SP - Foul ball. Batter is out. Game is over.
FP - Foul ball. Grey has it right. Offense get's choice of play or illegal pitch. Assuming manager is not an idiot, s/he opts for the illegal pitch penalty. R1 scores to tie game and B4 now has a 3-2 count on her. Of course, the manager may think there is a penalty for throwing the glove and insist on the play. I may not lay it all out for them, but I will question their judgment. :)

There is no rule for contacting a foul ball with detached equipment in ASA.

[There is no rule for contacting a foul ball with detached equipment in ASA. [/B][/QUOTE]

That is amazing! No penalty even if it would have become fair without the illegal touch?

Roger Greene

My thought exactly.

BTW Roger, I don't have my FED book so cannot check
what you said in your previous post, but you usually
not off base....LOL

glen

Yes, it seems quite strange to me, too. The reason I knew the ruling off the top of my head is that I once researched it carefully, certain that it <i>couldn't</i> be right.

I'm glad that virtually no players are aware of the rule. If some of the SP leagues I do knew that you could throw your glove at a foul ball, they'd do it all night. Maybe we shouldn't publicize it here!

I picked up an old book. See the edit to my previous post for the current cite. It appears that the rule may have changed in 2002 with the new wording, but this was not listed as a rule change.

It may have been an inadvertant change, just like not having any way to put the BR out before reaching first unless she is taged, at least by the "written" rules.

I'm going to look for play in the 2003 case book tomorrow. Its bedtime now.

Roger Greene

That is amazing! No penalty even if it would have become fair without the illegal touch?

Roger Greene [/B][/QUOTE]

But you don't know it is going to settle in fair territory at that time, do you? Be careful! Don't fall into the ridiculous Patriot Act Syndrome where the government may anticipate illegal acts with no proof of them existing.

BTW, I could find no such rule in PONY, either.

I forgot that ASA dealt with the situation on this year's test:

Question #87:

B1 hits a ground ball that is spinning in foul territory but slowly heads toward fair territory. F3 throws his glove at the ball and knocks it away from the foul line, preventing it from becoming a fair ball. The umpire should:

a. Declare B1 out.

b. Declare the ball foul, award B1 1B and eject F3 from the game.

c. Declare the ball foul.

d. Declare the ball fair and award B1 1B.

The correct answer is c.

There is a play in the casebook about line drive over foul territory that is curving fair and somebody throws and hits the glove with it. Ruling is a foul ball.

Bob Savoie quizzed Chick Montrose on that play at our last meeting. Know where he got now.

O.K. I'm speaking Fed now but here are a couple of interesting thoughts.

1- What is the status of a batted ball that is on or over foul territory but is not yet foul?
We know a batted ball is not foul untill (Fed 2-25) one of seven things happens. (a) settles {ie stops moving} on foul territory before 1st or 3rd, (b)goes past 1st or 3rd in foul territory,(c)first falls on foul territory beyond 1st or 3rd, (d) while over foul territory touches something foreign to the natural ground, (e)while the ball is over foul territory a runner interfers with a defensive player attempting to field the batted ball, (f)touches the batter who is in the box, or (g)goes directly from the bat to the catchers body or equipment.

(d) is the only clause we can apply, and then only because of the detached equipment touching the ball.

The ball is this sitch was not yet foul, and according to the sitch the defensive player saw that it was about to become fair.

We can't discount our judgement about what the ball would become, because literaly in the rule book and case book we are told to award 4 bases if the illegally touched ball would have crossed the fence in fair territory. (Also we must judge the projected path of a batted ball which has a chance to become fair that is struck a second time by a batter. Fed 7-4-k Note)

The old Fed rule (through the 2001 season) had 3 clauses to cover detached equipment touching a batted ball. (a) on or over fair ground; (b)a fair ball while on or over foul ground; and (c) over foul ground in a situation that it might become a fair ball. The change in language in 2002 only speaks of touching a "fair batted ball".

Fed does not list this under "Rule Changes" (as it does other changes in Rule 8. There are no case plays covering this in 2002. I'll check 2003 today, but I don't recall any new plays in that section.)

Therefor, I ask again, what is the status of a moving batted ball, that appears to be heading toward fair territory? It is not yet foul, and it is not yet fair.

Does the touching by detached equipment make the ball foul before the detached equipment touches it, or does it make it foul when it touches and therefore no penalty should be applied even though the defensive team gains an advantage not intended by the rules? (Improper advantage being deduced from the prohibition of the rule makers of touching a batted or thrown ball with detached equipment)

Now, sit back and enjoy the protest committee trying to sort out that arguement. Oh, and while they are at that maybe they can decide which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Roger Greene

Roger,

I proposed this in ASA and I know you are talking Fed, however I believe you are trying to force an element into the rules which does not exist. Does the rule book TELL you to determine the path of any ball in flight and then make a decision based on your judgment?

You are asking the board to allow you to prove a negative and I just don't see it. You're making comparisons to rules that are not even comparable.

The ends does not justify the means. Bet you've heard that one before :) I told you to watch out for that Patriot Act.

If that's correct (too rushed to check), the whole play goes as if the pitch was legal because in SP the swing is all it takes to negate the illegal aspect.

You also don't know if it is going to settle in foul territory either. This just seems ridiculous to me that ASA wants us to call a batter out for throwing a bat into a fence which would have no affect on the outcome of a game, but wants us to ignore this play which has a direct effect on the outcome of a game.

[. Does the rule book TELL you to determine the path of any ball in flight and then make a decision based on your judgment?



[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes. See the Fed cites in my post.

I'm not arguing the ASA interp. I wouldn't argue with a Fed interp, if one exists. I just propose a logical argument for applying a penalty for detached equipment touching a live bated ball whose status of fair or foul has not been determined.

And, I hope not to have this sitch untill there is an official interp to follow.

Roger Greene

No, but I do know it was contacted by something foreign to the ground prior to becoming fair.

Now, concerning the comparison made above....are you out of your mind?

Rant on!

Have you ever seen a human being get hit in the head with a bat, thrown or otherwise? A bat-crushed face makes for some real grusome photo-ops. Are you aware that a thrown bat will go through your standard backstop? And just what is that on the other side of that fence? Oh yeah, your family and the families of the players. You know, the little 5/6 year old children that stand behind the plate while being amused by the pitching and hitting.

How in the name of anything can you compare an action which means nothing other than a foul ball in a GAME to that which jeopardizes the well-being and possibly life of another human?

Rant off!

I think this might be a bit more than just MY humble opinion,



[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Apr 2nd, 2003 at 11:56 AM]

Yes. See the Fed cites in my post.

I'm not arguing the ASA interp. I wouldn't argue with a Fed interp, if one exists. I just propose a logical argument for applying a penalty for detached equipment touching a live bated ball whose status of fair or foul has not been determined.

And, I hope not to have this sitch untill there is an official interp to follow.

Roger Greene [/B][/QUOTE]

Roger,

If a batted ball is in flight near the line when a ball from an adjoining field contacts it, does it make a difference if you thought it might come back fair or do you make your ruling based on the position of the ball when it was contacted by something other than the ground?