Fair/Foul

Two relevant rules:

6.05 A batter is out when-

(g)His fair ball touches him before touching a fielder;

And

6.05 A batter is out when-
(i)After hitting or bunting a foul ball, he intentionally deflects the course of the ball in any manner while running to first base.

The part that Jimmy didn't say was that if the B/R touches the ball unintentionally while both are in foul territory, it's a foul ball.

For example in one of the few games I've ever umpired, a weak pop up struck the B/R in the back in the air as he ran to first. The ball was in foul territory when it struck him and the B/R clearly wasn't attempting to contact the ball. No other fielder could've made a play on the ball, so I called foul.

quote:

Originally posted by JMoff:
The part that Jimmy didn't say was that if the B/R touches the ball unintentionally while both are in foul territory, it's a foul ball.

Should go without saying...it's the way the rules are written.

For example the rules state that the batter is out on an uncaught third strike when first is occupied with less than two outs.

Jimmy- I assumed that despite the fact the ball was touched unintentionally, the runner was appropriately called out because the ball hadn't reached 1b yet and a defensive player still potentially had the opportunity to make a play on it. The crowd gave it to the umpire pretty good and I wasn't sure who was right or wrong. Coach came out to argue for about a minute, nothing heated, then retreated back to the dugout.

quote:

Originally posted by J H:
Jimmy- I assumed that despite the fact the ball was touched unintentionally, the runner was appropriately called out because the ball hadn't reached 1b yet and a defensive player still potentially had the opportunity to make a play on it. The crowd gave it to the umpire pretty good and I wasn't sure who was right or wrong. Coach came out to argue for about a minute, nothing heated, then retreated back to the dugout.

Reaching 1B or not has nothing to do with it.

Was the ball completely over foul territory? If yes, go to the next question. If no, then BR is out.

Was it intentional? If no, foul ball. If yes, BR is out.

That's all there is to it for determining the call on this one.

The ball was clearly foul. The umpire threw his hands up in the air and said "foul ball" and then proceeded to call the runner out because the ball made contact with his foot. Obviously determining if the action was on purpose would be a judgement call, but I would believe that no one in the park believes that it was intentional. The action was certainly accidental.

Nothing I can add here... he got it wrong if it was foul...

quote:

Originally posted by J H:
Jimmy- I assumed that despite the fact the ball was touched unintentionally, the runner was appropriately called out because the ball hadn't reached 1b yet and a defensive player still potentially had the opportunity to make a play on it.

Apparently a little reading problem, here. Read 6.05 (g) slowly and pay attention to the word FAIR.

Bottom line, if the touch in FOUL territory was unintentional, the umpire screwed the pooch.

Jimmy- Hence the word "assumed", as in past tense. That's why I asked here.

Thanks for letting me know. I was surprised the coach didn't argue the point more.

quote:

Originally posted by J H:
I was surprised the coach didn't argue the point more.

That's generally because, as much as coaches think they know the rules... most really don't..

Here's a simple flowchart:

quote:

Originally posted by yawetag:
Here's a simple flowchart:

You forgot "Day or night game?"

quote:

Originally posted by TX-Ump74:

quote:

Originally posted by J H:
I was surprised the coach didn't argue the point more.

That's generally because, as much as coaches think they know the rules... most really don't..

This is funny on a thread where the umpire obviously missed it.

quote:

Originally posted by catcher15:

quote:

Originally posted by TX-Ump74:

quote:

Originally posted by J H:
I was surprised the coach didn't argue the point more.

That's generally because, as much as coaches think they know the rules... most really don't..

This is funny on a thread where the umpire obviously missed it.

But true, none-the-less.

It's more noticeable when an umpire blows a rule because it occurs with less frequency. Things that happen at a high frequency commonly go unnoticed.

quote:

Originally posted by catcher15:

quote:

Originally posted by TX-Ump74:

quote:

Originally posted by J H:
I was surprised the coach didn't argue the point more.

That's generally because, as much as coaches think they know the rules... most really don't..

This is funny on a thread where the umpire obviously missed it.

Actually, it is very appropriate in a thread like this. If an umpire makes an incorrect rules interpretation, it is now the coach's job to know the rule and be able to discuss it or protest it. Most times they do not and corrections aren't made because they don't know to protest. This a prime example.

I only make this statement to remind everyone as you have told me all umpires are not the same so it is the same with coaches. Sometimes coaches do know the rules and it makes some umpires very defensive.

quote:

Originally posted by catcher15:
I only make this statement to remind everyone as you have told me all umpires are not the same so it is the same with coaches. Sometimes coaches do know the rules and it makes some umpires very defensive.

The few times I have been honored with having a coach who knew the rules, I was elated, not defensive. It was a heck of a time saver.

On the other hand, when I have coaches who think they know the rules, it is not as enjoyable.

I agree Jimmy, if I find a coach that is well versed in the rules I can have a better discussion. As an example, I had a ball go out of play, I awarded from TOP. The manager came out and questioned it and I told him it was a TOP award. He countered it was the second play by an infielder and should have been TOT. I agreed and changed it. It was funny because his look was priceless, he expected a fight and I concurred that I was wrong and fixed it. Not enjoyable that I was wrong but enjoyable to have an intellegent discussion.
I have other situations where the coach had a legitament argument on a play but never even mentioned it. They would instead argue some bogus point or just want to tell me how bad a call he thought it was.
I am not broadstroking coaches and being clueless, I am saying the percentages aren't in their favour.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

quote:

Originally posted by catcher15:
I only make this statement to remind everyone as you have told me all umpires are not the same so it is the same with coaches. Sometimes coaches do know the rules and it makes some umpires very defensive.

The few times I have been honored with having a coach who knew the rules, I was elated, not defensive. It was a heck of a time saver.

On the other hand, when I have coaches who think they know the rules, it is not as enjoyable.

The real question, though, is are you just as arrogant as you appear on this post whether the coach knows the rules or not???

I treat all coaches the same, with courtesy and respect and unlike some, I never make assumptions. I learn the level of a coach's rule knowledge by observing, and as I said, when the are knowledgable, it saves time, when they are not, it isn't as enjoyable.

Either way, they are treated professionally.

It is quickly obvious the level of rules knowledge when they come out to discuss a ruling. When a coach asks if the hands are part of the bat or isn't the ball dead on a bounced ball that hits the batter. This tells us that he knows little.