Fair or Foul??
 

A batted ball hits behind home plate (umpires ruling) and without being touched comes to rest in fair territory. Plate umpire rules foul ball because the ball initially hit behind home plate. I don't think this is correct but I can't find an exact ruling. My thought is that any other batted ball that initially lands in foul territory and comes back to fair terriority where is comes to rest, is touched or passes 1st or 3rd base in fair territory is a fair ball. Ruling?

How is hitting "behind home plate" any different from hitting anywhere else in foul territory?

It's a fair ball, and the umpire was wrong, as presented.

Easy, Bob. Everyone gets confused when home plate is involved. It's as if home plate is an alien creature that no one knows how to deal with. We've all heard the rat screaming "How can it be a fair ball, it hit the plate!"

To our poster, pruett3

Go to your rulebook and read what makes a fair ball foul and what happens to make a foul ball fair. Forget that home plate is involved as the plate is the culmination of the 2 foul lines which puts that little 17" object smack dab in fair territory!

Sounds good guys. Thanks for the clarification.

By rule and what you described, everything posted here is right, obviously.

However, I'm having trouble seeing this in my head. Consider where a ball is struck by a bat. If it went from that point, down and back enough to hit BEHIND the plate... what caused it to bound fair unless it hit something (catcher's mitt or foot ... or batter's back foot, etc.). And if it hit something, it's foul. Maybe umpire just did a P-poor job explaining what he saw.

A lot of top spin perhaps. A small batter deep in the box will hit the ball near the rear of the plate.

I'd be interested to know how the PU SAW THE BALL HIT BEHIND THE PLATE? Awfully good eyes, I guess!;)

Well,
 

After a consideable bevy of games I find the following:

1) Balls 'often' are hit late in the process and many, many times I have had those balls spin forward into fair territory (with out touching the catcher or umpire),

2) An umpire does not actually 'see' the ball hit behind the plate -- after decades of working you know where the ball went and the 'deadness' (compared to a ball striking the plate) of the return to field makes it clear where the ball originally stuck.

T

I thought the same thing. It can be difficult for a PU to see a foul ball off a players foot which would definitely be in front of where this ball hit the ground. I think he was "create" an explanation to defend his over zealous call.

And yes, the player was definitely in the back of the box. I have no idea where the ball initially touched (behind or on the plate) but I know it didn't touch the catcher. As has been stated, he got it wrong.