Brown. Black & Blue, Boners & Balks - The B thread

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Balk talk has been in the true spirit of the B thread, but I have another question related to the base umpires.

I thought I knew the rules about fair and foul balls, but during a recent Brewers game, I became confused.

In the infield if a base umpire (1st or 3rd) deems that a ball in the infield passes over first or third base, it is deemed fair regardless of where it lands (?), according to the broadcast and the umpires in the game. Why then is a slicing line drive down the right field line that clearly passes first base in fair territory and then slices foul considered a foul ball. Deep in the corners if the ball lands in foul territory it is foul.

Questions

1. When or where does the over the base rule for the infield stop being applied?

2. or in other words how far beyond the bases does the over or inside the base rule no longer apply?

3. and finally does anyone else remember the kissing Bandit, Morganna? Her Bs qualify for this thread.

Ha, the ground ball over the bag!!! I think it's gotta be one of the single most impossible calls to make accurately, and is probably just a fair guess (see also- check swings) most of the time. I think the ground ball is different because it at least established itself in fair play when it hit the ground, thus the difference as to its being ruled fair by simply passing over the bag. The line drive didn't establish itself in fair play at any point, until it hits the ground in the outfield.. hence looking to see if the chalk pops up. I'm not saying this makes sense, but think that's the general thought behind it... it's similar to "ball crossing plain" versus dragging feet in back of endzone while "establishing possession" in football. The runner who only need to cross the plain has already established possession, while the dude catching ball has to establish possession as well as being in bounds.

To your questions 1 and 2... "over or inside the base" no longer applies once a ball on the fly goes further than the bases.. but applies for all balls that land/hit ground prior to the base.

Wasn't her name Topsy Turvey? or was that someone else??

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

Ha, the ground ball over the bag!!! I think it's gotta be one of the single most impossible calls to make accurately, and is probably just a fair guess (see also- check swings) most of the time. I think the ground ball is different because it at least established itself in fair play when it hit the ground, thus the difference as to its being ruled fair by simply passing over the bag. The line drive didn't establish itself in fair play at any point, until it hits the ground in the outfield.. hence looking to see if the chalk pops up. I'm not saying this makes sense, but think that's the general thought behind it... it's similar to "ball crossing plain" versus dragging feet in back of endzone while "establishing possession" in football. The runner who only need to cross the plain has already established possession, while the dude catching ball has to establish possession as well as being in bounds.

Wasn't her name Topsy Turvey? or was that someone else??

The referenced play I believe was a low line drive that was ruled to have passed over third base and thus called fair by the third base umpire. I think the ball landed in foul territory. I could be wrong as I was watching Net54 at the same time.

On another play the "vicinity" rule at second base was taken to the extreme when the thirdbaseman fielded a grounder and flipped the ball to the secondbaseman. The problem however was that the shortstop was on the bag and the secondbaseman was ten feet off the bag. The relay to first was late, but the runner at second was called out. The umpire's call was upheld.

The more I know, the more I don't understand.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

On another play the "vicinity" rule at second base was taken to the extreme when the thirdbaseman fielded a grounder and flipped the ball to the secondbaseman. The problem however was that the shortstop was on the bag and the secondbaseman was ten feet off the bag. The relay to first was late, but the runner at second was called out. The umpire's call was upheld.

The more I know, the more I don't understand.

Woah man.. that "vicinity" play is going to get blown to pieces if/when replay becomes for extensive. That's always just been an understood/unwritten oversight that he umps are willing to offer, so as to prevent middle infielders from un-needed collisions and ACL tears... at least that's how I see it. If they ever open that up to replay, I don't see how they'd ever be able to allow those calls anymore. Another one is the first baseman cheating by pulling his bag foot a split second before the ball arrives, in hopes of selling the ump that he has the ball. Replay would blow those up too.

[triwak]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

The referenced play I believe was a low line drive that was ruled to have passed over third base and thus called fair by the third base umpire. I think the ball landed in foul territory. I could be wrong as I was watching Net54 at the same time.

No, if the ump called the ball fair, he must have ruled that the ball was actually a "ground ball," NOT a line drive. Any fly ball that lands in foul territory (the first time it touches the ground) is "foul." But a ground ball that first touches the ground in fair territory and then passes inside of, or over any part of the 1st or 3rd base bag, is deemed "fair."