Literal Interpretation Fair or Foul?

[mrumpiresir]

Since the season is slowing down for most of us, I wanted to discuss something that I’ve been wondering about.

 

According to OBR and NFHS rules, a batted ball which is on or over fair ground when bounding to the outfield past first or third base is a fair ball.

The key phrase in the rule is “when bounding to the outfieldâ€.

 

We all know that first and third base are entirely in the infield.

So if a batter hits one of those cues shots off the bat and the ball hits the ground, takes a hard left turn, crosses the front edge of third base, and bounds to foul territory before it passes the back edge of the bag, should it be fair or foul since it did not bound to the outfield?

 

I have always called a ball that passes over any part of first or third a fair ball.  Is this the correct call according to the book?

 

I hope Mr. Rich Ives will chime in because I could not help but notice he is a stickler for the literal interpretation.

[maineump]

If the ball passes (bounds) over the base, then it is fair. The outfield also includes foul territory. So you are correct in your ruling.

[maven]

So if a batter hits one of those cues shots off the bat and the ball hits the ground, takes a hard left turn, crosses the front edge of third base, and bounds to foul territory before it passes the back edge of the bag, should it be fair or foul since it did not bound to the outfield?

 

 

I'm not sure where your confusion arises. If a batted ball bounces first in front of the base and then crosses over the base, that's the definition of 'bounding'. The ball you're describing bounded into the outfield, and was a fair ball.

 

This is not a "technical" call.

[mrumpiresir]

 

So if a batter hits one of those cues shots off the bat and the ball hits the ground, takes a hard left turn, crosses the front edge of third base, and bounds to foul territory before it passes the back edge of the bag, should it be fair or foul since it did not bound to the outfield?

 

 

I'm not sure where your confusion arises. If a batted ball bounces first in front of the base and then crosses over the base, that's the definition of 'bounding'. The ball you're describing bounded into the outfield, and was a fair ball.

 

This is not a "technical" call.

 

I'm not confused and I understand what a bounding ball is. I know it's highly unlikely that what I described in the OP will ever occur and I'm certainly not suggesting that we call it differently than we have been calling it all our lives. 

 I'm just saying that a ball that never goes beyond the back edge of the bag does not meet the definition of a fair ball according to the book.

[basejester]

I see your concern.  Look at the definition of outfield in 1.04.

 

1.04 THE PLAYING FIELD. The field shall be laid out according to the instructions
below, supplemented by Diagrams No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 on adjoining pages.
The infield shall be a 90-foot square. The outfield shall be the area between two
foul lines formed by extending two sides of the square, as in Diagram 1.

 

I think we can use this definition to rationalize the traditional interpretation of fair and foul.

 

However, I note this contradiction in our interpretation in 2.0:

 

An INFIELDER is a fielder who occupies a position in the infield.

 

An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted
bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or
first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out. The pitcher, catcher and any
outfielder who stations himself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for
the purpose of this rule.

 

If the "infield" is just the square formed by the bases, there is often only one infielder.  *Shrug*

 

Now I really see what you're getting at.  And I've never seen it in practice.

 

If the ball bounds over the front part of the bag but settles on the foul side without passing out of the 90' square, I think that's a foul ball.

[Rich Ives]

 

 

So if a batter hits one of those cues shots off the bat and the ball hits the ground, takes a hard left turn, crosses the front edge of third base, and bounds to foul territory before it passes the back edge of the bag, should it be fair or foul since it did not bound to the outfield?

 

 

I'm not sure where your confusion arises. If a batted ball bounces first in front of the base and then crosses over the base, that's the definition of 'bounding'. The ball you're describing bounded into the outfield, and was a fair ball.

 

This is not a "technical" call.

 

I'm not confused and I understand what a bounding ball is. I know it's highly unlikely that what I described in the OP will ever occur and I'm certainly not suggesting that we call it differently than we have been calling it all our lives. 

 I'm just saying that a ball that never goes beyond the back edge of the bag does not meet the definition of a fair ball according to the book.

 

 

A ball first hitting fair, going over the base, then hitting foul happens very often, probably once per game at least. It's a fair ball. Heck - this is one even the TV announcers get right.

[johnnyg08]

Yeah, don't over think it.  If it bounds over any part of the base, we have a fair ball.  

[MadMax]

"The bases behave like the two front end-zone pylons in football" is how it was explained to me. There is an ethereal column going up into infinity defined by the base's square shape. If the ball bounces in fair territory in front of the base (firstly, and before the bisecting line between 1B and 3B) and passes through that column, then no matter where it bounces again, it is a fair ball.

 

I may have complicated it for some folks, but that's how it was explained to me.

