Is it Fair of foul
 

Please excuse me if this has been discussed in the past.

Men's slow pitch, ASA rules, with double first base. Batter hit a ground ball in fair territory but is heading foul, then hits the orange base in foul territory and lands in fair territory. Is it fair or foul?

Did it land in fair territory as a richochet past the base or backward before the base? IOW, was the fair territory past the base or not?

I do not know why but the title of this thread reminded me of the The Clash's hit: "Should I Stay, or Should I Go?"

MTD, Sr.

Have to go back to definition of foul ball and fair ball. An exact description is needed to make an accurate ruling. Since you are saying a ground ball I assume it is a bounding ball. So it bounces in fair in front of 1B then hits the orange bag then comes back into fair territory past 1B. It would appear by FOUL BALL point C, once it touched the orange base (which is an object foreign to the natural ground)it is a foul ball.

FOUL BALL: A batted ball that:
C. While over foul territory, touches the person, attached or detached equipment or clothing of a player or an umpire, or any object foreign to the natural ground.

Dave gets a cookie for the correct answer

In any ASA game, the definitions do not change just because it is a double base.

If the batted ball crosses over any part of the white portion of the base it is a fair ball regardless of where it lands (1.Fair Ball.B)

If baseball it's foul because it hit an object foreign to the natural ground while in foul territory. There is a post above that says the same in softball.

I would agree with this. If it passed over the white portion of the base to get to the orange portion of the base, it is a fair ball. With that said, you better be very sure if you are calling this a fair ball, because the angle you have to make the call isn't very good and you know if you call it fair, there is likely to be a big brown storm following. The defense may make the play at first and then the offense will be moaning. The defense doesn't make the play and they are moaning. Sadly, the person with the best view on this play is likely the first base coach, who also likely will be the most vocal.

Then the baseball folks are pretty stupid. How can you call a ball foul AFTER it has already met the qualifications of a fair ball?

In your statement, a bounding ball which hits fair behind 1B must be declared foul if it subsequently hits a stray hot dog wrapper of anything else.

Haven't umpires had to make this call for decades before the double base was introduced? Simply because you place an colored base next to the original base shouldn't have any affect on the call.

And as an umpire, you shouldn't care less who is moaning about a legitimate call

YYYEEAAAAAHHHHYYYY ! :cool:

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.

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

OP: "Batter hit a ground ball in fair territory but is heading foul, then hits the orange base in foul territory . . "

Where did it meet the qualifications for a fair ball? It went up the line and hit the colored part of the base. Foreign object in foul territory. What do you think made it fair? Foul all day.

You obviously didn't read my response. No, the OP did not state the ball went up the line, but that it was in fair territory. The fact that it touched the orange base has no more bearing than the location of the fielder's feet when touching a ball in flight. The location and path of the ball, OTOH, have everything to do with the appropriate call

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

"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

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.

It hit a foreign object in foul territory before passing the base. It's foul.

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.

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.

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.

This is the question I was trying to ask when Irish called me out for sounding like Coach BS. :D 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:
http://i.imgur.com/7JEQT0m.jpg

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?

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.

OK, so the controversy continues:

1. Youngump says "The rules have a contradiction but just ignore it."

Who gets to make the decision to ignore a rule? How does that go over when you say to a coach we ignore that rule, but we enforce this other rule.

2. teebob21 says "Fair ball all day long if the orange bag is not in use, right? "

I think most of the respondents are saying it is fair ball even if the contrasting base IS in use.

There does seem to be a contradiction in the rules

What does colored bag in use or not in use mean? It is either there or it is not there.
Hitting the spot on the bag or on bare ground if not there are only different by the "foreign object" definition. :confused:

Where does the OP state it hit the orange before crossing over the white portion of the base? It doesn't.

My response was situational because the OP lacked specifics.

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

I would assume "in use" means that there is a batter-runner at that point of the play. Otherwise, it is just one big base.

Yeppers.

In a contrary instance, a few years ago in an MLB game, U3 called a bounding batted ball which landed fair behind the base a foul ball. He insisted the ball passed the base over foul territory.

Wish I could find a video of it. As expected, the offense went crazy but the call stood.

Maybe meant, but don't see effect on fair/foul. Almost wake up time in AZ. ;)

Except to determine fair/foul???

No B/R; is it there or not? NCAA game: It's not in use. ASA JO game: Double base likely to be in use.

This is not your example but it's a good one. http://m.mlb.com/video/v22734353/mus...-run-for-twins

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.

Is fair/foul not a determination made which affects a batter-runner?

Thanks for clarification

Yes, but the presence of the BR does not affect the determination.

He later clarified that he meant safety base in place or not ("NCAA game: It's not in use. ASA JO game: Double base likely to be in use."),
also no effect if ball strikes the same exact coordinates.