What do you have!
 

B1 hits the ball foul. She sees the ball is heading toward fair territory. She hits the ball again before it touches or crosses the foul line.

What is your ruling? ASA and FED.

How then is it foul?

ASA - Foul ball

It is Foul....
 

Because the ball was hit a second time in foul territory. In FED you can get an out because the ball had a chance to go fair.

That was my point to the thread.

Huh?

Do 7.6D-F only apply to the first hit? That seems reasonable enough, but it's not completely clear.

Assuming you mean 7.6, yes.

But only if the umpire judges it could have gone fair.

I find it interesting that ASA doesn't have a similar ruling.

So Do I but it is consistent
 

ASA and all baseball and softball rule sets that I know of allow for the defense to touch a ball that is foul to prevent it from becoming fair. I guess ASA believes the offense should have the same right.

Until you started this thread, I assumed ALL rule sets in both softball and baseball prohibited a batter from intentionally contacting a foul batted ball a second time if the umpire judged the ball could go fair.

How about this: Does ASA allow the BR to intentionally contact a foul batted ball with her bat or body as she's running up the first base line if it appears it's going to go into fair territory? If not, where's that consistency you mentioned?

Um ... isn't this exactly the scenario we're talking about? (And yes, body is the same)

mbcrowder beat me to it
 

Yes, the body is the same. The batter-runner is only out if they contact a fair batted ball before reaching first base.

See 8.2.F.4

I thought Rules Supplement #24, where it says, "If, when the bat contacts the ball a batter’s entire foot is completely outside the batter’s box, the batter is out," would call for an Out in that case. The original scenario has the batter (I assume) still in the batter's box.

Yes, but...
 

There seems to be a contradiction because page 243 says the following....

Hitting the ball a second time....

"While making the dead ball call, review in your mind what you just saw. Then, ask yourself the question, did the second hit occur in fair or foul territory? If the answer is foul territory, the ball is foul and a strike is called on the batter. If the ball is fair, the next question you need to ask is whether the batter was in or out of the batter's box. If they were in the box, it is a foul ball and a strike is called on the batter. If the second hit occurred out of the batter's box, the batter is out."

Is there a distinction to be made between the ball hitting the bat a second time and the batter hitting the ball a second time? Do we need to be concerned with which object, the bat (and thereby the batter) or the ball initiated the contact. It appears the only time we get an out on the batter for contacting a ball is when it is a fair ball and they are out of the box. I believe RS #24 is referring to a fair ball.

Of course further down on page 243 we have these words....

Batted Ball off of a batters' foot:

2. When the batter is out of the batter's box:
b. Point to the play, give an out signal and verbalize "batter is out"

I am assuming that this is not from the initial contact. I am assuming that this is after the batter starts to run. I'm thinking this does not apply to the common scenario where the batted ball goes directly down and hits the batters foot. If the foot was out of the box at the time of contact the batter is out regardless if it hits their foot. Also, if the batter is running and it hits their foot in foul territory, I have a foul ball not a batter being out.
So a batted ball that hits the batters foot would have to hit the batters foot in fair territory for it to be an out. Also, if the batter is in the box and the ball is fair and they make contact with the ball, they are out.

The batter's box does not give them the right to come in contact with a fair batted ball.

That is referring to a completely different situation and is really only half of the situation it describes (RS4 should include that the ball is fair).

What does "batting" have to do with this?

Ya know, this is the type of **** that screws things up and causes unnecessary confusion.

Folks, you need to stay on point. ASA has addressed this at clinics. Just as a defender can THROW a glove and hit a batted ball in foul territory to keep it from becoming fair, an offensive player may also do the same thing.

If the FED truly allows this to be ruled an out, doesn't that contradict the logic they used for a pitched ball in the batter's box ruling? :rolleyes::D

But unless I'm wrong, ASA is alone on their viewpoint. FED and NCAA both penalize the batter-runner with an out if she contacts a batted ball in foul territory that is judged that it might go fair. Not sure of other sanctioning softball organizations. And most, if not all, baseball organizations are the same.

So what logic ASA used to come up with this position is a mystery. Why would a batter or runner want to intentionally contact a foul ball that might go fair other than to prevent an out? Isn't that why the interference rule exists?

