|
Mon Feb 27, 2006, 03:04pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
David Emerling Memphis, TN 
|
|
Mon Feb 27, 2006, 03:22pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
All these preposterous plays in which a run scores on a pop that would have been foul except for interference or in which a batter deliberately interferes with a fielder and thus wins the game could not happen if ASA had made a sensible rule.
It seems like a perfect case for 10-1-L, except that the test specifically says score the run. Incidentally, what would Fed softball rule on Question #39? It is interesting to me that even if the play in Question #39 had started with 1 out, the run would still count. When BR was called out for interference, the force was removed on R2. So the third out is a time play and the run would score. ASA does not recognize "flagrant misconduct," except as USC, but even if the umpire invokes USC, the result is the same.
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide!
|
|
Mon Feb 27, 2006, 04:12pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Tom
|
|
Mon Feb 27, 2006, 04:52pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm sure Mike R has checked out from this discussion long ago, but I'm interested in his comments on the following.
I was intentionally stretching the scenario to illustrate a point. And please stick with me here... I'm not trying to be a troll that refuses to listen to reason or read my rulebook! (If I was, I'd go post on the baseball board!) Now, take my scenario, and have the ball in the air over foul ground, but F3 camped under it is now in the running lane... and also change it so that BR's interference is not malicious or flagrant... (which is, as Dakota mentions, the only rule that supports disallowing the run ... ps - thanks Dakota for being the fish on that bait, I needed someone to say that!  )So... a ball that WOULD HAVE BEEN foul (however you wish to describe it) had it been either caught or allowed to land can score a run if and only if interference is ruled on the batter and the runner has crossed the plate before interference occurred. Therefore ... if there's no interference and the ball is caught, R1 is a dead duck and doesn't score. If there's no interference and the ball lands and stays foul, R1 goes back to third. ... But if the OFFENSE commits an illegal act as described above, the OFFENSE benefits. (Note that this is why my early questions about "Was the ball caught before the INT" and "Was the ball fair or foul" were important... at least to me.) This is so wrong. (PS - The initial question implies, but doesn't confirm, a catch. A ball being bobbled can also be "knocked loose" as posted in the initial question) PPS - So sorry it took so long for me to get to my point!
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
|
|
Mon Feb 27, 2006, 04:53pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
There is an ASA case play (10-1 or 10-2, if memory serves ... I don't have my case book with me today) that disallowed a run that had scored on a home run ball due to flagrant misconduct on the part of the batter-runner... but, I'm relying on memory also for the exact nature of the play.
See my earlier post, on page 3. As I remember, at the time this test question appeared (I didn't know it was in the case book, too), it was because it was new in ASA to have a batter or runner called out purely for USC. We then considered various derivations, such as what if the ball goes over the fence, the BR touches 1B after the runner scores, but then the BR slugs F3? The answer was run scores, BR out and ejected. Same thing at home plate: with the ball rolling around in the outfield, the runner deliberately gouges F2's eye before crossing the plate. Out for USC, ejected, no run. But if he crosses the plate and then commits the USC, the run scores. Some posters felt that if a runner could be out for no other reason than USC, a runner might also be called safe for no other reason that USC on the part of a fielder. However, barring OBS, that case doesn't apply.
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide!
|
|
Mon Feb 27, 2006, 05:13pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The other is the "fairness" of the ASA ruling in the various expanded scenarios. You have a point. But, the rulebook at this point is what it is on this play. Quote:
__________________
Tom
|
|
Mon Feb 27, 2006, 05:50pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let's pick this nit then.
If it was caught, over foul territory, it WOULD be foul. By definition, a ball that is first touched over foul territory is a foul ball. It is not, however, a DEAD ball, obviously. We would not holler "FOUL BALL!" (implying to the players that the ball is dead) on a caught foul fly, but that doesn't make it not foul. I agree that a ball in flight has no foul-fair designation (until it leaves the park), but once it's touched, it is either fair or foul by definition. I'll have to dig, but one of the caseplays mentions (or mentionED) a caught foul fly ball.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
|
|
Mon Feb 27, 2006, 06:50pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Now, baseball has some special interpretations regarding fielders who are interfered with while attempting to field a ball over foul territory. I don't know (or, am not aware) of any special interpretations in any code of softball in this regard ... not that one may not exist. But if one *did* exist, some of the shock expressed regarding the seemingly unfairness of the play in this thread would not exist. The problem with any set of rules is that it is nearly impossible to construct them in such a way that a flaw doesn't emerge that requires the rule to be modified, or, an official interpretation has to be made to cover an unanticipated occurrence. It seems the baseball community and the softball community simply have different approaches to these "unanticipated occurrences." Baseball just rectifies it by adding to their already lengthy list of "unwritten rules" that are codified in places other than the official rulebook. Yet, these are dubbed "official interpretations" and are as enforceable as the rules that appear in the official rulebook. Softball tends to simply allow the chips to fall where they may. The rules are what they are. If a circumstance comes up that a specific rule covers, but not in a very logical way ... too bad. The rule is the rule. Baseball approach, "Damn! We have to fix that!" Softball approach, "The rules are the rules. Oh well." I find both approaches perfectly acceptable. The baseball approach requires the umpire to keep up with the latest developments and to have access to manuals far beyond what's available in the rulebook. That's a pain in the as$. Yet, there are very few situations that can be contrived in baseball that result in a consensus of unfairness in the ruling. Baseball is very quick to rid themselves of unfair situations, even if they have to create a book of official interpretations that is thicker than the original rulebook. The softball approach simply requires the umpire to firmly understand the rules as they are written - warts and all. The umpire can rule by the letter of the law, and if the participants don't like it, they can take it up with the sanctioning body. The umpire is just the messenger. Don't shoot the messenger! I can live with that. Although, the softball approach would tend to put the umpire in more uncomfortable situations. The play in this thread being such an example. David Emerling Memphis, TN [Edited by David Emerling on Feb 27th, 2006 at 06:54 PM]
|
|
Mon Feb 27, 2006, 10:13pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Picking away at those nits...
