What do you have!

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Again, rule 7 involves BATTING. This has nothing to do with BATTING or the BATTER. 7-6-K has to do with the BATTER hitting a FAIR batted ball with the bat a second time. That is not even remotely part of the discussion here. Trying to fit it in is what causes confusion.

But let's look at that situation. What happens if the batter hits a ball over foul territory a second time? It's a FOUL ball, the exact same result as the OP.

How is this not the OP? B1 hits the ball, then she hits the fair batted ball with the bat a second time. And yes it makes it a foul ball. I understand the ruling. My point in my response is that rule 7 doesn't end when the ball is contacted by the bat. Some things in it stop applying. But not all of them (which 7-6-K was a fantastic example).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

How is this not the OP? B1 hits the ball, then she hits the fair batted ball with the bat a second time. And yes it makes it a foul ball. I understand the ruling. My point in my response is that rule 7 doesn't end when the ball is contacted by the bat. Some things in it stop applying. But not all of them (which 7-6-K was a fantastic example).

To start, where do you see the word "bat" or any inference to the bat being used a second time in the OP?

Secondly, 7.6.K clearly references a fair ball over fair territory. The OP clearly references a foul ball over foul territory.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

To start, where do you see the word "bat" or any inference to the bat being used a second time in the OP?

Secondly, 7.6.K clearly references a fair ball over fair territory. The OP clearly references a foul ball over foul territory.

In all fairness Mike, I did mean she hit the ball again with the bat. But it doesn't matter. ASA says this is a foul ball. FED has it as an out if the umpire judges it could go fair.

Mbcrowder, I understand your reasoning. But I believe Mike is right on this one (I can't believe I just said that! LOL. Just teasing Mike). It opens up a can of worms. The purpose of any rule set is to establish a level playing field. And we have that with both teams able to touch a ball in foul territory.

If you don't like the offense having the ability to manipulate the status of the ball, shouldn't you be arguing just as strongly for removing the rule that allows the defense to touch the ball before it goes fair? If the offense can't manipulate the status shouldn't we deny the defense the same opportunity?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by rwest

...If the offense can't manipulate the status shouldn't we deny the defense the same opportunity?

Devil's advocate position (meaning I like the ASA rule, but...): It is the responsibility of the defense to field a batted ball, any batted ball. It is the responsibility of the offense to run the bases and avoid the batted ball.

If the batter wants the batted ball to go foul, hit it foul!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by rwest

In all fairness Mike, I did mean she hit the ball again with the bat. But it doesn't matter. ASA says this is a foul ball. FED has it as an out if the umpire judges it could go fair.

Well, if I could read minds, I would probably be doing something else

However, have you never seen a player on their way toward 1B kick a ball in foul territory? I have, a few times, and the call was foul.

Originally Posted by Dakota

Devil's advocate position (meaning I like the ASA rule, but...): It is the responsibility of the defense to field a batted ball, any batted ball. It is the responsibility of the offense to run the bases and avoid the batted ball.

If the batter wants the batted ball to go foul, hit it foul!

So, with that logic, if it is hit fair, shouldn't the defense be required to attempt to field it instead of intentionally watching or coercing the ball to go foul. Remember Lenny Randle? How did that work for him?

And when it comes down to it, no one really knows if a ball "likely" to fair or foul will go fair or foul. I've seen many a ball allowed to roll the line looking as if the ball may be going foul only to have it not.

How about a slow roller? Is the umpire to borrow the stopwatch the base coach is now allowed to carry to time the speed of the ball, the likely distance that ball is to cover prior to coming to a stop and through a quick analysis of the landscape, the contour of the field and the rise in the seams and the rotation of the ball, determine whether the ball coulda, woulda, shoulda ended up in fair or foul territory?

Offer any opinion you want, I believe ASA's present interpretation offers consistency with the rest of the rules determining fair or foul (other than the foul line and foul pole actually being in fair territory crap). It also allows both sides to take advantage of a situation that apparently quite a few don't consider "fair play" when, IMO, it is exactly that.

Next thing you know, someone is going to suggest the umpire carry a level and check the ground every 10' along the lines to make sure there is no home cooking in the ground crew.