ASA penalizes a batter for unintentionally contacting a loose ball while she runs to first after an uncaught third strike, but they don't penalize a batter for intentionally contacting a batted ball that is foul but might go fair. I'm just not tracking...

Why would a defensive player want to intentionally contact a foul ball that might go fair other than to prevent a run from scoring or to prevent the batter-runner from obtaining first base. Isn't that one reason why the obstruction rule exists?

Wow, and I thought ASA's logic was suspect...:rolleyes:

No mystery. A batted ball touched on or over foul territory prior to passing 1st or 3rd base is a foul ball. Nothing hard to figure out here, it is the same in all games.

Is the defender not permitted to do the same thing? Nothing new here.

Here we go again. You are refering to a pitched ball that was mishandled, though I agree this form of INT should be required to be INT. To the point that I submitted a rule change that was rejected. However, we are referring to an untouched batted ball thats status has yet to be determined, by rule.

Are you suggesting that we now forbid any player from touching any batted ball along the line prior to reaching the base because it may or may not go fair or foul?

No when it comes to the defense. Obviously, they're out their to field, and touching a ball that's foul but might become fair is a perfectly acceptable tactic.

But the offense has no business touching a batted ball to gain some sort of benefit. Would we allow the base coach to go up to a batted ball and touch it before it goes fair if there's that possibility? Or a runner on third base? What about an on-deck batter?

The offense is not allowed to touch a batted fly ball in foul territory that may be caught. They are taking away the defense's opportunity to field the ball for an out. Isn't that what the offense is doing on a ground ball that is in foul territory but may go fair? If the bases are loaded with two outs, the batter hits a dribbler up the third base line in foul territory that she feels won't go fair so she's staying at the plate, and R1 sees F5 waiting for the ball to roll fair so she can make a play on the batter at first, is it perfectly acceptable for R1 to run down and grab the ball before it goes fair?

Since ASA seems to be the only sanctioning body to allow it, I'm simply questioning why. No other organization that I'm aware of gives the offense free will to touch a batted ball.

No offense meant, but yeah - I would suggest that we now forbid any OFFENSIVE player from touching a batted ball on purpose --- EVER. Kinda shocked you're defending this view.

Easy there, Mike. I'm not causing unnecessary confusion I'm just trying to make sure I understand. There's lots of stuff in rule 7 that applies after the ball is hit.
7-6-K for example definitely applies to hitting the ball a second time.
And asking that question wasn't going to cloud things up for anybody, it was just an honest question. Not everybody is a troll looking to stir things up.

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.

So a batted ball that the ODB picks up and returns to the defense should result in an out. And heaven forbid the base coach grab a bounding ball in foul territory. That should be an out, too? After all, the ball COULD go fair, right?

It isn't just my position, but ASA's.

And just why should the defense be allowed to manipulate the ball's status if the offense cannot?

I recognize what ASA's position IS (and on the extremely off chance that this actually happens in my game, I'll call it appropriately). We're talking about what it SHOULD be. Let's not go ad absurdum here... but yes - if the ODB or a coach grabs a ball that is likely to roll fair, hell yes the batter should be out. I know she's not in ASA, but defending this is rather silly, and implying that the offense and defense should have equal opportunity to "manipulate the status of the ball" is just as silly.

(NO ONE is saying that a bounder down the line that the base coach catches should be an out --- and I think you know that.)

How are you going to judge that? How do you it isn't likely to go further foul? I don't even want to imagine all the BS umpires will get there.

I don't know. Why not? Why should only the defense have the option of not letting the ball take it's course? How about a runner on 3B grabbing a ball over foul territory? Does NCAA & NFHS address that? And I'm asking, don't know.

Actually, that is exactly what you suggested.

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.

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?

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!

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

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.


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. :D


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?

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.

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....:cool:

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?

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!?!? :eek:

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

O sure it does....
 

You go from the probability of hitting 18 holes in one to the probability of hitting 18 holes in one minus .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001. ;):rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

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.
:D

I'll let you know....

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! :D

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?

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.

[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.

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

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

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.

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.:rolleyes:

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not really... the OP was:
IOW - she saw it, noticed it was heading to fair territory, and INTENTIONALLY hit it (whether with bat, leg, hand or face is irrelevant).

Rule cite, please.

