What do you have!

Dakota · #1 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 30, 2012, 11:54am

Quote:

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 · #2 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 30, 2012, 12:03pm

Quote:

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!?!?

youngump · #3 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 30, 2012, 02:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You have to buy a ticket!?!?

Buying a ticket doesn't significantly change your odds of winning.

rwest · #4 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 30, 2012, 02:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngump

Buying a ticket doesn't significantly change your odds of winning.

You go from the probability of hitting 18 holes in one to the probability of hitting 18 holes in one minus .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001.

MD Longhorn · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 30, 2012, 02:22pm

If you make a special trip to buy a lottery ticket, your odds (on average) are approximately 3 times greater that you will die in a car accident on the way to get your ticket (or back) than you are of winning the lottery.

IRISHMAFIA · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 30, 2012, 04:39pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

If you make a special trip to buy a lottery ticket, your odds (on average) are approximately 3 times greater that you will die in a car accident on the way to get your ticket (or back) than you are of winning the lottery.

Where did you get your numbers? Those from TX don't count 'cause y'all drive like cowhands late for happy hour.

MD Longhorn · #7 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 30, 2012, 04:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Where did you get your numbers? Those from TX don't count 'cause y'all drive like cowhands late for happy hour.

LOL.

If Texans all drove fast, there'd be no problems. Like in Boston - they all drive fast and the lane markers are just suggestions, but everyone knows it and it's not a problem. In Miami - they all drive like they are searching the glovebox for their Geritol and Viagra, but everyone knows it and it's not a problem.

In Texas, we get both - fast drivers with no regard for lanes, slow drivers confused and lost, and throw in a bunch of motorcycles weaving in and out, and the new flock of texting teens... it's a mess.

But the numbers were national, and came from a column I read at least 10 years ago. Before the internet was as big, so I have to change the cliche - but they can't put it in the paper if it isn't true.

HugoTafurst · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 30, 2012, 05:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngump

Buying a ticket doesn't significantly change your odds of winning.

I buy one ticket (per drawing).
I look at going from absolutely NO CHANCE of winning to a slight ( although very remote) chance of winning as significant.

I'll let you know....

Dakota · #9 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 30, 2012, 06:27pm

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 · #10 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 31, 2012, 08:19am

Quote:

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 · #11 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 31, 2012, 09:06am

Quote:

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 · #12 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 31, 2012, 01:49pm

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · #13 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 31, 2012, 01:52pm

Quote:

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 · #14 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 31, 2012, 04:03pm

[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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Manny A · #15 (**permalink**) Wed Aug 01, 2012, 07:57am

Quote:

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.