Federation Question
 

Can somebody explain the following:

NFHS Rule 8-4-3 ...A runner is entitled to advance without liability to be put out when:
g. a fair batted fly ball strikes the foul pole above the fence level or leaves the playing field in fair territy without touching the ground or going through the fence. It shall entitle the batter-runner to a home run.
h. a fair ball bounces over or rolls under or through a fence or any designated boundary of the playing field. Also, when it deflects off a defensive player and goes out of play in foul territory, deflects off a runner or umpire and goes out of play after having passed an infielder excluding the pitcher and provided no other fielder had a chance to make an out.

NFHS Case Book 8.4.3 SITUATION R: B1 hits a long fly ball to center field. F8 goes back to the fence and leaps in an attempt to make the catch. The fly ball goes past F8, deflects off (b) the top of the fence, strikes the fielder's glove and ricochets over the fence in fair territory; ... RULING: In (b), a ground-rule double is ruled. When the ball ricocheted off the fence and then off the fielder's glove, it was no longer in flight and caused the hit to be ruled a double.

Sounds kind of contradictory to me. Now, the case book also references 2-28 which states: A ball in flight is any batted, thrown or pitched ball that has not touched the ground, an object or a person other than a player.

Another example of NFHS written material at it's finest. I'd stick with the rules book.

I agree could be written better.. but a ball deflected out of play is not considered "in flight" for ruling purposes in every league even the Yemini Slayer of the Infidel league....

but a deflected ball legally caught by another player before touching the ground is considered "caught in flight" and a catch.

edits for fulish spelling errors... (I was edumacated in public schools like the NFHS rule writers).

Sounds like you were fuled.

;) :D

So would this qualify me to be a NFHS rules writer? :)

Don't know about that, but you're qualified to be a rules reader.:)

fence = object
foul pole = line (not "object")
player = neither ;)

The key is the term In-flight.

A ball that goes off a defensive player or her glove and over the fence in fair territory, remains "in-flight" and therefore a home run.

A ball that hits the fence and then goes over after hitting a defensive player is no longer "in-flight" and therefore a ground rule double.

Another instance of a ball no longer being "in-flight" would be if the ball is hit and looks like a home run but hits a bird before going over the fence. In that case as soon as the ball hits the bird, it is by definition no longer "in-flight". Therefore, after hitting the bird, the balll still goes over the fence it would be ruled a double and not a home run.

This would make better sense to me, except that the Fed casebook, in the same situation, gives the following scenario also: ... The fly ball goes past F8, deflects off ...(c) F8's outstretched glove and goes over the fence; or (d) the top of the fence and goes over in fair territory. RULING: In (c) and (d), it is a home run.

So, what is the "object"?

Serg

No, it would be rule a violation of the bird's rights and the batter would be put in jail along side Michael Vick.

The (d) home run does seem inconsistent with the other case

"NFHS Case Book 8.4.3 SITUATION R: B1 hits a long fly ball to center field. F8 goes back to the fence and leaps in an attempt to make the catch. The fly ball goes past F8, deflects off (b) the top of the fence, strikes the fielder's glove and ricochets over the fence in fair territory; ... RULING: In (b), a ground-rule double is ruled. When the ball ricocheted off the fence and then off the fielder's glove, it was no longer in flight and caused the hit to be ruled a double."

and has been argued to death w/o much consensus. It's also hard to discuss the same issue on two forums with different intervening comments. However, I do share your concern for the inconsistency.

I think you can do better than 25% of comments being helpful. :p :p :D

Why? (Can be taken two ways... Why do you think that? ... and ... Why should I? ... both apply!) :D

Nope, "Why should I?" could apply only if I said "should do" instead of "can do". :eek:

Anyway, that doesn't explain the physics anomaly above :confused:; which you possibly can use to get your grade above 50%.