 

Maybe the day will come where there is a camera or motion detector in the base aimed straight up and if it sees the ball go over it, it triggers the base to flash green, or something. 

[ALStripes17]

"The bases behave like the two front end-zone pylons in football" is how it was explained to me. There is an ethereal column going up into infinity defined by the base's square shape. If the ball bounces in fair territory in front of the base (firstly, and before the bisecting line between 1B and 3B) and passes through that column, then no matter where it bounces again, it is a fair ball.

I may have complicated it for some folks, but that's how it was explained to me.

Maybe the day will come where there is a camera or motion detector in the base aimed straight up and if it sees the ball go over it, it triggers the base to flash green, or something.

That would be kinda cool

[mrumpiresir]

 

 

 

So if a batter hits one of those cues shots off the bat and the ball hits the ground, takes a hard left turn, crosses the front edge of third base, and bounds to foul territory before it passes the back edge of the bag, should it be fair or foul since it did not bound to the outfield?

 

 

I'm not sure where your confusion arises. If a batted ball bounces first in front of the base and then crosses over the base, that's the definition of 'bounding'. The ball you're describing bounded into the outfield, and was a fair ball.

 

This is not a "technical" call.

 

I'm not confused and I understand what a bounding ball is. I know it's highly unlikely that what I described in the OP will ever occur and I'm certainly not suggesting that we call it differently than we have been calling it all our lives. 

 I'm just saying that a ball that never goes beyond the back edge of the bag does not meet the definition of a fair ball according to the book.

 

 

A ball first hitting fair, going over the base, then hitting foul happens very often, probably once per game at least. It's a fair ball. Heck - this is one even the TV announcers get right.

 

I agree with that, but what I'm saying is that we will probably never see a batted ball cross the bag but not continue beyond the back edge of the bag.

[mrumpiresir]

I see your concern.  Look at the definition of outfield in 1.04.

 

1.04 THE PLAYING FIELD. The field shall be laid out according to the instructions

below, supplemented by Diagrams No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 on adjoining pages.

The infield shall be a 90-foot square. The outfield shall be the area between two

foul lines formed by extending two sides of the square, as in Diagram 1.

 

I think we can use this definition to rationalize the traditional interpretation of fair and foul.

 

However, I note this contradiction in our interpretation in 2.0:

 

An INFIELDER is a fielder who occupies a position in the infield.

 

An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted

bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or

first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out. The pitcher, catcher and any

outfielder who stations himself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for

the purpose of this rule.

 

If the "infield" is just the square formed by the bases, there is often only one infielder.  *Shrug*

 

Now I really see what you're getting at.  And I've never seen it in practice.

 

If the ball bounds over the front part of the bag but settles on the foul side without passing out of the 90' square, I think that's a foul ball.

That's what a literal interpretation of the written rule would suggest.

[UmpTTS43]

Once a bounding ball touches the base or breaks the front plane of the base it is a fair ball.

Too many errors in the rule book. We cannot enforce by the "literal" written rule.

[basejester]

Has anybody every seen this happen?

[mrumpiresir]

Once a bounding ball touches the base or breaks the front plane of the base it is a fair ball.

Too many errors in the rule book. We cannot enforce by the "literal" written rule.

I agree with you 100%, That's the way it is called and should be called.  I was just wondering if this had been discussed before and what thoughts others have on this.

[maven]

 

Once a bounding ball touches the base or breaks the front plane of the base it is a fair ball.

Too many errors in the rule book. We cannot enforce by the "literal" written rule.

I agree with you 100%, That's the way it is called and should be called.  I was just wondering if this had been discussed before and what thoughts others have on this.

 

 

My thought is that it's not worth much thought nor discussion. We know the book is flawed, so pointing this out isn't terribly interesting or new.

[Ump29]

Has anybody every seen this happen?

Yes.

[mrumpiresir]

 

 

Once a bounding ball touches the base or breaks the front plane of the base it is a fair ball.

Too many errors in the rule book. We cannot enforce by the "literal" written rule.

I agree with you 100%, That's the way it is called and should be called.  I was just wondering if this had been discussed before and what thoughts others have on this.

 

 

My thought is that it's not worth much thought nor discussion. We know the book is flawed, so pointing this out isn't terribly interesting or new.

 

I was not aware that this error in the book was well known.  Just trying to start a discussion on something I found odd, and  because I find myself with too much time on my hands.

[Jimurray]

"The bases behave like the two front end-zone pylons in football" is how it was explained to me. There is an ethereal column going up into infinity defined by the base's square shape. If the ball bounces in fair territory in front of the base (firstly, and before the bisecting line between 1B and 3B) and passes through that column, then no matter where it bounces again, it is a fair ball.

