fair/foul
 

I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread on this yet. Anyway, if you ever doubted the ignorance of the public concerning baseball rules, read the comments on this article. They're approaching 2,000 by now.

Cry foul: Marlins dispute clarity of umpire Bob Davidson's vision - Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports

Some might say the thread started at 10:07...but we aren't supposed to talk about that thread.

There is ... sort of - see my thread on Kudos. We were trying to avoid this, you know. :)

ANd yes - people's ignorance is astounding (see SportsNation as well for the same kind of idiocy).

Yea I got a good chuckle out of it.

It bounced in fair territory right after the bag, what's the problem?????????????????????

Had Davidson been any closer to the play, he would have been hit!!!!

+1

You let the secret out of the bag. But I like you thinking.

I briefly scanned that kudos thread. As soon as I saw "rising fastball" I left.

Apparently there's a website where some clown explains fair versus foul, and many of the posters are relying on it for information. These are the people calling other posters fools, morons, idiots, etc., for not knowing this simple universal rule of baseball:

[from the website]

If the ball first lands on the outside of [a foul] line, away from where the fielders are positioned, the ball is foul. It does not matter if the ball is in the infield or the outfield.

One guy says the ball was fowl. Another says where it goes past third plate doesn't matter.

Yes ... the stupid on that site scares the heck out of me. My 12 year old knows this rule. I knew it when I was 12 (probably younger). How do people function with this level of stupid in them?

Rhetorical Question?
 

Easy. They become color commentators.:p

How in the world did the ball bounce back to the inside with two outside spinning bounced under its belt? Weird indeed.

I'm saying that the ball hit something to cause that bounce to the inside. No way that the ball doesn't pass over the base in doing so.

Bad luck that the ball was struck so that it would likely go foul, good luck to hit something to cause the inside bounce, bad luck to get the bad call. A lot of luck in such a game of skill.

If you think baseballs travel in a straight line, especially when they hit the ground, you have not seen many baseballs up close. This is very possible and I have seen something similar before. Not sure it is the exact same, but close. Balls spin, all the time and move just like a pitch. So it is very possible the distance the ball moved around the bag.

Peace

I saw that exact thing last year. I'm PU. Sharply hit ground ball down the 3rd Base line. I definitely see the ball bounce past third base in foul territory and as I'm raising my hands and calling foul, I see the the ball take a sharp turn to the right and sure enough it lands in fair territory. Strange bounce with a lot of spin. Never saw it before and haven't seen it since. Had to explain to the OC that I properly called it foul as soon as it passed the bag. He didn't like it though.

Phillies-Marlins Blown Call Costs Florida A Victory (VIDEO)

I've watched this video several times. At the 0:59 mark, it takes its last bounce before it gets to the bag. If you pause it right at the 0:59 mark as the ball makes its last bounce before getting to the bag, it appears to me that it is ON the foul line. It then passes the base and lands fair at the 1:03 mark.

In watching this, I'm having a hard time believing that it could have hit on the foul line at the 0:59 mark, passed the bag in foul territory, and then landed in fair territory.

Thoughts?

And, by the way, you'll have to ignore the TV guys. They go crazy at the 1:03 mark when it lands fair. They're ignoring the vital part of the play, which is what happens between the 0:59 mark and the 1:03 mark.

Nothing we do not already know if you are talking about the last bounce before the bag.

I cannot say for sure. I will never say this was a right or a wrong call. But the reality is the umpire was right there and had a much better angle than we got to see. I do know that the ball does funny things and having been in that situation you can see the play much more clear than we get with the tape that was provided. And even if you had replay, this would have been inconclusive.

Peace

I agree with you that replay would have done no good on this play. I think its even more convincing to me since Davidson was way off the line when making the call, which would make the ball seem more fair to him than foul; so obviously he saw exactly where the ball hit to make his call.

Thanks
David

The idiocy never ends on that Yahoo! thread:

This is from "Robert."

