PDA

View Full Version : Funny how fake HR's and missed HBP's aren't relevant now...


Randar68
10-26-2005, 10:43 AM
I thought it quite hillarious in a "that was so predictable" manner how the announcers and everyone else basically refused to talk about either of these controversial plays, even though the HR basically was the reason this game went on to 14 innings (although we still had our chances to end it in 9)...

However, the various broadcasts talked about the AJ plays, the Dye HBP ad nauseum for days and days after they occurred, like we were some kind of charity case... hell, Jeff Brantley still refused to give us any credit as they dissected the game minutes after we won it..."I'm still not sure the Sox are a better team than the Astros, but this is the Astros team that went 15-30, not the second half team"... Hey douchebags, it's called "Pitching and defense"...

sheeesh...

voodoochile
10-26-2005, 10:46 AM
15-34, Jeff, 15-34...

Oh and one other thing...

We...

Don't...

Care...

:moonwalk:

asindc
10-26-2005, 10:48 AM
Don't forget the 2nd fouled attempted bunt Pods put down in one of the extra innings that somehow turned into a fair ball.

That non-HR didn't get nearly as much play as it should have, given the big issue home-field advantage for the Astros has become and the ongoing media story of how we're getting all the breaks. We got zero breaks last night (and, no, I don't include the silly roof issue) but we still won. I haven't bought into the whole "media is being unfair to us" thing, but that is shoddy journalism and analysis at the very least.

Jerko
10-26-2005, 10:50 AM
Don't forget the fan interference and the ensuing rundown.

voodoochile
10-26-2005, 10:51 AM
Don't forget the 2nd fouled attempted bunt Pods put down in one of the extra innings that somehow turned into a fair ball.

Yes, that is an excellent point. The rule clearly states that the ball MUST hit fair first to ever have a chance of being fair. The ball clearly landed in the RH batters box. That's foul territory. No one even batted an eye.

I'm also curious if they ever showed a replay of Uribe's just miss granny in the 5th. I never saw one and man that was close...

Baby Fisk
10-26-2005, 10:52 AM
Come on people! All this fussing over details would have prevented us from seeing the nightly WebMD report.

Soxboyrob
10-26-2005, 10:53 AM
Don't forget the 2nd fouled attempted bunt Pods put down in one of the extra innings that somehow turned into a fair ball.



The bunt was clearly and unequivically a fair ball. Good call by the ump.

lowesox
10-26-2005, 10:54 AM
Yeah I'm getting really sick of all these implications that the wins are coming as a result of us getting lucky. I'll grant that a few calls have gone our way, but there has been a considerable amount of calls we didn't get.

Soxboyrob
10-26-2005, 10:54 AM
Yes, that is an excellent point. The rule clearly states that the ball MUST hit fair first to ever have a chance of being fair. The ball clearly landed in the RH batters box. That's foul territory. No one even batted an eye.



Wrong, that ball was fair. It needn't hit fair territory....only needs to be in the fair airspace.

Soxboyrob
10-26-2005, 10:55 AM
Don't forget the fan interference and the ensuing rundown.

Not fan interferance. Ball was in the stands. Fan has a right to it.

PorkChopExpress
10-26-2005, 10:59 AM
I just thought Garland was getting squeezed the whole game and Oswalt was getting a generous strike zone. And then I hear Buck say something like, "If you ask Oswalt, he will probably tell you the Umps are squeezing him tonight, and I can see why." Was it just me? Was Oswalt really getting squeezed? Or was it the other way and Buck is just an idiot?

Iwritecode
10-26-2005, 11:00 AM
Wrong, that ball was fair. It needn't hit fair territory....only needs to be in the fair airspace.

If the ball was ever in fair airspace you'd have an arguement.

TDog
10-26-2005, 11:00 AM
I missed all but the end of the game, from the bases-loaded walk, and heard the top of the seventh on the radio. I just read the AP story posted on the ESPN Web site. There is no mention of a disputed home run. I don't know what you're talking about.

voodoochile
10-26-2005, 11:00 AM
Wrong, that ball was fair. It needn't hit fair territory....only needs to be in the fair airspace.