Ok, fine. Let's get back on point.

Sitch: Batter hits a dribbler up the first base line that is in foul territory. She takes off for first base with bat in hand. It appears the ball is going to go into fair territory, so:

1. She intentionally hits the ball with her bat in her hand while it's still foul just before it crosses the line back into fair.

2. She intentionally drops the bat onto the ball while it's still foul just before it crosses the line back into fair.

3. She intentionally kicks the ball while it's still foul just before it crosses the line back into fair.

In FED, she's out under all three. What is her disposition in ASA?

What? My statement was that the OP stated XXX... I need a rule cite to back up my statement explaining what the OP was asking? What?

Safe / foul ball on all three.

And shouldn't be.

You stated that whether a batter hit a batted ball over foul territory a second time with her bat, leg, hand or face was irrelevant and at least implied that intent was relevant. Can you back that up with the rules (especially NFHS or other non-ASA softball, since it has also been stated that ASA is alone in how this would be treated)? If that's not what you were saying, then I misunderstood.

Rule cite on #3?

I don't think it is. I understand it, but solely as an umpire, why do we care about what we think is fair or not? How many times have you heard an umpire make up or bend a rule to be "fair"? Or this or that is not going to happen in my game because it isn't fair?

Many believe it isn't fair to allow a player to top the ball and hit a slow roller in the SP infield, but it's legal? And if you think that is an exaggeration, there have been some serious arguments on the Stadium field at the A level because there have been players come in and do just that. It is almost an automatic base hit, but it is legal.

I care about the consistency among rules, the ability to enforce them and the manner of application, and hopefully the ability to find logic though we all know that is a dream. IOW, how does it affect me as the umpire. Are there some rules I believe to be unfair or need fixing? Sure, that why there are rule changes. But as the umpire, it isn't my job to worry about fair unless the situation is not covered by a rule(s).

All this talk about the intention of the batter to keep the ball foul. What about the intention of the fielder who throws the glove from 20' to keep the ball foul? Is that fair? AFAIC, it is because the rule says it is.

No... I did NOT state that. The NFHS rule has been posted (one for intentional, one for inadvertent 2nd hit with the bat). I can't give you an ASA rule site for a rule that should exist but doesn't.

What I was stating is that the ORIGINAL POST gave a situation where the batter clearly and intentionally stopped the ball from going fair - whether they did so with their foot, bat, or left ear doesn't matter and is not stated.

Understood ... but THIS post (or at least where it evolved) is about whether the rule SHOULD BE what it is, in ASA (and it kind of went there due to a response to one of your posts). I would NEVER EVER condone an umpire bending or ignoring a rule to satisfy his own personal sense of fairness --- in fact, you've seen me beat up umpires here for doing the same. However, we all (both of us included) have posted occasionally where we thought a rule should not be what it is. You're allowed to. I'm allowed to. It may not be our job ... but we care anyway. We shouldn't jump on someone for caring about changing a rule.

Well ... tbh, I'm consistent here in that I don't think THAT is fair either. Same reason. they can't do it ON the field, why should they be able to do it on a ball that is in foul territory but not yet foul.

From the NFHS Softball Case Book:

"8.2.6 SITUATION B: B1 hits a ball off the tip of the bat causing the ball to spin just outside the foul line. As B1 watches the ball, she suddenly realizes that it could become fair and that she will likely be put out. Therefore, she (a) kicks or (b) hits the ball with her bat to prevent it from becoming fair. RULING: In (a) and (b), the ball is dead immediately. If in the umpire's judgment the ball could have become fair, B1 shall be declared out."

Pretty cut-n-dried. And consistent.

I also contend that under ASA RS #24A, the batter is out for 1. and 2. under ASA. The supplement says, "If, when the bat contacts the ball [a second time] a batter’s entire foot is completely outside the batter’s box, the batter is out." In my 1. and 2., the batter is running up the first base line and intentionally hits the ball with the bat, so she clearly has a foot out of the batter's box. Or am I wrong in my assumption in what the RS language intends here?

If it is indeed an out in ASA for 1. and 2., then why isn't it an out for 3? That's where I feel the rulings are inconsistent in ASA.