When in doubt, RTFM. Or, better yet, read the rule book. Please read- or re-read- the definition of a foul ball under rule #1 in the ASA rule book. The definition DOES NOT read, "First hits the ground or is touched over foul territory...". It reads, "First hits the ground or is touched (NOT CAUGHT) over foul territory...". A fly ball that IS CAUGHT over foul territory is not a foul ball- by definition.
|
|
Tue Feb 28, 2006, 10:22am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Funny - I read the same statement and get opposite meaning. There is a difference between a touch and a catch, obviously. You can have a touch, without a catch. But you cannot have a catch without a touch. Rules regarding when a baserunner is released from a bag refer to first touch... but this doesn't mean that a ball caught without a bobble was never touched. A catch INCLUDES a touch. It BEGINS with a touch.
The statement you've quoted includes the words "(not caught)" in order to tell us that what matters regarding foul/fair is when the ball is TOUCHED, not when it is CAUGHT. It does NOT mean that the ball is not foul if it was caught. It was foul when it was first touched. If the rule meant to say what you think it says, it would not say "(not caught)", it would say "(uncaught)". The only reason for the "(not caught)" part is so the rules are clear in a case where a player first TOUCHES the ball in foul (or fair) ground, but completes the catch in fair (or foul) ground - what matters regarding fair/foul is where it was when TOUCHED, not CAUGHT.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
|
|
Tue Feb 28, 2006, 10:43am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
This is probably why, when an umpire goes out on a fly ball that is going to be very close to the line, once caught, the umpire FIRST signals whether the ball was on the FAIR or FOUL side of the line and THEN signals "a catch." This is done to get the umpire locked into making a determination of the fair/foul status of the ball because, if it's ultimately NOT CAUGHT, that determination will be critical. If he focuses too intently on the catch/no-catch status of the ball (which is usually an easier call than the fair/foul call), he will find himself in a mess should the ball NOT be caught. In other words, if the ball is ultimately caught, whether it was on the fair or foul side of the line is rendered moot. But if the ball is dropped, that becomes the most critical element of the call. Interesting. David Emerling Memphis, TN
|
|
Tue Feb 28, 2006, 12:12pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
All foul balls are dead balls. True.
A fly ball caught over foul territory remains a live ball. True. Therefore, a fly ball caught over foul territory cannot be a foul ball. We might call it a "foul ball" in a generic, conversational manner, much the same way that someone calls a batted ball that is tipped back to the screen a "foul tip". But neither is technically correct. From a strictly by-the-book, rules-based definition (which I thought was the whole point behind picking those nasty nits!) a caught fly ball can never be a "foul ball".
|
|
Tue Feb 28, 2006, 12:21pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
All foul balls are NOT dead balls. There's the logic hole here, not the conclusion.
An uncaught foul ball is dead. A caught foul ball is live.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
|
|
Tue Feb 28, 2006, 12:54pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Consider this: Bases loaded, no outs. There's a looping fly hit down the right field line. The plate umpire moves up the line to rule on the play. The ball is going to land very near the foul line. F3, F4, and F9 converge on the ball. The ball hits F4's glove (in foul territory) and pops out of her glove and into the air as she collides with the other fielders. The umpire should signal the ball as having been touched in foul territory although the ball is not, technically, foul ... YET! It has been touched in foul territory. This is valuable information to the runners and it is information they deserve to have immediately. It completely changes HOW the runners will react to the ensuing play. Had that ball been initially touched in FAIR territory (even though the status of a catch or no-catch is still in question), the runners may opt to get a certain distance off the base, start moving closer to the next base, in anticipation that the ball may drop and put them in jeopardy of being forced out at the next base. The runners now KNOW that the ball was initially touched in FOUL territory. They can now stay ON the base because the only way the runners can advance is if the ball is ultimately caught. The runner doesn't have to worry about being forced out at the next base if the ball is NOT CAUGHT because it will be foul. As F4 falls to the ground, the ball ends up in her glove before touching the ground. Now it's a catch! But, for a moment, the status of the ball in foul territory was pertinent even though the ball was ultimately caught. So, one can say that a CAUGHT fly ball is never foul and, technically, that is probably correct. But, the fact that a ball is caught over foul territory can be quite pertinent to how a play unfolds. The fact that the catch is taking place in either FAIR or FOUL territory is important. The players deserve that information and the umpire should provide it promptly. David Emerling Memphis, TN [Edited by David Emerling on Feb 28th, 2006 at 01:10 PM]
|
|
Tue Feb 28, 2006, 01:58pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I guess I'm having problems with this assumption that a caught ball is not foul. Why not. It doesn't say that in the rules. A caught ball can be caught fair, or caught foul. Why is there an assumption here by you two that once it's caught it's no longer foul? It IS foul... it's just not dead.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
