What do you have!

[Dakota]

I used to live in Texas, and by my observation, there is one traffic law that is not in the driver's handbook, but is clearly in force... Pickups always have the right of way!

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Dakota

My biggest problem with the Fed rule is the phrase "has a chance" to become fair. Really? "Has a chance?" I "have a chance" to win the lottery if I buy a ticket. So, this would say pretty much every time.

Poor wording, I suppose.

But I have no problem with the intent of that wording. It basically means that if the umpires judge the ball was just about to enter fair territory when the offensive player touches it with clear intent to keep it foul, it's a violation. I seriously doubt they meant it to cover batted balls that have even the remotest chance of changing directions and eventually ending up fair.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Poor wording, I suppose.

But I have no problem with the intent of that wording. It basically means that if the umpires judge the ball was just about to enter fair territory when the offensive player touches it with clear intent to keep it foul, it's a violation. I seriously doubt they meant it to cover batted balls that have even the remotest chance of changing directions and eventually ending up fair.

Correct. Seems to me that if the runner (or BR) intentionally stops the ball, he's doing it for a reason. I can't imagine a runner intentionally stopping a foul ball that was not already heading toward fair territory. Why would he/she do that?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Poor wording, I suppose.

But I have no problem with the intent of that wording. It basically means that if the umpires judge the ball was just about to enter fair territory when the offensive player touches it with clear intent to keep it foul, it's a violation. I seriously doubt they meant it to cover batted balls that have even the remotest chance of changing directions and eventually ending up fair.

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Correct. Seems to me that if the runner (or BR) intentionally stops the ball, he's doing it for a reason. I can't imagine a runner intentionally stopping a foul ball that was not already heading toward fair territory. Why would he/she do that?

There's that old bug-a-boo "intent" again!

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

There's that old bug-a-boo "intent" again!

Yes, but we're talking about an obvious thing here. A runner or batter runner stopping the progress of a moving ball on purpose. Should be much easier to see intent here than in many of the other situations where we're required to read minds.

[IRISHMAFIA]

[quote=mbcrowder;850621]Yes, but we're talking about an obvious thing here.[quote]

IMO, that is just asking for unnecessary trouble. What is obvious to you may not be obvious to the next 30 umpires. That's why an umpire always covers ground rules at the beginning of a game, because every umpire may see the field differently.

A runner or batter runner stopping the progress of a moving ball on purpose.

You mean like the defense doing the same thing for the same reason?

Should be much easier to see intent here than in many of the other situations where we're required to read minds.

I don't think it would be that easy. I've seen too many balls go in directions no one expected at multiple speeds.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Yes, but we're talking about an obvious thing here. A runner or batter runner stopping the progress of a moving ball on purpose. Should be much easier to see intent here than in many of the other situations where we're required to read minds.

What is the rule reference for this? IIRC, it does not mention intent. I could be wrong (no book at hand at present).

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

What is the rule reference for this? IIRC, it does not mention intent. I could be wrong (no book at hand at present).

The RULE is as Mike says - the offense can intentionally stop a foul ball from rolling fair.

What is being discussed is whether this SHOULD be the rule.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You mean like the defense doing the same thing for the same reason?

But the defense has the fundamental right to decide when/if to field a batted ball. Batters and runners don't have that right.

The only purpose a batter or runner would touch a foul ball that appears is going fair is to intentionally keep the batter or runner from being in jeopardy of being retired. There is ample precedent in all the rules of all sanctioning baseball and softball organizations that batters and runners are not allowed to do that other than by legally batting the ball and legally running the bases. As far as I know, ASA is alone in this stand.

Why do the rule sets call a batter out when she bunts a pitch foul with two strikes? It's because she is not allowed to intentionally (and bunts are intentional taps) keep herself up to the plate until she finally gets a pitch she really likes. The original rulesmakers felt that purposely fouling off pitches by bunting them gave the offense an unfair advantage. To maintain balance between offense and defense, those rulesmakers felt the batter with two strikes should put the ball in play. If she fails to do so with a full swing and fouls it off, she's given the benefit of the doubt. But those rulesmakers felt that if foul bunts with two strikes weren't regulated, batters would tip that balance.

Oh well, I will respect ASA's position on this, but I obviously don't like it.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

The RULE is as Mike says - the offense can intentionally stop a foul ball from rolling fair.

What is being discussed is whether this SHOULD be the rule.

That's ASA. I should have been more clear... I was asking about the NFHS rule.

[Andy]

NFHS 7-4-13: The Batter-Runner is out:

...after hitting or bunting a ball, the bat hits the ball a second time while the ball is on or over fair territory, or is on or over foul territory and, in the umpire's judgement, had a chance to become a fair ball.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

But the defense has the fundamental right to decide when/if to field a batted ball. Batters and runners don't have that right.

Really? Who is this, Bubba Clinton? Rule citation, please.

The only purpose a batter or runner would touch a foul ball that appears is going fair is to intentionally keep the batter or runner from being in jeopardy of being retired. There is ample precedent in all the rules of all sanctioning baseball and softball organizations that batters and runners are not allowed to do that other than by legally batting the ball and legally running the bases. As far as I know, ASA is alone in this stand.

Yes, it is called being consistent with the rules. And how do you know it is intentional? Maybe he just figures he is helping out the defense by stopping or retrieving a foul ball. Happens all the time.

Why do the rule sets call a batter out when she bunts a pitch foul with two strikes? It's because she is not allowed to intentionally (and bunts are intentional taps) keep herself up to the plate until she finally gets a pitch she really likes. The original rulesmakers felt that purposely fouling off pitches by bunting them gave the offense an unfair advantage. To maintain balance between offense and defense, those rulesmakers felt the batter with two strikes should put the ball in play. If she fails to do so with a full swing and fouls it off, she's given the benefit of the doubt. But those rulesmakers felt that if foul bunts with two strikes weren't regulated, batters would tip that balance.

The original rule makers did not allow the bunt. Here is your rule citation

Softball Official Rules (1936):

Rule 19 - WHEN BATSMAN IS OUT.
Bunt Hit is Out Sec. 5. If he bunts or attempts to bunt as defined in Rule 16.

Rule 16 - A BUNT HIT BALL
Bunt -- When Not a Bunt
A Bunt is a batted ball, not swung at by the batsman, but met with the bat, and which does not go out of the infield. A ball which touches the bat while the batsman is attempting to avoid being hit by the pitched ball shall not be considered a bunted ball under this rule.

So, if you really want to go with the original rule makers, I guess we better outlaw the bunt. And why not, it would make it a safer game.

Oh well, I will respect ASA's position on this, but I obviously don't like it.

Why, as an umpire, do you care?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Why, as an umpire, do you care?

Mike, this is uncalled for. You've posted numerous times what you think this rule or that rule SHOULD be. Many of us have. He cares, so do you, so do I, so do most of us here.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The original rule makers did not allow the bunt.

Sorry, I should have clarified that I was talking about baseball's original rule makers, which existed long before softball's original rules were written. That was the rationale they used to penalize foul bunts after two strikes, and one could only assume that when bunts became legal in softball, those rule makers used the same rationale.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Andy

NFHS 7-4-13: The Batter-Runner is out:

...after hitting or bunting a ball, the bat hits the ball a second time while the ball is on or over fair territory, or is on or over foul territory and, in the umpire's judgement, had a chance to become a fair ball.

Please note that this rule only applies to the BAT hitting the ball a second time, not the BATTER merely contacting the ball. (Also, intent is irrelevant.) The OP was asking about the bat hitting the ball, but the tread has managed to deviate to also include the player contacting a batted ball.