Fair/Foul

[HokieUmp]

Trying to take the test now, and I've come across something yesterday that made me do the dog head-turn thing.  (I already got the question marked as wrong, as apparently the TASO software is grading this as you answer it,  as opposed to doing all 50 questions and grading at the end.  So I'm not asking as a 'cheat.')

I don't remember the exact question wording, since I didn't cut/paste.  But the gist was:  batter bunts or chops or something.  The ball hits the bat in fair territory (the question absolves the batter, saying the bat wasn't placed as to make intentional contact, or words to that effect), and then rolls into foul ground before passing 1st or 3rd.  Simple choices:  fair ball?  foul ball?

I said fair, and was marked wrong - again, I know it's considered wrong, because I was then given red text with a rule reference.  Thing is, that rule reference didn't have explicit language, so I'm admitting my confusion.

My brain keeps telling me:  when it hit that bat, it hit something not part of the natural ground, so THAT determines it's a fair ball.  To me - and I await your angry replies - it's analogous to a charging infielder having the ball tick off his glove and roll into foul ground.  THAT would be ruled fair, why not this scenario?

(Later last night, trying to tell someone else, I started to wonder if I have the facts above correct as they happened.  If I remembered this wrong, I will come back and correct, or just delete the whole stupid thing)  But:  am I REALLY wrong on this - is it a foul ball under this circumstance?  If I've royally cocked up my thinking, what else am I losing my mind on?

[noumpere]

From a very old NFHS rule book:

 

2-5-1 ART. 1 . . . A fair ball is a batted ball which:

f. while on or over fair territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, their clothing or equipment; or

 

2-16-1 ART. 1 . . . A foul is a batted ball:

d. that, while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or a player or any object foreign to the natural ground; or

 

Note that the bold is part of foul ball, but not part of fair ball.  So, when the batted ball hits an object foreign to the natural ground over fair territory, it's nothing, yet.

[Senor Azul]

From a very recent FED case book, the 2020 edition—I think option C answers your question and supports the answer given to you by the TASO software:

2.5.1 Situation E:  The batter hits the ball, drops the bat and it unintentionally hits the ball a second time in (a) fair territory and is either touched by a fielder and/or comes to rest in fair territory; (b) foul territory and is either touched by a fielder and/or comes to rest in either fair or foul territory; or (c) fair territory and is either touched by a fielder and/or comes to rest in foul territory. RULING:  In (a), the ball is fair. In (b) and (c), the ball is foul.

[HokieUmp]

Well, [poop].  I am, in fact, properly chastened.

I didn't get a copy of the case book, Senor, but even if I *had*, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have looked in it whilst taking the test.  Partly because I was convinced I was right when I hit "Next," and partly because .... well, I just don't look in the case book all that much.  ANY year.

Thank you, gentlemen, for the help.  Since I learned something, this exact play better happen about 5-10 times this year....

[lawump]

18 minutes ago, HokieUmp said:

 well, I just don't look in the case book all that much.  ANY year.

[I know you're not a lawyer...but I am, so I'm going to use the lawyer analogy.  It is not perfect, but here goes:]

That's like a lawyer saying. "I read all the statutes, but I'm not going to read any Supreme Court or Court of Appeals decisions." 

Such a lawyer would be committing legal malpractice.  Court decisions give meanings to the statutes; they interpret the statutes and tell persons (and lawyers) how to behave or act accordingly in a particular situation.

The NFHS casebook (and the MiLB and MLB Umpire Manuals) tell umpires how to interpret and apply the rules.  These publications do not make "suggestions" as to how one should apply the rules (as written in the applicable rule book) on the field during the game.  Rather, they tell umpires how they "must" apply the rules (as written in the rule book) during a game.  The casebook is binding authority...just like the rule book.  