I may have complicated it for some folks, but that's how it was explained to me.

Maybe the day will come where there is a camera or motion detector in the base aimed straight up and if it sees the ball go over it, it triggers the base to flash green, or something.

What does the bisecting line between 1B and 3B have to do with the OP unless it is FED. If it is a bisecting line it would originate from the basepoint and bisect the bag as well as the infield.

[Rich Ives]

2.00 A BASE is one of four points which must be touched by a runner in order to score a run; more usually applied to the canvas bags and the rubber plate which mark the base points.

 

Including in the rules. Does a runner have to touch the base point or the bag to be safe?  Same definition here.

[mrumpiresir]

2.00 A BASE is one of four points which must be touched by a runner in order to score a run; more usually applied to the canvas bags and the rubber plate which mark the base points.

 

Including in the rules. Does a runner have to touch the base point or the bag to be safe?  Same definition here.

Thanks for the answer Rich.  That certainly sounds reasonable.

 

Why in the world does the rulebook include "bounds to the outfield"?   If I had my way, I would revise this to be more in line with the way it is called.  "A batted bounding ball that crosses over any portion of first or third base is a fair ball".

[Rich Ives]

 

2.00 A BASE is one of four points which must be touched by a runner in order to score a run; more usually applied to the canvas bags and the rubber plate which mark the base points.

 

Including in the rules. Does a runner have to touch the base point or the bag to be safe?  Same definition here.

Thanks for the answer Rich.  That certainly sounds reasonable.

 

Why in the world does the rulebook include "bounds to the outfield"?   If I had my way, I would revise this to be more in line with the way it is called.  "A batted bounding ball that crosses over any portion of first or third base is a fair ball".

 

 

It's the outfield because it's beyond the infield. Where does it say it has to be the fair part of it?

[mrumpiresir]

 

 

2.00 A BASE is one of four points which must be touched by a runner in order to score a run; more usually applied to the canvas bags and the rubber plate which mark the base points.

 

Including in the rules. Does a runner have to touch the base point or the bag to be safe?  Same definition here.

Thanks for the answer Rich.  That certainly sounds reasonable.

 

Why in the world does the rulebook include "bounds to the outfield"?   If I had my way, I would revise this to be more in line with the way it is called.  "A batted bounding ball that crosses over any portion of first or third base is a fair ball".

 

 

It's the outfield because it's beyond the infield. Where does it say it has to be the fair part of it?

 

It's not in the outfield if it crosses the bag and leaves the infield perpendicular to baseline and ends up in foul territory.

 

 

A FAIR BALL is a batted ball that settles on fair ground between home and first

base, or between home and third base, or that is on or over fair territory when bounding to

the outfield past first or third base, or that touches first, second or third base, or that first

falls on fair territory on or beyond first base or third base, or that, while on or over fair territory

touches the person of an umpire or player, or that, while over fair territory, passes

out of the playing field in flight.

 

I was hoping you would chime in because I know you tend to be a literal interpreter of the rules.

I understand your previous post concerning the point of the base being pretty much the same as the bag. 

 

In the OP. I was trying to make it clear that the ball never reached the outfield.

[Haid D' Salaami]

I see your concern.  Look at the definition of outfield in 1.04.

 

1.04 THE PLAYING FIELD. The field shall be laid out according to the instructions

below, supplemented by Diagrams No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 on adjoining pages.

The infield shall be a 90-foot square. The outfield shall be the area between two

foul lines formed by extending two sides of the square, as in Diagram 1.

 

I think we can use this definition to rationalize the traditional interpretation of fair and foul.

 

However, I note this contradiction in our interpretation in 2.0:

 

An INFIELDER is a fielder who occupies a position in the infield.

 

An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted

bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or

first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out. The pitcher, catcher and any

outfielder who stations himself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for

the purpose of this rule.

 

If the "infield" is just the square formed by the bases, there is often only one infielder.  *Shrug*

 

Now I really see what you're getting at.  And I've never seen it in practice.

 

If the ball bounds over the front part of the bag but settles on the foul side without passing out of the 90' square, I think that's a foul ball.

you pretty much said it .. if the ball bounds on ANY PART of the base it is a fair ball.... try not to over think this.

If the ball bounds over ANY PART of the base it is a fair ball.... try not to over think this

[noumpere]

 

I agree with you 100%, That's the way it is called and should be called.  I was just wondering if this had been discussed before and what thoughts others have on this.

.

 

 

Yes,

 Since about 1995 or so.

[johnnyg08]

Yeah, don't over think it.  If it bounds over any part of the base, we have a fair ball.  

 

yup