If anyone had bothered to look in the baseball rule book they'd clearly see that the ball was foul as soon as it made contact with the ground--in foul territory--prior to the 3rd base bag (I'm a former minor league and college umpire who's heard his earful over the years). Where the ball goes after that is immaterial. Watch Davidson's arms go up signaling foul just as soon as the ball touches the ground the first time. GOOD CALL!

This is a great example of how the Internet and ESPN are just awful for sports...

You make replays available for anyone to see unlimited times, allow any yahoo without a clue to say whatever they want anonymously, and it reinforces the stereotype that everyone who is not overtly for you and agrees with you is a stupid %^$#*%^*U%*%# who cheats you at the drop of a hat. Then it becomes a great big echo chamber.

Ugh. It's getting worse than politics on the Internet.

Thats what so great about this country. Stupid people are still allowed to talk and write in public. There ought to be a law banning this type of behavior.

What is great about this is, everyone else watched the video to see what the ball did, this "former minor league and college umpire" looked in the rulebook to watch it.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Ugh. It's getting worse than politics on the Internet.

It is kind of crazy that some news that actually affects the country or the world or people's lives will generate a dozen posts, and a robbery in which a clerk is shot will generate 100 suggestions as to how the robber should be tortured to death, and a fair/foul call will generate (as of this moment) 2,997 posts, many of them vitriolic, and the vast majority utterly uninformed and incorrect, though stated authoritatively.

I like the post that says, "Read the rules. The base doesn't determine fair or foul. If it did, then all those long drives that are fair until the last moment and then go foul would be called home runs!!"

Revise and Extend My Remarks
 

It may be awful, but it can be entertaining at times. You are right, it is a great country....

Hilarious, and amazing how people who post this kind of stuff always "used to be a college or minor league umpire" etc.,

Watched a HS State Tourney last week and I think i saw this guy umpiring ... no need for details I'm sure its been echoed all over the country in the last few weeks.

Thanks
David

For the ball to curve around the bag it would need to have tremendous clockwise spin (looking down at the diamond). Foul balls hit in this manner are spinning counter-clockwise (hooking). You would need some highly unusual hand action or have it be cued off the end of the bat to get clockwise spin on a ball pulled down the line such as this by a right-hand hitter. This is further reinforced by the fact that the ball bounced from fair territory into foul and rolled further foul as it made its way toward the left field corner.

I think Davidson called it as he anticipated it would go and didn't have time to stop his call in midstream when it took the funny bounce.

My only point is that baseballs do not travel in completely straight lines, even if they never hit the ground. I am saying if we think about it we have all seen baseballs take funny bounces and this is no exception. And there is no evidence that says it did or did not cross the bag other than where the ball bounced. But that is not what you decide to make the call. Did the ball cross the front part of the bag, that is all that matters.

Peace

Come on now, JR. It bounced fair just before the bag, and just after it. Honestly, what else could it be?

But Davidson had to use only the first bounce as evidence, THEN judge f/f as passed over the bag, as he was backing away from the projectile. Not easy. He didn't have the luxury of seeing the second bounce, which proved his miscue.

It would have been refreshing to see him own it after the game, but that's not how most of them roll.

Here's another teaching point for all you rookies out there: When in doubt, call it FAIR. It's far easier to unring that bell, with help from the PU after the fact. It's really hard to undo a foul call.

What kind of argument is this? How about this logic: The fielder had the ball in his possession before and after the tag -- who cares if he had it during?

He had to use a bounce as evidence? Um, no. How about: he observed the ball as it went past 3B and made his judgement at that point.

What part of a fair/foul decision on a bounding ball are you not understanding? The ONLY thing Davidson had to judge is the ball's position as it passed the bag. Nothing, -- I'll repeat: NOTHING -- else matters.

Own what? He made the call and stood by it. There is NOTHING to disprove his call. If this were the Little League World Series, the call could NOT be overturned -- there is NOTHING to prove the umpire's judgement was wrong. At this point, the ONLY thing that matters is the umpire's judgement.