It is interesting to note the actual rule that case play is apparently referencing:

Note that there is no reference to a BR making contact with a batted ball in foul territory. This is, therefore, an interpretation rather than a rule.

Question 1: change BR to R1 on 3rd. What is the applicable rule, and what is the ruling?

Question 2: Delete the words "As B1 watches the ball, she suddenly realizes that it could become fair and that she will likely be put out. Therefore," (removing the magic mind reading going on in the case play), and what is the ruling, and what is your rule backing. Answer for both BR and R1.

Semantics. Or are you suggesting that the case book ruling is not enforceable since it isn't an actual rule? I guess I'm missing your point here.

We have an authoritative NFHS interpretation on how to handle the three scenarios I proposed. So what if the actual rule the interpretation references doesn't specifically mention a batted ball in foul territory? It is clear to me that the case book play directs us that a batted ball that the umpire judges may go fair, is treated exactly the same, for all intents and purposes under 8-2-6, as a batted ball in fair territory.

The applicable rule could be 8-6-10 or 8-6-11 if NFHS felt this infraction was commensurate with their 8.2.6.B case book interpretation. I'm willing to bet that if you asked this question to the NFHS powers-that-be, they may very well add a case book play under 8.6.11 to answer your question. ;) As it stands right now, however, there is no written rule or interpretation.

Does that mean that NFHS gives other runners carte blanche permission to intentionally contact foul balls that umpires judge may go fair, while specifically prohibiting batter-runners from doing so? Or does that mean they've inadvertently left this unaddressed? I'm guessing it's the latter.

C'mon, Tom. Why on God's green earth would B1 (a) kick or (b) hit the ball with her bat in the given case play? I'm fairly confident it would be an easy sell for me to explain to B1's coach what I judged happened here.

As for R1, my answer to your Question 1 applies.

My point is not that it is not authoritative, but that the softball rules interpreters have a track record of putting their hobby horses into official interpretations. Further, the rule does specifically mention fair batted ball, at least implying that the rules committee/writers were making a distinction. It is generally a lot easier to add an interpretation to a case play than to change the rule, leaving case plays somewhat at the mercy of said hobby horses.

Why on God's green earth? You are kidding, right? Bats are generally tossed and runners are generally running in foul territory between 3B and home and between home and 1B.

Bottom line: this is someone's idea of what is "fair" and is not backed by the rules themselves. It requires the umpire to read the mind of the BR/R and further to determine what "has a chance" or "could become fair" means. Where is the line here? Does "has a chance"/"could become fair" include ALL slow rollers? Does it include a ball rolling away from the foul line but with enough speed so a bump in the dirt could change its direction? "In foul ground" is a firm situation. I wish someone WOULD demand to know why R1 is treated differently from BR in this situation. The hue and cry from coaches if such a change was attempted would at least be entertaining... ever heard coaches tell runners on 3B to advance in foul territory and retreat in fair? What happens to that? JMO.

Well, I certainly can't address what those interpreters have done in the past, because I haven't been doing this long enough to know their previous track record. The only thing I can do is go with what is printed in an authoritative document, whether it be the actual rule book or the supporting case book.

No different than other grey areas in the rules, Tom. Umpires have to decide what bases runners could have reached minus an obstruction. They have to judge whether or not another fielder might have made an out on a batted ball that gets by an initial fielder and contacts a runner. They have to read a runner's mind when she keeps running after being retired. It's why we get paid the big bux.

Except that there has been a concerted effort in recent years to remove intent from all interference rules. There are one or two exceptions remaining, but this effort was based on the difficulty of reading minds. Basing the interference call on the act, not on the intent, has been the direction. That's another reason why this particular case play seems out of step.

By rule, without requiring any mind-reading for intent, nor is it a gray area.

To start #24: When considering the act of a batter hitting the PITCHED ball a second time

A doesn't mention it, but 7.6.K specifically notes this is referring to a FAIR ball.

You can turn this anyway you want, ASA does not forbid either the offense or defense contacting a foul ball.

I find the bolded terminology strange and confusing. It's not a pitched ball anymore. You hit a batted ball a second time (or for the first time as a batted ball.)

I don't disagree this could be confusing, but my belief is that in this case the reference is to a pitched ball has been hit by the bat, but has not yet reached a discernible point where the ball has gained a defined status of fair or foul.