Let me give you an example: In OBR, it is written (to paraphrase) that all runners are awarded two bases from the time-of-the-pitch on an overthrow by an infielder that goes into DBT if that overthrow was the first play by an infielder on a batted ball.  The key word in that entire definition is "play".  Unfortunately, if you were in umpire school with me in 1997 you would not be able to find a definition of what constitutes a "play" for purposes of this rule no matter how hard you looked in the rule book.  Rather, you would have to go to the applicable umpire manual to find that a "play" for purposes of this rule is a (1) tag or attempted tag of a base by a fielder in an attempt to retire a runner; (2) a tag or attempted tag of a runner by a fielder in an attempt to retire a runner; or (3) a throw by one fielder to another fielder in an attempt to retire a runner.  Without the appropriate casebook, one cannot understand the rule.  This is just one example.  There are many, many of these in every rule set. 

Heck, the MLB Umpire Manual has three pages of binding authority on when the defensive team may (and may not) execute a valid appeal of a missed base or a failure to re-touch a base.

I am making a friendly suggestion that you re-evaluate your current practice of not "look(ing) in the case book all that much. ANY year."  

[HokieUmp]

36 minutes ago, lawump said:

[snip]

I am making a friendly suggestion that you re-evaluate your current practice of not "look(ing) in the case book all that much. ANY year."  

Points taken, and will be digested.  My *current* problem, then, would be getting a case book.  When I went to my first meeting in my new chapter, I was handed a Rule (I do NOT pluralize that, and none of your fancy lawyer-talk is gonna get me on THAT one) book, and nothing else.  I can't remember what my other chapter did last year, try as I might to remember.  I've dropped an email to someone on the board, just to see what's up.

[Richvee]

1 minute ago, HokieUmp said:

Points taken, and will be digested.  My *current* problem, then, would be getting a case book.  When I went to my first meeting in my new chapter, I was handed a Rule (I do NOT pluralize that, and none of your fancy lawyer-talk is gonna get me on THAT one) book, and nothing else.  I can't remember what my other chapter did last year, try as I might to remember.  I've dropped an email to someone on the board, just to see what's up.

I like the way the rule book and  case book are set up in arbiter on the NFHS page. Each rule has a link to the related case plays. Very helpful at times. 

[kylehutson]

1 hour ago, HokieUmp said:

Points taken, and will be digested.  My *current* problem, then, would be getting a case book.  When I went to my first meeting in my new chapter, I was handed a Rule (I do NOT pluralize that, and none of your fancy lawyer-talk is gonna get me on THAT one) book, and nothing else.  I can't remember what my other chapter did last year, try as I might to remember.  I've dropped an email to someone on the board, just to see what's up.

Do you have access to Arbiter? As @Richvee alludes, the entire book is available on their site, and through the "NFHS Rules" app. Even if you don't have the former, the latter should be a pretty inexpensive way of getting it.

[Jimurray]

41 minutes ago, kylehutson said:

Do you have access to Arbiter? As @Richvee alludes, the entire book is available on their site, and through the "NFHS Rules" app. Even if you don't have the former, the latter should be a pretty inexpensive way of getting it.

Arbiter still doesn't have 2020 books and I think they had 2019 a lot earlier than this in the years past. NFHS might want a $7 investment this year if your chapter/association doesn't spring for a hard copy. The arbiter or rule app is better for searching and the hard copy is better for reading straight thru, 3 pages at a time, on the throne. I thought all TASO umpires could have Arbiter NFHS membership but I never saw a TASO explanation of how to get it. I had it from a previous NFHS enrollment and it never dropped out.

 

4 hours ago, noumpere said:

From a very old NFHS rule book:

 

2-5-1 ART. 1 . . . A fair ball is a batted ball which:

f. while on or over fair territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, their clothing or equipment; or

 

2-16-1 ART. 1 . . . A foul is a batted ball:

d. that, while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or a player or any object foreign to the natural ground; or

 

Note that the bold is part of foul ball, but not part of fair ball.  So, when the batted ball hits an object foreign to the natural ground over fair territory, it's nothing, yet.

Unless the foreign object is a base?