Here's a better tip: If you know it's foul, call it FOUL. I don't think Davidson had any doubt with his call. If he had, he probably would have had a Kumbaya with the other umpires.

Without re-re-re-opening the can of worms about how a baseball can or cannot move in the air, I've seen monsters swinging hot bats crush softballs that "do the impossible." How about a ball lined over the pitcher's head that ends up leaving the park in right-center? Or a line smash over F5's head that then suddenly drops practically straight down and hits the infield dirt?

I agree that Davidson should not have relied on—or even looked at—the bounce after the bag. He seemed quite confident of his call afterward, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. At worst, it was a missed close call, and unless MLB had cameras everywhere, a replay would likely not have reversed it.

Here's another teaching point: Ignore this one and stop thinking that you can push your calls onto someone else. Do the best you can, make the best call you can, and then when the coach comes out and goes call shopping, tell him it's your call to make, you made it, and that's the end of it.

Bullcrap, call what you think you see and live up to it like Davidson did. I am all for getting it right but, this is one where you have step up to the plate and do your job PERIOD

Exactly. And if you're lucky enough to have an umpire at third in your games, why should the plate guy (who's over 90 feet away and coming out of a plate stance) be thrown under the bus by a U3 who's afraid to make a call exactly as he sees it.

If my U3 called it fair and then came down to me at the plate, the first question I'd ask him is why he's even on the field. May as well work 2-man if I have to make that call.

You guys are missing my point. Davidson, on the field, made a tough call. All he had to rely on was a bounce before the bag, and the ball coming at him. I've got no problem with him defending his call on the field.

Video showed it bouncing fair before and after the bag. He saw that, and still defend his call after the game. That's where he should have owned it.

As for calling balls fair, if you have a doubt, or get screened on it, that's what you do. That's second semester stuff.

Lesson in timing. He threw his hands up foul before the ball landed beyond the bag. I can see defending the call during the game, because it is his to make, but he could have owned up after seeing replay.

I think some of you are missing the point if you think he should admit he was wrong. For one there is not a single bit of conclusive evidence. His explanation was spot on. The ball touching the ground has no bearing on the call. The video in no way shows he was wrong. It just shows two places the ball landed. He made a call where his judgment told him the ball was going outside of the bag. The video only allows people who do not understand the rule to make an issue out of it and umpires that have never seen a ball curve in their life.

Peace

What does waiting until the ball lands past the bag have to do with where the ball was when it passed the bag?

I believe a ball that lands fair before the bag and fair after the bag is fair ball.

I believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. What does what you wrote have to do with the rule?

Now, do I think he could've hesitated and used that piece to help him with the call? Sure. Does he have to? No. Is there any conclusive evidence the call is right or wrong? No, not conclusive.

1) You cannot tell 100% from the angle on the video that the ball was on the ground in fair territory in advance of the bag.

2) Where it land has absolutely no bearing whether or not the ball is fair.

In this case, all the replay does is show that the call was probably wrong. It does not show that the call was definitively wrong. It is certainly not enough evidence to overturn anything.
The comments made by some broadcasters and some postings on other sites definitively prove that a lack of knowledge concerning the rules of baseball exists outside the umpiring community.

An MLB umpire would disagree with you.

Link: SI.com - Writers - My Trip to The Show (Part II) (cont.) - Wednesday March 28, 2007 12:45PM

+1

Peace

You make the call on the ball as it passes the bag. You don't take into account where it bounces next. Bob had the right timing, and went with his best guess. He guessed wrong, it's that simple.

I don't blame him for bailing out on that shin burner. On balls like this, that thing is rotating toward you. Just look where it went down the line. That's a hard, hard call to make. See that bounce before the bag? It's really close to the line. Normally, that thing is spinning foul, and probably is foul at the base. But that's not what happened. Heck, it was several inches fair near the outfield grass bounce. That made no sense, but there it was. No doubt it passed over the bag.

