Citation/Interp?

[Kevin_K]

I have this question on my annual NJSIAA refresher test

                             
The base umpire declares "Foul" on a fly ball that is caught by the right fielder in fair ground and is then thrown to second to double up the runner who left the base too soon.

a. It is a foul ball and the ball is immediately dead.
b. The ball stays live and in play, and the catch is recorded along with the out at second base.
c. It is a fair ball and the catch stands, but the ball is immediately dead.
d. The offensive team coach gets to decide which out will stand.

I know the answer is b.

Does anyone have a citation or interpretation for this?

I know that balls that touch the ground after the foul call remain foul. I'm just looking for a case play or interpretation that validates the proper call.

 

 

[The Man in Blue]

Why is the base umpire calling a foul ball with a runner on second base?  🙈🙊

[Senor Azul]

I think the relevant FED rule is 2-16-1e:

A foul is a batted ball:

e. that touches the ground after inadvertently being declared foul by an umpire.

This rule was added to the definition in 2006. I have nothing else to back this up so if there is an interpretation of this rule it would have been issued around that time.

[Jimurray]

12 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

I think the relevant FED rule is 2-16-1e:

A foul is a batted ball:

e. that touches the ground after inadvertently being declared foul by an umpire.

This rule was added to the definition in 2006. I have nothing else to back this up so if there is an interpretation of this rule it would have been issued around that time.

Caseplay is 2.16.1 A 

can't paste it sorry

[beerguy55]

Does it matter?  Or more importantly, do you need an interpretation?

By rule a caught ball is live whether it is fair or foul.

A ball caught in foul territory is still foul, it's just not dead.

For the purposes of the question, when he "declared" was that verbally, or with a point?  I could interpret the question both ways.  And does it matter?  Making it foul doesn't make it dead.

 

Having said that, how would it play out if he was overly vocal and also put his hands up and made every indication the ball was not only foul, but dead?

 

The more interesting scenario for me is he called it "foul" because he determined the ball wasn't caught (with or without a vocal "no catch")....and then overruled himself/changed his mind and declared it caught.   That foul call would have to stand, wouldn't it?

 

[BigBlue4u]

20 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

Does anyone have a citation or interpretation for this?

For high school: 2.16.1 SIT A/B Case Bok

[Kevin_K]

8 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Does it matter?  Or more importantly, do you need an interpretation?

 

Need? No.

I write questions for a living and there are many times when I am asked about the evidence that supports the answers I am looking for when questions appears on a test, quiz, or other assignment. Having that support offers understanding for learners and validation that I know what I am teaching.

Those who write umpire tests in this neck of the woods aren't always the best question writers and it vexes me.

Over the years I have established a fairly good reputation for being a good on-field umpire as well as someone with a good understanding of the rules. While I cannot cite chapter and verse on every rule and every situation, I like to be able to cite the source(s) of information used to support my understanding of why certain situations should be adjudicated in certain ways. This probably has something to do with my schooling in research and the defense of historical arguments.

That's why I am looking for additional details to support the proper answer.

[beerguy55]

20 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

Need? No.

I write questions for a living and there are many times when I am asked about the evidence that supports the answers I am looking for when questions appears on a test, quiz, or other assignment. Having that support offers understanding for learners and validation that I know what I am teaching.

Those who write umpire tests in this neck of the woods aren't always the best question writers and it vexes me.

Over the years I have established a fairly good reputation for being a good on-field umpire as well as someone with a good understanding of the rules. While I cannot cite chapter and verse on every rule and every situation, I like to be able to cite the source(s) of information used to support my understanding of why certain situations should be adjudicated in certain ways. This probably has something to do with my schooling in research and the defense of historical arguments.

That's why I am looking for additional details to support the proper answer.

Sorry - I wasn't clear....my point was, the rulebook (OBR and FED) clearly says that a caught ball is live whether it is fair or it is foul.  (or more accurately, that only an uncaught foul is dead).  That "should" be all the evidence you need. 

Umpires signal foul on caught foul balls.

However, even if he's "wrong", the ball is caught, and the ball is live.   The call of "foul" is moot.  It's necessary to declare because a ball is foul before it's caught...but the catch renders it moot, except for scorekeeping purposes.   

To extend on that, would anything change, by rule or interpretation, in the question's scenario if the caught ball actually was in foul territory, and the umpired yelled "foul"?  To me both scenarios are the same, and the answer should be the same, whether the ball was foul or not.   The location of the ball is a red herring.

THAT might be where we need interpretation.

IMO, I think the context of the question matters to HOW the umpire declared the ball foul, and to what extent that was articulated and communicated.  Basically, did the umpire yelling "foul" give the baserunner the indication that the ball was not caught, or dead, and influence his slow return to second base. That might need some guidance/clarification to how to administer that situation.  But I don't think that's the spirit or purpose of the question.

And we might need interpretation if the umpire called "foul" as the result of a perceived "no catch"...and then reversed himself on the catch....and again, how that was communicated.  This is the biggest cluster F*#K as we would have an incorrectly declared non catch, leading to an incorrectly declared foul ball, followed by a reversal of either/both of those calls.  And it still doesn't really matter if the ball actually was fair or foul.  Again, I don't think that's the purpose of the question.

 

 

[Richvee]

On 2/13/2024 at 9:57 PM, The Man in Blue said:

Why is the base umpire calling a foul ball with a runner on second base?  🙈🙊

3 man crew? 

