Fair or Foul?

[Dr. Blue]

Hello All,

As many of you are aware, this "controversial" fair-foul call came up during one of the yesterday's games. I just wanted to take some time to go over 3 scenarios to double-check my interpretations:

 

 

For reference:

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.

 

Scenario #1: A ball stops rolling between home and third base. The portion of the ball that is in contact with the ground is over foul territory, but a portion of the ball is over the chalk. 

Answer: Foul ball. "A FAIR BALL is a batted ball that settles ON fair ground between home and first base, or between home and third base."

 

Scenario #2: A fly ball is hit to the outfield down the third baseline and makes contact with the ground in foul territory, but at the moment of contact, a portion of the ball is over the chalk.

Ruling: Foul ball. "A FAIR BALL is a batted ball that first falls on fair territory ON or beyond first base or third base."

 

Scenario #3: A ground ball is rolling between home and third base. A player touches the ball when ball is in contact with the ground in foul territory, but a portion of the ball is over the chalk.

Ruling: Fair ball. "A FAIR BALL is a batted ball that while ON OR OVER fair territory touches the person of an umpire or player."

 

 

So if we assumed that the video is representative of Scenario #3, would it be fair to say (no pun intended) that if the ball settled on its own in the exact same spot that the player touched the ball in the video that the ball would be foul instead of fair?

[Richvee]

Scenario 1 is very compelling. I never considered that difference. I agree 100% with 2 and 3. As does Close call sports

 

[Dr. Blue]

33 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Scenario 1 is very compelling. I never considered that difference. I agree 100% with 2 and 3. As does Close call sports

 

Agreed!

The play from yesterday made me go back and look at the semantics of the rule. I never considered that a settled ground ball between home and either first or third may be viewed differently than a ground ball that is still in motion and touched by a player between home and either first or third.

[Rich Ives]

MLB interp is wrong.  Why? Because if a ball just nicks 1B (or 3B) or a foul pole on  the foul edge it is by rule fair even though it is 99% over foul ground.

[Jimurray]

56 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

MLB interp is wrong.  Why? Because if a ball just nicks 1B (or 3B) or a foul pole on  the foul edge it is by rule fair even though it is 99% over foul ground.

CCS says the MLB interp has been further modified in later MLBUMs to only apply to a fly ball to the outfield. That makes the interp more in line with the fair foul wording on a ball that first falls in the outfield. If at least half the ball does not touch fair it technically did not first fall ON fair territory but it did first fall on foul territory. 

[Rich Ives]

17 hours ago, Jimurray said:

CCS says the MLB interp has been further modified in later MLBUMs to only apply to a fly ball to the outfield. That makes the interp more in line with the fair foul wording on a ball that first falls in the outfield. If at least half the ball does not touch fair it technically did not first fall ON fair territory but it did first fall on foul territory. 

The foul pole is just outside the  the outfield. My thought stands. The definition of fair ball includes " . . while over fair territory, passes out of the playing field in flight."  A ball that just nicks the foul pole on the foul side is a HR even if it is 99% over foul territory. 

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

The foul pole is just outside the  the outfield. My thought stands. The definition of fair ball includes " . . while over fair territory, passes out of the playing field in flight."  A ball that just nicks the foul pole on the foul side is a HR even if it is 99% over foul territory. 

That HR also satisfies the foul definition: "while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, or any object foreign to the natural ground." , the pole being a foreign object. But I'll go with a HR. If there ever was a protest you would get to the fair definition in the book before the foul definition. So I would agree that a ball that nicks the foul pole would be a HR. But if half the ball does not hit fair GROUND in the outfield I think MLB wants it called foul and  that would be in compliance with the definitions. Maybe they want that interp because it is reviewable.

[Rich Ives]

4 hours ago, Jimurray said:

That HR also satisfies the foul definition: "while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, or any object foreign to the natural ground." , the pole being a foreign object. But I'll go with a HR. If there ever was a protest you would get to the fair definition in the book before the foul definition. So I would agree that a ball that nicks the foul pole would be a HR. But if half the ball does not hit fair GROUND in the outfield I think MLB wants it called foul and  that would be in compliance with the definitions. Maybe they want that interp because it is reviewable.

Both fair and foul include "on or over" in part of their definition. All they really need to do is add "completely" to the foul definition. 

 

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Rich Ives said:

Both fair and foul include "on or over" in part of their definition. All they really need to do is add "completely" to the foul definition. 

 

I think @beerguy came up with that idea also. Why MLB doesn’t change the wording I don’t know. 

[Tborze]

If it's THAT close, it's a fair ball!?

[noumpere]

12 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I think @beerguy came up with that idea also. Why MLB doesn’t change the wording I don’t know. 

The same reason the other "123 known errors" (or whatever JEA has) aren't corrected -- it doesn't really affect MLB and the owners and players both have to approve it and the, as a matter of principle, don't want to agree.