[kylehutson]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

6 hours ago, noumpere said:

From a very old NFHS rule book:

 

2-5-1 ART. 1 . . . A fair ball is a batted ball which:

f. while on or over fair territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, their clothing or equipment; or

 

2-16-1 ART. 1 . . . A foul is a batted ball:

d. that, while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or a player or any object foreign to the natural ground; or

 

Note that the bold is part of foul ball, but not part of fair ball.  So, when the batted ball hits an object foreign to the natural ground over fair territory, it's nothing, yet.

Unless the foreign object is a base?

2-5-1 ART. 1 . . . A fair ball is a batted ball which:

e. touches first, second or third base; or

[Jimurray]

28 minutes ago, kylehutson said:

2-5-1 ART. 1 . . . A fair ball is a batted ball which:

e. touches first, second or third base; or

That's what I wanted to elicit. The fair-foul rules in all codes leave some gaps. MLB exacerbated the gap in a recent interp. And in the OP/TASO question the bat hitting the ball is covered in FED but problematic in OBR/NCAA. 

[noumpere]

14 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Arbiter still doesn't have 2020 books and I think they had 2019 a lot earlier than this in the years past. NFHS might want a $7 investment this year if your chapter/association doesn't spring for a hard copy. The arbiter or rule app is better for searching and the hard copy is better for reading straight thru, 3 pages at a time, on the throne. I thought all TASO umpires could have Arbiter NFHS membership but I never saw a TASO explanation of how to get it. I had it from a previous NFHS enrollment and it never dropped out.

 

Unless the foreign object is a base?

The rule is correct.  The base is in fair ground, so the part about "hitting a foreign object" will not apply.

 

And, of course, I only pasted the parts of the rule relevant to the OP.  Lots of other ways for a ball to become fair / foul.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

The rule is correct.  The base is in fair ground, so the part about "hitting a foreign object" will not apply.

 

And, of course, I only pasted the parts of the rule relevant to the OP.  Lots of other ways for a ball to become fair / foul.

But the ball could be mostly over foul territory when it hits the base so the additional rule verbiage is useful which begs the question: What if a dropped bat is in fair territory with the tip resting on the foul line and flush with the foul edge. The ball is touching foul territory when it hits the bat. What do we have? 

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

But the ball could be mostly over foul territory when it hits the base so the additional rule verbiage is useful which begs the question: What if a dropped bat is in fair territory with the tip resting on the foul line and flush with the foul edge. The ball is touching foul territory when it hits the bat. What do we have? 

It's the location of the ball that matters--so foul ball in your example.

2-16-1 ART. 1 . . . A foul is a batted ball:

d. that, while on or over foul territory...

[beerguy55]

On 1/14/2020 at 6:19 PM, Jimurray said:

 

 

Unless the foreign object is a base?

Or the foul (fair?) pole (which is out of play so makes sense)...

However, not the rubber:

A batted ball not touched by a fielder, which hits the pitcher’s rubber and rebounds into foul territory, between home and first, or between home and third base is a foul ball

[Senor Azul]

Mr. beerguy55, that bit of text you cited is from the OBR not the FED. And while it is true that the pitching rubber is considered to be a foreign (or unnatural) object, it is over fair territory not foul territory. FED rule 2-16-1 that Mr. noumpere cited addresses the batted ball over foul territory. Even though the FED rule does not specifically cover the situation of a batted ball hitting the rubber as the OBR definition does, it can be arrived at using just the current language of the FED rule. Assuming a batted ball is not yet fair or foul and it strikes a foreign object over fair territory remains live, and is determined fair or foul based on the other conditions of the definition of fair/foul.

The foul pole above the top of the fence is considered to be over fair (not foul) and dead ball territory, so a batted ball that strikes it is both fair and dead. To sum up--all bases, the pitcher’s plate, and the foul poles are all unnatural objects but they are all over fair territory.

[The Man in Blue]

On 1/14/2020 at 4:05 PM, lawump said:

[I know you're not a lawyer...but I am, so I'm going to use the lawyer analogy.  It is not perfect, but here goes:]

That's like a lawyer saying. "I read all the statutes, but I'm not going to read any Supreme Court or Court of Appeals decisions." 

