Fed Case Book contradiction?
 

Do any of you see a contradiction between 2.5.1 SITUATION E (c) and 2.16.1 SITUATION D ?

If the "either" and "/or" in 2.5.1 E is gone I can rationalize it, but it seems these two as written contradict each other.

~Sigh~
 

One would think that becasue the majority of us work for a living and don't carry our books everywhere that a poster would understand the need to reproduce the two "conflicting" rulings.

I don't memorize things, mate.

T

I don't have my books handy either, but I think this is two plays where the batter bunts the ball and the ball hits the stationary (?) bat in fair territory. The ball then rolls foul. One has it as a fair ball; one has it as a foul ball.

EDITED TO CORRECT IT. I read the case book wrong the first time.

2009 case book

2.5.1.E.c

The batter hits the ball, drops the bat and it unintentionally hits the ball a second time in c) fair territory and is either touched by a fielder and/or comes to rest in foul territory. RULING c) the ball is fair

2.16.1 Situation D
B1's bunt rolls up the first base line where it hits B1's bat that was lying on the ground in fair territory. The ball deflects into foul territory. Is the ball fair or foul? RULING: The ball is foul provided the bat was not placed ther intentionally.



Don't any of you belong to NFHS so you can see the rules on line?

Rich,

My (hardcopy) 2009 casebook says in 2.5.1E(c) the ball is fair.

Which contradicts the ruling of foul in 2.16.1D.

JM

Rich
 

I am even on a publications committee for NFHS and am not registered nor would I ever be.

TC

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, and; b) with respect to the ball contacting a stationary bat, the point of contact is irrelevant - fair/foul is determined by other factors, i.e., the location of the ball when it comes to rest or is touched by a fielder.

The real daunting part is contained in 2.5.1.E: "The batter hits the ball, drops the bat and it unintentionally hits the ball a second time..."

Just how are we supposed to determine the intent of a bat?

And, so does the 2010 case book.

I read it wrong - my bad.

Didn't this point require a smilie? ;)

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).

Not for you! And thanks for acknowledging my stab at humor.

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?

T,

It is not that hard to get on NFHS.org and reigster. They even allow people like me to register and get content on that site. Obviously you can do it too.