What do you have! - Page 3

IRISHMAFIA · #31 (**permalink**) Sat Jul 28, 2012, 07:58am

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · #32 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 29, 2012, 01:48pm

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 · #33 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 29, 2012, 04:29pm

Quote:

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.

tcannizzo · #34 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 29, 2012, 05:50pm

With the Subject "What do you have?" I gotta smile.
Just had to share this bit of Atlanta history at what is called the world's largest drive-in, The Varsity. Located right across the street from GA Tech.

http://youtu.be/gJD3_1k3rps

This guy keeps the line moving and is the ultimate definition of "fast food".
You don't see it in this clips, but there is a sign that says, "Have your order in your mind and your money in your hand."
Because when it is your turn, all you going to hear is Whaddya have....

MD Longhorn · #35 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:19am

Quote:

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 · #36 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 30, 2012, 11:52am

Quote:

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 · #37 (**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 · #38 (**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 · #39 (**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 · #40 (**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 · #41 (**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 · #42 (**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 · #43 (**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.

IRISHMAFIA · #44 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 30, 2012, 05:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

No regard for lanes? Hell, they pass you on the right when you ARE ine right lane and there is no shoulder.

But they're real careful there because there is a fine if you run over a sign. After all, JoeBob and JimmyJack need them for target practice on their way home from the Friday Night HS football game.

HugoTafurst · #45 (**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....