The rule clearly states that the first time the ball hits the ground it must land in fair territory to ever have a chance of being considered a fair ball. That one didn't.

For example, a ball can go Fair-foul-fair and it is fair, but it cannot go foul-fair and ever be fair.

It doesn't matter where the catcher fielded the ball. When it landed foul immediately off the bat, it was foul forever and nothing can change that fact.

Go ahead, look it up...

kevingrt
10-26-2005, 11:04 AM
I said to my buddies right when the HR happened, who cares, the score isn't gonna change anytime soon. This team is good enough to overcome just about anything right now. Unbelieveable team right now and no way can we lose this series.

Palehose13
10-26-2005, 11:08 AM
They Sox got some bad calls last night, but even when they happened, I didn't care. It's a part of baseball and our team overcame the bad calls.

Lane's "HR" was indeed a double. Fox showed the close-up once I think and it was clearly to the left and below the yellow line. However, in "real time" that is a difficult call to make and I'm not worried about the run. I'm pretty sure Lane would have been plated with a lead off double anyway.

Pod's bunt was foul, not fair. It clearly hit inside the batter's box.

They only thing that burns my ass is that the Sox are being portatyed as a "lucky" team getting all the breaks and when **** goes against them, it doesn't seem to be a big deal.

Ah well, good teams overcome bad calls. :wink:

bluestar
10-26-2005, 11:09 AM
I just thought Garland was getting squeezed the whole game and Oswalt was getting a generous strike zone. And then I hear Buck say something like, "If you ask Oswalt, he will probably tell you the Umps are squeezing him tonight, and I can see why." Was it just me? Was Oswalt really getting squeezed? Or was it the other way and Buck is just an idiot?

Garland was definitely squeezed through the first four innings, and then either he made an adjustment or the umpire eased off a bit. I think the umpire gave Oswalt a good six inches on each side of the plate early, but after Oswalt got himself in trouble in the fifth, it did seem his strike zone tightened a bit. I don't think Oswalt ever was squeezed, but he didn't get the pitches later in the game that he was getting earlier.

Of course, Buck had to try to save face after he had raved about Oswalt's dominance through those early innings.

Garland's performance after struggling and being squeezed early has been pretty much overlooked by most.

WSoxFanForever
10-26-2005, 11:09 AM
I actually heard this morning on ESPN "The Astros finally get a few breaks their way." I believe, can't be certain, however, that they said the homerun call was a GOOD call, but I didn't pay that much attention. Too busy laughing. Too glad we're so close. There's champagne in the locker room in Houston. I heard that too :) I hope the boys get howling drunk tonight in a victory celebration :dtroll:

Randar68
10-26-2005, 11:09 AM
If the ball was ever in fair airspace you'd have an arguement.

That ball was fair. I TiVo'd it about 4 times... was the right call. Same on the rundown. Just stupid play by Uribe... you have to throw it over his head... Uribe hit him at the belt with that one... no idea where he was going with that ball...

Randar68
10-26-2005, 11:11 AM
Lane's "HR" was indeed a double. Fox showed the close-up once I think and it was clearly to the left and below the yellow line. However, in "real time" that is a difficult call to make and I'm not worried about the run. I'm pretty sure Lane would have been plated with a lead off double anyway.


none of the next 3 batters got the ball out of the infield and 2 of them didn't even get it past the pitcher... up by 3 with a leadoff double I doubt they would have been trying to bunt him to 3rd, either...

ilsox7
10-26-2005, 11:12 AM
The rule clearly states that the first time the ball hits the ground it must land in fair territory to ever have a chance of being considered a fair ball. That one didn't.

For example, a ball can go Fair-foul-fair and it is fair, but it cannot go foul-fair and ever be fair.

It doesn't matter where the catcher fielded the ball. When it landed foul immediately off the bat, it was foul forever and nothing can change that fact.

Go ahead, look it up...

