Fair/Foul

[Guest Field 5 Spectator]

Fair or Foul, already know answer, would like for a few others to give their answer.

*Batted ball chopped down and hits the plate and bounces back with crazy spin, catcher touches the ball in air in foul territory after hits the plate. The ball was in foul territory when touched after it bounced off plate. Plate umpire should call Fair or Foul???

[Rich Ives]

Foul. Any other ruling is wrong.

 

[noumpere]

I agree it's foul.

 

I'm guessing that someone is questioning that -- what's his/her rationale for why the ball should be fair?

[Richvee]

keep in mind the catcher's positioning has nothing to do with the fair/foul ruling. The ball could bounce high off the plate, straight up, F2 could field it from behind the plate with his mitt extended over the plate. Fair ball. 

[ricka56]

29 minutes ago, Richvee said:

keep in mind the catcher's positioning has nothing to do with the fair/foul ruling. The ball could bounce high off the plate, straight up, F2 could field it from behind the plate with his mitt extended over the plate. Fair ball. 

^^^ This. The position of the batted ball (fair or foul) when touched is the only thing that matters.

[FleasOf1000Camels]

The position of the BALL at the MOMENT it is FIRST touched is the ONLY thing that matters on this play as described.

 

[Aging_Arbiter]

Let me guess...........some coach is complaining because "it hit the plate first!"......?

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, Aging_Arbiter said:

Let me guess...........some coach is complaining because "it hit the plate first!"......?

That complaint usually comes when the ball is ruled fair -- not when it's ruled foul as in the OP.

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, Aging_Arbiter said:

Let me guess...........some coach is complaining because "it hit the plate first!"......?

Usually coaches/parents (and even several umpires in my time) declare the opposite - they think if it hits the plate first it's immediately foul.

Or if the catcher's feet are in foul territory, but his glove touches the ball in fair territory, they still want a foul ball.

I'm guessing that the catcher stepped forward into fair territory, and the ball spun backwards over his head, and he reached back and touched it in foul territory.

That's the only scenario where I could see a rule dispute here, where many parents/players/coaches/umpires will incorrectly call fair based on where the player is, not the ball.

 

Otherwise, it's a dispute of judgment, not rule...was the ball actually over foul territory or not....and in the entire ballpark the plate umpire likely has the best view to determine that...even the catcher likely wouldn't know for sure...and neither will most parent cams.

[Rich Ives]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

That complaint usually comes when the ball is ruled fair -- not when it's ruled foul as in the OP.

OP doesn't say how it was ruled.

[beerguy55]

28 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

OP doesn't say how it was ruled.

Post should say when it should be ruled foul as in the OP....I knew what he meant.  That is, people don't typically argue a ball touched in foul territory is fair because it touched the plate first...they argue the opposite...that any ball that touches the plate first is foul.

If the OP was ruled foul, it's hard to see many scenarios where someone would argue it should be fair.  If it was ruled fair, I can see people arguing it should be foul, but for the wrong reason (ie. it hit the plate).

What I find in scenarios like this it sometimes gets lost why an umpire  called it fair/foul, to determine whether or not it's a rule dispute or a judgment dispute.   He often believes you're arguing judgment, and shuts down the conversation.

• Foul because the ball's in foul territory
• Foul because the ball hit the plate
• Foul because the catcher's in foul territory, not the ball
• Fair because the ball's in fair territory
• Fair because the catcher's in fair territory, not the ball

Though everything above has judgment in it, three of them are rule issues.

 

Then, do we have a scenario where he called it foul because it hit the plate...but the ball ended up foul anyway, but he stopped watching the ball after it hit the plate...and he's telling the coach it was foul because it hit the plate...and now nobody cares/knows if the ball was actually foul or not. 

Or do we simply have a case where the umpire ruled it fair, because he judged the ball was actually over fair territory when it was touched, and OP's declaration it was over foul territory is merely a matter of opinion.