Is it Fair of foul

[AtlUmpSteve]

Let's start cleanly.

The orange bag is in foul territory; and it isn't the natural ground. BUT,

A bounding ball that starts fair CAN cross the fair white base and still touch the orange base; if it crosses the fair white base, it is a fair ball, NO MATTER WHERE IT LANDS, RIGHT?? See fair ball definition (B).

Judgment call. Touching the orange bag (which is in foul territory, and is foreign to the natural ground, but both points are possibly immaterial) does not preclude it from also being a fair ball.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Let's start cleanly.

The orange bag is in foul territory; and it isn't the natural ground. BUT,

A bounding ball that starts fair CAN cross the fair white base and still touch the orange base; if it crosses the fair white base, it is a fair ball, NO MATTER WHERE IT LANDS, RIGHT?? See fair ball definition (B).

Judgment call. Touching the orange bag (which is in foul territory, and is foreign to the natural ground, but both points are possibly immaterial) does not preclude it from also being a fair ball.

Does the ball have to pass ALL the white base or any part of it?

To get scientific about it...a ball bouncing FROM fair territory that does NOT hit the front of the orange base (which would be foul), but DOES bounce on the top of the orange, and has passed over some of the white. Is this fair?

I say it is.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Does the ball have to pass ALL the white base or any part of it?

To get scientific about it...a ball bouncing FROM fair territory that does NOT hit the front of the orange base (which would be foul), but DOES bounce on the top of the orange, and has passed over some of the white. Is this fair?

I say it is.

What do you mean by "pass ALL the white base". Both front edge and rear edge? No.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Does the ball have to pass ALL the white base or any part of it?

No, and you are starting to sound like a coach trying to bullshit an umpire

To get scientific about it...a ball bouncing FROM fair territory that does NOT hit the front of the orange base (which would be foul), but DOES bounce on the top of the orange, and has passed over some of the white. Is this fair?

I say it is.

"Bounds over" is how the rule reads in the definition of a "fair ball". It does not demand a specific % of the base or the ball, just whether the ball goes over the base. Should be handled the same as a pitch passing over any part of the plate

[Umpire@1]

I sent the umpire that asked me this question to Rule 8, section 2, N 2 on page 95 of the 2016 ASA rule book.
It specifically states, that A batted ball hitting or bounding over the contrasting color portion is foul.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Umpire@1

I sent the umpire that asked me this question to Rule 8, section 2, N 2 on page 95 of the 2016 ASA rule book.
It specifically states, that A batted ball hitting or bounding over the contrasting color portion is foul.

We go over this every once in a while here. The rule is just wrong there. A ball which bounds over the color portion also bounding over the white partion is fair. The rules have a contradiction but just ignore it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

We go over this every once in a while here. The rule is just wrong there. A ball which bounds over the color portion also bounding over the white partion is fair. The rules have a contradiction but just ignore it.

IMO, the rule is accurate when applied in order of its presentation. The first determines the ball as fair. Once a ball is fair, I do not believe there is any circumstance when that same batted ball can properly/legally be declared foul.

82N1 addresses the ball passing over or contacting the white portion.

82N2 addresses the ball passing over or contacting only the contrasting color portion.

However, I agree the rules in 8.2.N could be worded better simply by adding the word "only" to 82N2

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Does the ball have to pass ALL the white base or any part of it?

To get scientific about it...a ball bouncing FROM fair territory that does NOT hit the front of the orange base (which would be foul), but DOES bounce on the top of the orange, and has passed over some of the white. Is this fair?

I say it is.

Yep. Any part of the bounding ball over any part of the white base is fair; just like any part of the pitched ball over any part of the plate (at the correct height) is a strike.

[josephrt1]

In the rare situation where it bounced in such a way that it pretty much took a 90 degree angle and went over some of the white base before touching the orange base, I would call this fair because of the definition of Fair Ball, line B "Bounds over or past first or third base, which is in fair territory, regardless of where the ball hits after going over the base."

That is what most of you are saying and that's they way i was taught and interpret the book and definition of Fair Ball and how i would call it.

But Rich Ives makes a point that in 8.7.N.2 it plainly states "A batted ball hitting or bounding over the contrasting color portion is foul." That line is the source of the controversy. Although if the ball went over the white base it should be called fair; that line in 8.7.N.2. does not allow for that situation. it simply says the ball is foul when it touches the contrasting color base.

I would still call it fair.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by josephrt1

In the rare situation where it bounced in such a way that it pretty much took a 90 degree angle and went over some of the white base before touching the orange base, I would call this fair because of the definition of Fair Ball, line B "Bounds over or past first or third base, which is in fair territory, regardless of where the ball hits after going over the base."

That is what most of you are saying and that's they way i was taught and interpret the book and definition of Fair Ball and how i would call it.

But Rich Ives makes a point that in 8.7.N.2 it plainly states "A batted ball hitting or bounding over the contrasting color portion is foul." That line is the source of the controversy. Although if the ball went over the white base it should be called fair; that line in 8.7.N.2. does not allow for that situation. it simply says the ball is foul when it touches the contrasting color base.

I would still call it fair.

This is the question I was trying to ask when Irish called me out for sounding like Coach BS. Thanks for spelling it out more clearly than I could. Rule 1 (Fair Ball) is not at all consistent with 8.7.N.2. Example:


Fair ball all day long if the orange bag is not in use, right? Does 8.7.N.2 have precedence over Rule 1?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by teebob21

This is the question I was trying to ask when Irish called me out for sounding like Coach BS. Thanks for spelling it out more clearly than I could. Rule 1 (Fair Ball) is not at all consistent with 8.7.N.2. Example:


Fair ball all day long if the orange bag is not in use, right? Does 8.7.N.2 have precedence over Rule 1?

I can't say I've ever seen a ball take a path like that. Have you?

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

I can't say I've ever seen a ball take a path like that. Have you?

Not this exact situation, but similar. Nubbers off the end of the bat with tons of side spin can do funny things when they bounce.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

I can't say I've ever seen a ball take a path like that. Have you?

Yes, but so what if I hadn't, the definition of foul ball doesn't change just because the umpire has never seen a ball bound over 1st or 3rd base before.