR OVER.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

OBR says "on or over" for balls bounding past 1st/3rd and for when first touched - for BOTH fair an foul. It just says "on" for a settled ball - for BOTH fair and foul.

Based on the concept that if any part of the ball touches 1st ot 3rd or a foul pole it is a fair ball, then the "on or over" must logicaly apply to a settled ball being fair if on OR OVER.

Based on the rule, "on or over" does not logically apply to a settled ball. I imagine that's why it is included it in the BRD.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Based on the rule, "on or over" does not logically apply to a settled ball. I imagine that's why it is included it in the BRD.

I seem to recall Evans teaching "on or over" for a settled ball. He made a point of it, in fact.

Still, it was a few years ago, and my memory isn't what it once was...

[dash_riprock]

I seem to remember that too. He had half the class 15 feet fair and the other half 15 feet foul and had everyone call it at once.

[TussAgee11]

Yes, on or over is the OBR interp for settled balls. If you stand from the pitcher's mound, you may see a bit of dirt, but it could still be a fair ball.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Based on the rule, "on or over" does not logically apply to a settled ball. I imagine that's why it is included it in the BRD.

Of course the logic applies

Imagine this.

A ball is settled 1/16" short of 1B (not touching it) but only 1/4" of the ball is over fair territory and none of it is touching fair territory. Is it fair or foul?

If you move it the 1/16" so it IS touching 1B then it is a fair ball by rule, even though only 1/4" of it is over fair teritory.

Therefore it makes sense to call it fair for the settled but not touching ball.

Imagine this:

A batted ball is leaving the playing field, Only 1/32" of it is over fair territory, but that causes it to hit the foul pole. It's a fair ball because it hit the pole even though only a small portion of it was fair. Apply the same thought to a settled ball.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Of course the logic applies

Imagine this.

A ball is settled 1/16" short of 1B (not touching it) but only 1/4" of the ball is over fair territory and none of it is touching fair territory. Is it fair or foul?

If you move it the 1/16" so it IS touching 1B then it is a fair ball by rule, even though only 1/4" of it is over fair teritory.

Therefore it makes sense to call it fair for the settled but not touching ball.

Imagine this:

A batted ball is leaving the playing field, Only 1/32" of it is over fair territory, but that causes it to hit the foul pole. It's a fair ball because it hit the pole even though only a small portion of it was fair. Apply the same thought to a settled ball.

That makes sense (finally).