The batter attempts to bunt with 2 strikes but POPS it up

[soundedlikeastrike]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

1) You said none of the literature defines foul then you quote the rule that defines it.

Reminds me of an ole song: here we go roun in circles, see the fly way up in the skyyyy.. I made that part up.

SLAS: NO, I clearly quoted the definition of a "FOUL BALL", as I stated, there is no such beast as "foul". Where I think you and I are on a disconnect is; I use the "definitions" verbatim and firmly believe everybody should.
You would say; a ball hit over foul territory is a foul ball no matter what happens to it.
I say a ball over foul territory that is touched, is a foul ball and is dead and one that is caught over foul territory is a "caught fly ball".

2) You said fair/foul can be dependent on caught or not - but you quoted the rule which makes no mention of the location of the ball.

SLAS: No I clearly said a "foul ball" AND I quoted "a catch", because it is NOT dependent on fair or foul, that's what I was trying to get across. A fly ball that is caught is never foul, or at least there is no worth in noting it either way, so why bother? Or should we refer to the scorekeepers, maybe they care? Oh wait, except; U-Trip SP SB: With one strike if the batter hits a second foul ball, the ball is dead and no runners may advance, except at the Majors Division. Nat. Interp.


Lets look at the relevant part:

A FOUL BALL is a batted ball . . . that, while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, or any object foreign to the natural ground.

SLAS: Okay.

Was the ball over foul ground - yes.
SLAS: WE are clearly in total agreement here, all right!!

Did it touch a player while there? - Yes

SLAS: UH-OH! Here we will disconnect again. NO the ball was not "touched" by a player, it was caught by a player. Hence why, in my original post I tried to clarify that, touch and catch are only used in the same sentence when; considering the legality of a runner re-tagging on a ball which is eventually caught. We must agree, there is a difference between touch and catch? Is a re-tagging runner allowed to leave on a touch or must he wait for the catch, no need to answer, I know we agree on that. If you let that sink in for just a moment, you must agree, there is a difference between the two.
If you don't re-read "a catch" and compare it to the following;
OBR: TOUCH. To touch a player or umpire is to touch any part of his body, his clothing or his equipment. Touch is not, anyway, anywho, related to, or in the same zip code as "a catch".

It's foul.

SLAS: No, it's a caught fly ball, and remains live. I didn't, nor will I go back through this thread and count for you, but all but one poster here by now, agrees; the OP is, "a caught fly ball" that remains in play and will leave the O in jeopardy, because the D may still make a play on them.

Caught/Not Caught is completely independent of fair/foul.
SLAS: Hey were agreeing a lot more.

Live/dead on a foul ball IS dependent on caught/not caught, but first you have to know 1) was it fair or foul and 2) was it caught or not.

SLAS: Dang another disconnect. Live/dead is never dependent of anything on a foul ball, a foul ball by definition and rule is always "dead". Hence why it " a foul ball" can never be caught.

A fly ball over foul territory with a defender under it is neither fair nor foul. The fact that if it were to fall or be touched while over foul territory would make it foul, it is not until, after that "something" happens. If the ball is caught over foul territory it's still in play, why, because it did not become a foul ball.