As far as calling it fair if you have a doubt, are blocked out or have a crappy angle, I learned that from a guy years ago. It made sense. And although I may only employ it every couple years or so, it's still sound logic. Give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who hit the ball, and if you can sort it out with a second set of eyes later, so be it.

You have the main premise wrong. Davidson didnt guess. He saw the ball foul and called it foul. No matter how many times you want to make your "guess" the correct call it aint changing it. From the video, I honestly think he got it right, and he had the best angle and didnt hesitate or show any doubt as to what he had. No matter how much you want to be right, I dont think you are changing anyones mind on this. Had there been any hesitation or signs of doubt you might have some credibility, but there is not and you dont.........

There was NO doubt on Davidson part and I can't prove that it was any more foul than you can prove it was fair at the point of decision. You keep implying that Davidson should have take into consideration where the ball landed after it passed the bag. Too late, at that point his decision was made as it should have been. Might he call it differently the next time? Who knows, but right or wrong, he made the right call.

I still disagree with the doubt call. You make the call as you see it. If you don't see it, you dont have a call and look for player reactions or other signs to help you. If after the play has completed there are questions, you resolve it. Indirectly it may be the same but thats how I have always treated it.

Sorry, I may be not up with the rest of the world but I have no idea who Fieldin Culbreth is.

And what if the other 67 disagree with him?

An anecdotal remark from 3 years ago proves *nothing*.

I can agree with that. You do the best you can and go on. Simply having TV at the ballpark only shows the difficult jobs that umpires have at all levels whether it is MLB or a HS game.

He was close to the call, he saw where the ball hit and he made his call. That's all he can do.

Thanks
David

I don't mean guessing in a bad way. It's an educated guess, based on year of experience. There's no way to know if the ball did or didn't go over the bag from where he was standing. He's backing away, sees the ball coming toward him, years of experience tells him it's going to continue to curl foul, and he makes the call. But yeah, it's a guess.

But from the video I've been watching, it bounced fair both before and after the bag. Simple geometry will tell you it passed over the bag, right? But given the same circumstance, I would have probably called it foul too.

Bob Davidson is the same guy who took back Big Mac's 66th home run because he thought a fan reached over the fence, when the fans were three feet behind the fence restrained by a railing. So, he occasionally calls what he thinks he sees. The foul call was gutsy, irrespective of whether it was right, just like the home run call.

This topic is primarily about this call, but it is really about the average baseball observer's ignorance to the rules. It's a good thing that we have guys like Bob Davidson willing to make highly improbable calls like this so that more people can learn the rules. So if the ball had really snaked like that, and it was actually correct, then a lot of people now know that can happen and how it is ruled.

Very helpful, Bob.

I have played third base and I have umpired at third base and I have ample personal evidence that batted balls don't obey the laws of geometry.

P.S. And I have to tell you, an umpiring buddy of mine just beat me again at a post-game pool match by making the cue ball curve around my ball before it tapped the 8-ball into the corner pocket.

So I actually believe that the way the ball behaved on Bob Davidson's curious call is indeed possible.

Trust me, his angle and clarity of the play is much better than the angle and the grainy picture that has been replayed time and again.

Watch the path of the ball after each bounce.

The ball, when it hits after the bag is a couple of inches inside the line in fair territory. The next bounce is a direct hit on the line in the outfield grass.

How'd that happen ? (hint....arcs are a part of geometry)

Kyle said he was employing simple geometry.

Davidson butchered the call. It doesn't matter how good of an angle or clarity of the play he had.

Hmmmm....

What has been interesting to me about this thread is that it has clearly demonstrated that some people understand neither how to properly adjudicate the rules of baseball regarding fair/foul nor the limitations of video replay, some understand one of those things but not the other, and some understand both.

JM

Okay, now let's move this thread foward by identifying who belongs to each group. :D

MrUmpire,

Res Ipsa Loquitur. :rolleyes:

JM

Only to those in the third category.:D