batter accidentally kicks foul ball

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I guess at the end of the day I am just wondering why you do not trust your own judgment and call it how you see it.

... because I'm wondering if there is some interpretation that trumps one's opinion of intent.

If you're not aware of such an interpretation that gives the umpire guidance in this area - then just say so - and the discussion would be over.

If your answer is: "I just call it the way I see it." Fine.

The reason they have interpretations (and they do exist) is to provide guidance and consistency to rulings that are not always obvious.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

... because I'm wondering if there is some interpretation that trumps one's opinion of intent.

If you're not aware of such an interpretation that gives the umpire guidance in this area - then just say so - and the discussion would be over.

People have told you what the rule was and did not give you one. You would think that alone would make you see the light bulb above your head.

Originally Posted by David Emerling

If your answer is: "I just call it the way I see it." Fine.

The reason they have interpretations (and they do exist) is to provide guidance and consistency to rulings that are not always obvious.

My answer is, the rule was shown to you in black and white. Since we are telling each other what we should have done, you should have said, "OK" back on the second response and let it die. Hardly anyone would have said anything to you at that point.

Peace

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

My answer is, the rule was shown to you in black and white.

If it's all in black-and-white, then I wonder why a mountain of interpretations and official rulings exist.

I'll mail you an English-Portuguese dictionary. I'll expect you to be able to speak Portuguese fluently. After all, it's all in black-and-white.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

If it's all in black-and-white, then I wonder why a mountain of interpretations and official rulings exist.

I'll mail you an English-Portuguese dictionary. I'll expect you to be able to speak Portuguese fluently. After all, it's all in black-and-white.

This particular rule is very clear. I did not say all rules and all wording was perfect or did not need further interpretation or further explanation. But there is nothing about this rule is confusing unless you do not understand what intentional and accidental means. If you were asking about another rule and another situation, then OK. But you asked about one of the most clear and concise rules and seem to have trouble with the wording and asking for something that does not need much interpretation or casebook understanding.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Hmmm... wondering if that'll work... I doubt it, but I'll try... here goes:

Originally Posted by David Emerling

If you're not aware of such an interpretation that gives the umpire guidance in this area - then just say so - and the discussion would be over.

I'm not aware of such an interpretation that gives the umpire guidance in this area.

[Dave Reed]

jchamp,
From the LL 2008 RIM:
6.05 -- A batter is out when -
(h) after hitting or bunting a foul ball, that runner intentionally deflects the course of the ball in any manner while running to first base. The ball is dead and no runners may advance;
INSTRUCTOR COMMENTS:
⇒ Notice that intent only applies to a batted ball in foul territory. If the batter unintentionally deflects a foul ball, he/she is not out, but the ball is dead (foul ball).


Presumably you judged that the contact was not intentional. Clearly it is a foul ball.