Fed Case Book contradiction?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by cookie

Dash wrote: "It all makes sense if: a) with respect to a dropped (moving) bat contacting the ball (2.5.1.E), the point of contact determines fair/foul status.."

So from 2.5.1 (E), am I hearing that if the (unintentionally) moving bat contacts the ball in fair territory, then rolls untouched into foul territory and touches a fielder or just plain comes to rest in foul territory, it's a fair ball?

I always thought the "point of contact" in this situation determines first whether the ball is still live or dead, then comes fair/foul. For example, (1) moving bat contacts the ball in fair territory - the ball is still live (not necessarily fair, that's yet to be determined by a fielder or the foul line); moving bat contacts the ball in foul territory, the ball is dead right away (foul ball), regardless of who afterwards touches it or where it then rolls!

I've heard some try an explanattion similar to Dash's to try to reconcile the two cases. I don't buy it.

I agree with you in how it should be called, and think that the case which says otherwise is wrong (either a wrong ruling or it's missing some information).

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I've heard some try an explanattion similar to Dash's to try to reconcile the two cases. I don't buy it.

I agree with you in how it should be called, and think that the case which says otherwise is wrong (either a wrong ruling or it's missing some information).

I don't really buy it either - just trying to make sense of it, and maybe that's a futile effort. But until FED says it's wrong or supplies missing information (and they have had years to do that), what am I to do if this exact situation arises in one of my games?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I've heard some try an explanattion similar to Dash's to try to reconcile the two cases. I don't buy it.

I agree with you in how it should be called, and think that the case which says otherwise is wrong (either a wrong ruling or it's missing some information).

Another way to look at it:

It is clear that a bat lying stationary on the ground is considered part of the playing field - i.e., it is irrelevant to fair/foul status (unless the bat is somehow beyond 1st or 3rd base). It is also clear that a bat in the hands of the batter is not part of the playing field.

So the question is: When the bat is dropped (leaves the batter's hands), when does it become part of the playing field? If the answer is "when it stops moving," then the explanation I presented in post #7 is correct.

Unless I missed something.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Another way to look at it:

It is clear that a bat lying stationary on the ground is considered part of the playing field - i.e., it is irrelevant to fair/foul status (unless the bat is somehow beyond 1st or 3rd base). It is also clear that a bat in the hands of the batter is not part of the playing field.

So the question is: When the bat is dropped (leaves the batter's hands), when does it become part of the playing field? If the answer is "when it stops moving," then the explanation I presented in post #7 is correct.

Unless I missed something.

I like it.