BTW, I'm still waiting to hear opinions about the runner on 3B contacting a bounding batted ball over foul territory that, IYO, could come back fair?

[ronald]

we have obviously, i assume, seen a ball that was foul going fair and the defense touched it foul knowing they could not get an out. so why can't the batter do the same thing with the roles switched.? foul going fair and will be an out. i imagine this is what asa is thinking.

does anyone try to see things from asa's point of view? I know ncaa thinks they know better than asa but do they?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by ronald

we have obviously, i assume, seen a ball that was foul going fair and the defense touched it foul knowing they could not get an out. so why can't the batter do the same thing with the roles switched.? foul going fair and will be an out. i imagine this is what asa is thinking.

does anyone try to see things from asa's point of view? I know ncaa thinks they know better than asa but do they?

Too many, IMO, want to be punitive when someone does something they consider "unfair". There are people who call an out (INT) for every blocked ball by the offense, whether there is a play or not, as a matter of punishing the team for being out of the dugout or leaving bats/gloves in play.

It happens too often where people place preferences ahead of the rules. Ever see an umpire shrink a strike zone because a coach, parent or player is complaining? It isn't a good thing and reflects poorly on others.

Not an uncommon issue is when an umpire sees something they haven't seen before. Many will call it how they feel it should have been and then bend the rules to validate the call.

I don't think ASA means to be punitive in judgment, but to keep the field level. Pretty sure that is what most of us have been taught at one time or another.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

BTW, I'm still waiting to hear opinions about the runner on 3B contacting a bounding batted ball over foul territory that, IYO, could come back fair?

By rule, this is nothing - I'm not arguing that.

But ... if I was the rules-writer, I would prefer this to be an out if it is INTENTIONALLY contacted in order to keep it foul, just as in the OP. The mind-reader argument is ridiculous ... this would not be the only time we are required to judge intent. I think we would all know it if we saw it (and I think that the vast majority of us would never see it).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

By rule, this is nothing - I'm not arguing that.

But ... if I was the rules-writer, I would prefer this to be an out if it is INTENTIONALLY contacted in order to keep it foul, just as in the OP. The mind-reader argument is ridiculous ... this would not be the only time we are required to judge intent. I think we would all know it if we saw it (and I think that the vast majority of us would never see it).

You might want to read the entire response to Mr. West. The mind-reading referred directly to the point he failed to mention the second hit was with a bat.

The play and the judgment here isn't the player's actions, but a presumption we can tell the direction and distance the ball will roll. You want to talk about "what if" and TWP?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...So, with that logic, if it is hit fair, shouldn't the defense be required to attempt to field it instead of intentionally watching or coercing the ball to go foul. Remember Lenny Randle? How did that work for him?

And when it comes down to it, no one really knows if a ball "likely" to fair or foul will go fair or foul. I've seen many a ball allowed to roll the line looking as if the ball may be going foul only to have it not.

How about a slow roller? Is the umpire to borrow the stopwatch the base coach is now allowed to carry to time the speed of the ball, the likely distance that ball is to cover prior to coming to a stop and through a quick analysis of the landscape, the contour of the field and the rise in the seams and the rotation of the ball, determine whether the ball coulda, woulda, shoulda ended up in fair or foul territory?

Offer any opinion you want, I believe ASA's present interpretation offers consistency with the rest of the rules determining fair or foul (other than the foul line and foul pole actually being in fair territory crap). It also allows both sides to take advantage of a situation that apparently quite a few don't consider "fair play" when, IMO, it is exactly that.

Next thing you know, someone is going to suggest the umpire carry a level and check the ground every 10' along the lines to make sure there is no home cooking in the ground crew.


BTW, I'm still waiting to hear opinions about the runner on 3B contacting a bounding batted ball over foul territory that, IYO, could come back fair?

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

You have to buy a ticket!?!?

[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.

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

(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.

Not really... the OP was:

She sees the ball is heading toward fair territory. She hits the ball again

IOW - she saw it, noticed it was heading to fair territory, and INTENTIONALLY hit it (whether with bat, leg, hand or face is irrelevant).

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

...and INTENTIONALLY hit it (whether with bat, leg, hand or face is irrelevant).

Rule cite, please.