Such a lawyer would be committing legal malpractice.  Court decisions give meanings to the statutes; they interpret the statutes and tell persons (and lawyers) how to behave or act accordingly in a particular situation.

[Edited for brevity]

I am making a friendly suggestion that you re-evaluate your current practice of not "look(ing) in the case book all that much. ANY year."  

My unpopular opinion: This notion, while accepted practice in baseball, is complete horse-hockey.

The rule book should be just that: the rule book.  Case plays should be there to help teach us how to think like umpires, not to subsidize rules and provide contrary rulings that they are too lazy to fix in the rule book.  A person should be able to read the rule book and apply it.  They shouldn’t have to go to case books, other organizations’ rules, or textbooks to be told what to do.

 

So why is this considered a foul ball?  I still haven’t seen that explicitly answered.

2-5-1(f) explicitly states touching a piece of equipment in fair territory makes the ball fair.

Now, I know that conventional wisdom is that a discarded and stationary bat is not considered a piece of equipment, rather it is considered part of the field (and this is explicit in some softball codes).  However I cannot find a baseball rule that says that.  I can find a thrown bat causing interference and I can find rules on intentional second contact.  So by rule (unless somebody can find otherwise) a discarded bat is a piece of (loose/detached) equipment and should still be treated as such.  This is in contradiction to the case play.

 

 

 

[Senor Azul]

As John McEnroe would say, “You can’t be serious!” Let’s take a look at some of the rules interpretations manuals—

2016 BRD has 441 pages.

2017 Jaksa/Roder manual has 244 pages.

2013 Wendelstedt manual has 285 pages.

2018 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual has 157 pages.

2019 Little League RIM has 73 pages and a supplemental book Make The Right Call.

Do you really want all those interpretations and clarifications stuffed into an OBR rule book that already has 173 pages in the 2019 edition?

From the Foreword (written by Pat O’Conner) of the 2018 MiLBUM—

The integrity of baseball is embodied in the Umpire upon whom the trust is placed to insure the game is played by the rules guaranteeing fairness for those involved. During the course of performing these prescribed duties, the Umpire must at times interpret and clarify rules as they are written. Words can never be written to cover all situations in our great game and therefore incidents may occur which call for the sound and fair judgment of the Umpire. This publication contains interpretations, clarifications, general practices and rulings endorsed by Minor League Baseball. It is provided as a supplement to the Official Baseball Rules which govern all games in Minor League Baseball.

[The Man in Blue]

No, all those interpretations ... and they are just that — interpretations — do not need to be stuffed into the book.  Adequately writing the rules would be sufficient.  True, you can probably never nail things down 100%, but the culture of the game is to govern by case-law rather than trying.  Not much different than judges who try to legislate from the bench.

Expecting a volunteer or side-gig umpire to read 6+ books of people’s opinions to achieve something that could be accomplished in a paragraph or less is utterly ludicrous.  Instead of writing another book, rewrite the rule to fix the problem/loophole/omission.

We read the rules to play a board game and my family plays the board game.  I don’t have to grab a dictionary, an encyclopedia, Wikipedia, and three text books.  Case plays, interpretations, etc. should exist to help an umpire develop a way of thinking, NOT to change rules that an experienced umpire didn’t like.  Show your work on how you reach an interpretation, don’t just say “do this.”

Back to the question at hand ... why is that a foul ball?  Show your work.  I believe I understand the rationale (bat is part of the field), but I have found nothing to support it beyond “That guy over there said so.”  We chastise umpires who butcher a rule because he/she never read it and went by what somebody told him/her.