[Senor Azul]

From the 2023 NFHS case book play 2.16.1 Situation A:

On a count of 1-ball, 2-strikes, B1 hits a fly ball down the right-field line. While the ball is in the air, the umpire inadvertently declares 'foul ball'; (a) F9 catches the ball in flight, (b) the ball falls to the ground in fair territory, (c) the ball falls to the ground in foul territory. Ruling:  (a) The batter is out and the ball remains live, (b) and (c) the ball is immediately dead as soon as it touches the ground; the batter returns to bat with a count of 1-2.

This case play is very similar to the scenario presented in the test question. In my opinion it is the interpretation/case play that validates the proper call. Don't you agree, Mr. Kevin_K? I gave you the relevant rule and Mr. Jimurray gave you the case play but instead of acknowledging those who tried to help, you posted an autobiography. Is this case play sufficient for you or do you want something else?

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, Richvee said:

3 man crew? 

Then the question would ( or should) say "*A* base umpire..." instead of "*The* base umpire..."

[Kevin_K]

I like to have evidence when presenting an argument @Senor Azul. That's all I was looking for and it has been offered.

The play is one that may be addressed tangentially by the rule book but not specifically, at least in my mind. The casebook scenario presented deals with the play specifically, which is how the questions on these tests often snag inattentive test takers.

I appreciate all the information that the crew here has offered. The combined knowledge, the willingness to share, and the camaraderie at U-E is why I read this board almost every day.

[The Man in Blue]

22 hours ago, Richvee said:

3 man crew? 

I gave this a like . . . then I double-checked the OP . . . on a ball caught by the RIGHT fielder?!

[The Man in Blue]

8 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

I like to have evidence when presenting an argument @Senor Azul. That's all I was looking for and it has been offered.

The play is one that may be addressed tangentially by the rule book but not specifically, at least in my mind. The casebook scenario presented deals with the play specifically, which is how the questions on these tests often snag inattentive test takers.

I appreciate all the information that the crew here has offered. The combined knowledge, the willingness to share, and the camaraderie at U-E is why I read this board almost every day.

 

. . . and there is the flaw.  Case plays should teach us how to apply the rules, not replace the rules.

[Richvee]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I gave this a like . . . then I double-checked the OP . . . on a ball caught by the RIGHT fielder?!

It doesn’t specify base runners other than r2. Could be r1,r2. 

[Richvee]

22 hours ago, noumpere said:

Then the question would ( or should) say "*A* base umpire..." instead of "*The* base umpire..."

Yes it should. More importantly, if my partner ( singular) is calling F/F from “C”, we’ve got some issues to discuss. 

[MadMax]

13 hours ago, Richvee said:

Yes it should. More importantly, if my partner ( singular) is calling F/F from “C”, we’ve got some issues to discuss. 

The Fed Casebooks routinely pose “third-world, worst-case situations”, it seems. You read this, and are left bemusing two things – “Aren’t these umpires trained??”, and “So this is why they deify the PU as UIC, and all (his) rulings are final??” 

The reality is, there are umpires pressed into service, almost on an ad-hoc “here, wear this shirt, and track pants will (have to) do” basis. That’s how widespread and remote these HS games go, and how dire the need for umpires is. Sure, there’s a need to sort out the ramifications of some “umpire” inadvertently, erroneously, or unnecessarily making calls, but it seems the adage of “common sense and fair play” is often lacking in a lot of Fed manuals. 

This sort of scenario is not without precedent in the other rule sets. Why the heck was a U1 calling Time during a pitch – because he “Couldn’t see” (into the setting sun) – and How could that crew justify taking the ensuing home run off the board???

[mhoffman]

On 2/15/2024 at 7:54 PM, Richvee said:

3 man crew? 

You mean 3 man with 2 outs hahaha....ok I'll go back to spectating this fabulous forum lol

[Richvee]

3 hours ago, mhoffman said:

You mean 3 man with 2 outs hahaha....ok I'll go back to spectating this fabulous forum lol

May be r1/r2. OP doesn’t specify 😉

[johnnyg08]

On 2/17/2024 at 10:57 AM, MadMax said:

The Fed Casebooks routinely pose “third-world, worst-case situations”, it seems. You read this, and are left bemusing two things – “Aren’t these umpires trained??”, and “So this is why they deify the PU as UIC, and all (his) rulings are final??” 

The reality is, there are umpires pressed into service, almost on an ad-hoc “here, wear this shirt, and track pants will (have to) do” basis. That’s how widespread and remote these HS games go, and how dire the need for umpires is. Sure, there’s a need to sort out the ramifications of some “umpire” inadvertently, erroneously, or unnecessarily making calls, but it seems the adage of “common sense and fair play” is often lacking in a lot of Fed manuals. 

This sort of scenario is not without precedent in the other rule sets. Why the heck was a U1 calling Time during a pitch – because he “Couldn’t see” (into the setting sun) – and How could that crew justify taking the ensuing home run off the board???

I think more time needs to be spent on terminology versus third world plays in the casebook. 

More training should involve prioritizing things that most you're likely to see in a game. Then your terminology will likely get you through the other stuff. 

[BigBlue4u]

On 2/16/2024 at 3:50 PM, The Man in Blue said:

and there is the flaw.  Case plays should teach us how to apply the rules, not replace the rules

The MIB...excellent point!!