[Senor Azul]

From the 2020 FED case book Foreword:

The Baseball Case Book is based on the 2020 NFHS Baseball Rules Book as adopted by the National Federation of State High School Associations…

Interpretations:  Rulings in this book are approved by the NFHS Baseball Rules Committee. They are official for situations as outlined. (emphasis added)

***

2020 NFHS Case Book Play 2.16.1 Situation D:  B1’s bunt rolls up the first-base line where it hits B1’s bat that was lying on the ground in fair territory. The ball deflects into foul territory. Is the ball fair or foul? Ruling:  The ball is foul, provided the bat was not placed there intentionally. The bat is considered to be part of the playing field. (2-5-1, 2-8-1, 8-4-1d)…

2003 NFHS Baseball Rule Interpretations SITUATION 13: The batter hits a hard, low line drive that hits the front edge of the pitching plate, and without touching any defensive player, rebounds back towards home, hitting the batter who is still in the batter's box. RULING: This is a foul ball. To be fair, the ball must either contact a player on or over fair ground or contact fair ground on or beyond an imaginary line between first and third bases. (2-5-1b, f)

[The Man in Blue]

Show your work:

2-5-1 does not state a discarded bat is part of the field.  In fact, 2-5-1(f) actually states a ball that touches a piece of equipment in fair territory is a FAIR BALL.

Rule 2 Playing Terms and Definitions

Section 5 FAIR BALL/BASE HIT

Article 1 … A fair ball is a batted ball which:

a. settles on fair territory between home and third base or between home and first base; or

b. contacts fair ground on or beyond an imaginary line between first and third base; or

c. is on or over fair ground when bounding to the outfield past first or third base; or

d. first falls on fair ground on or beyond first or third base; or

e. touches first, second, or third base; or

f. while on or over fair territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, their clothing or equipment; or

g. while over fair ground passes out of the playing field in flight.

1. A fly ball or line drive, which passes over or inside first or third base and curves to foul ground beyond such a base, is not a fair hit; but a hit which goes over or through the fence is a fair hit if it is over fair ground when it leaves the field.

There is no 2-8-1.  There is a 2-8.  It also does not state a discarded bat is part of the field.  It gives us nothing for this discussion.

Rule 2 Playing Terms and Definitions

Section 8 BUNT

A bunt is a fair ball in which the batter does not swing to hit the ball, but holds the bat in the path of the ball to tap it slowly to the infield.  If an attempt to bunt is a foul ball, it is treated the same as any other foul ball, except that if the attempt is by a batter who has two strikes, such batter is out as in 7-4-1e.

8-4-1(d) does not state a discarded bat is a part of the field.  It tells us that intent is needed for an interference call on a second contact.

RULE 8 Baserunning

Section 4 RUNNER IS OUT

Article 1 … The batter-runner is out when:

d. after hitting or bunting a ball, he intentionally contacts the ball with the bat a second time in fair or foul territory.  The ball is dead and no runner(s) advance.

1. In the case of a foul ball, it must have a chance to become fair in the umpire's judgment.

2. If the bat and ball accidentally come in contact with each other a second time while the batter is holding the bat in the batter's box, it is a foul ball.

So that gives us … nothing to indicate a discarded bat is part of the field.  It does give us a batted ball contacting a piece of equipment in fair territory is a fair ball.  So what is "equipment"?

RULE 1 Players, Field, and Equipment

Section 2 THE FIELD

… OK, I'm not going to type out the whole thing.  I encourage you NOT to take my word, but rather go read it yourself.  Nowhere in it does it consider a bat to be part of the field.  The pitcher's plate IS specifically mentioned as part of the field (Article 11).  Hold on to that one for a moment …

RULE 1 Players, Field, and Equipment

Section 3 BATS, BALLS, AND GLOVES

… OK, again, I'm not going to type the whole thing out.  Articles 3, 4, and 5 are about bats.  Read it for yourself: they aren't players; they aren't the field; they are equipment.  This rule does not make them part of the field at any point.

 

Absent a rule making the bat part of the field, we DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING that would lend credence to the notion that the bat is part of the field EXCEPT a case play that points us to rules that not only do not support the ruling, but in fact tell us the exact opposite -- FAIR BALL.

Since you bring up that 2003 case play, it is also incorrect by the rule book.  The pitcher's plate is part of the field (1-2-11).  The ball is fair … until it hits the batter in the batter's box.  Then we have a foul ball IF he is still holding the bat OR we may have an out if he is not holding the bat -- see 8-4-1(d)(2) above.

 

 

But hey, some guy wrote it down in an out-of-print book once, so it has to be true.  Right?

 

If they want this called this way, I am fine with that … IF they fix the RULE to support the call.

[Jimurray]

6 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Show your work:

2-5-1 does not state a discarded bat is part of the field.  In fact, 2-5-1(f) actually states a ball that touches a piece of equipment in fair territory is a FAIR BALL.

 

 

I don’t think 2-5-1g states what you what you say about a piece of equipment but it is up for interp  What do you have if a batted ball is deflected off a lost helmet in fair territory and is touched foul. And what would you have if you ever called an OBR game with that sit. 

[The Man in Blue]

Just now, Jimurray said:

I don’t think 2-5-1g states what you what you say about a piece of equipment but it is up for interp  What do you have if a batted ball is deflected off a lost helmet in fair territory and is touched foul. And what would you have if you ever called an OBR game with that sit. 

I didn't mention 2-5-1(g).  I cited 2-5-1(f).  It is pretty clear.

f. while on or over fair territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, their clothing or equipment; or

If I had a runner who lost his helmet and a batted ball hit the helmet before anything else … I have a fair ball by 2-5-1(f).

The runner is a player, yes?  The helmet is a piece of his equipment, yes?  The batted ball hit it in fair territory, yes?  I'm not sure what is open for interpretation there.  That is all pretty black and white.  The rule makes no differentiation between attached or unattached equipment.

Ah yes, the "I CALL OBR AND THAT MAKES ME A GOD" card.  We are discussing NHFS.  Feel free to post rules and citations for OBR for people who do call it, if you'd like.  I don't have any objection (unlike some), just make sure you label it OBR and are using it as food for thought, not some justification for another rule set.

"That sit {sic}" you refer to is their rules.  I didn't write them.  But I read them and use them to call the game.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

I didn't mention 2-5-1(g).  I cited 2-5-1(f).  It is pretty clear.

f. while on or over fair territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, their clothing or equipment; or

If I had a runner who lost his helmet and a batted ball hit the helmet before anything else … I have a fair ball by 2-5-1(f).

The runner is a player, yes?  The helmet is a piece of his equipment, yes?  The batted ball hit it in fair territory, yes?  I'm not sure what is open for interpretation there.  That is all pretty black and white.  The rule makes no differentiation between attached or unattached equipment.

Ah yes, the "I CALL OBR AND THAT MAKES ME A GOD" card.  We are discussing NHFS.  Feel free to post rules and citations for OBR for people who do call it, if you'd like.  I don't have any objection (unlike some), just make sure you label it OBR and are using it as food for thought, not some justification for another rule set.

"That sit {sic}" you refer to is their rules.  I didn't write them.  But I read them and use them to call the game.

No, 2-5-1f is not pretty clear. Once they lose their equipment it’s not pretty clear that it’s theirs anymore which would allow me not to call it fair and use the FED caseplay to keep it live. It helps that OBR put what to do about a helmet in their rules but that can’t be the determining factor. 

[The Man in Blue]

50 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

No, 2-5-1f is not pretty clear. Once they lose their equipment it’s not pretty clear that it’s theirs anymore which would allow me not to call it fair and use the FED caseplay to keep it live. It helps that OBR put what to do about a helmet in their rules but that can’t be the determining factor. 

2-5-2(f) is very clear.  I’m sorry that you don’t want it to be.

As for the helmet ... He is a player and it is his equipment.  To whom do you think it belongs?  It didn’t come from a fan.  It wasn’t dropped off a passing helicopter.  I don’t think it fell off of a low flying goose.  Skydiver?  Once time is called, the base runner will go retrieve it and put it back on.

“But Blue, he actually borrowed that helmet from his cousin!  Since it isn’t his, the rule doesn’t apply!”

I’m taking your word and I am glad that OBR has something specific in their rules ... it is amazing what that can accomplish.  Thank you for illustrating my point about putting things in the actual rule!  (Correct, we should not use an OBR rule here.)