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. A fair fly shall be judged according to the relative position of the ball and the foul line, including the foul pole, and not as to whether the fielder is on fair or foul territory at the time he touches the ball. If a fly ball lands in the infield between home and first base, or home and third base, and then bounces to foul territory without touching a player or umpire and before passing first or third base, it is a foul ball; or if the ball settles on foul territory or is touched by a player on foul territory, it is a foul ball. If a fly ball lands on or beyond first or third base and then bounces to foul territory, it is a fair hit. Clubs, increasingly, are erecting tall foul poles at the fence line with a wire netting extending along the side of the pole on fair territory above the fence to enable the umpires more accurately to judge fair and foul balls.

No need for arguments when we are on the threshold, but the call last night (assuming the ball was over fair territory) was correct. It does not matter where a ball first hits the ground. All that matters is what airspace it is in when first touched. Applicable rule in bold.

voodoochile
10-26-2005, 11:15 AM
No need for arguments when we are on the threshold, but the call last night (assuming the ball was over fair territory) was correct. It does not matter where a ball first hits the ground. All that matters is what airspace it is in when first touched. Applicable rule in bold.

Wow, I could have sworn that was part of the rule. My bad. I'm surprised more teams don't try to let balls bounce fair after hitting foul. I get so used to seeing the umpires throwing up their hands the minute the ball strikes foul off the bat.

Sorry, SBR. I stand corrected.

mdep524
10-26-2005, 11:15 AM
Ah well, good teams overcome bad calls. :wink: That's it, PH13!!! The Angels get a "bad" call (that doesn't even put a runner in scoring position), and they just whine. The Astros get a "bad" call (that doesn't even put the go ahead runner in scoring position) and they just whine. The Sox get a bad call (that puts a run on the board) and they..... just win. :D:

ilsox7
10-26-2005, 11:18 AM
Wow, I could have sworn that was part of the rule. My bad. I'm surprised more teams don't try to let balls bounce fair after hitting foul. I get so used to seeing the umpires throwing up their hands the minute the ball strikes foul off the bat.

Sorry, SBR. I stand corrected.

Every once in a while you'll see a batter not run and an astute 1st or 3rd basemen let a bunt or slow roller that is barely foul roll until it stops b/c sometimes it will catch the lip of the grass or have weird spin on it. It is rare, but it does happen.

Bottom line about last night is that the home plate umpire sucked both ways. Incredibly inconsistent. The Astros got every break imagineable, including our bullpen deciding to hand them runner after runner. And we still won. No need for us to complain. Our team found a way to win, we're on the threshold of immortality. Enjoy the moment folks!

Soxboyrob
10-26-2005, 11:20 AM
For example, a ball can go Fair-foul-fair and it is fair, but it cannot go foul-fair and ever be fair.

It doesn't matter where the catcher fielded the ball. When it landed foul immediately off the bat, it was foul forever and nothing can change that fact.

Go ahead, look it up...

OK
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. A fair fly shall be judged according to the relative position of the ball and the foul line, including the foul pole, and not as to whether the fielder is on fair or foul territory at the time he touches the ball. If a fly ball lands in the infield between home and first base, or home and third base, and then bounces to foul territory without touching a player or umpire and before passing first or third base, it is a foul ball; or if the ball settles on foul territory or is touched by a player on foul territory, it is a foul ball. If a fly ball lands on or beyond first or third base and then bounces to foul territory, it is a fair hit. Clubs, increasingly, are erecting tall foul poles at the fence line with a wire netting extending along the side of the pole on fair territory above the fence to enable the umpires more accurately to judge fair and foul balls.

Soxboyrob
10-26-2005, 11:21 AM
Every once in a while you'll see a batter not run and an astute 1st or 3rd basemen let a bunt or slow roller that is barely foul roll until it stops b/c sometimes it will catch the lip of the grass or have weird spin on it. It is rare, but it does happen.

Bottom line about last night is that the home plate umpire sucked both ways. Incredibly inconsistent. The Astros got every break imagineable, including our bullpen deciding to hand them runner after runner. And we still won. No need for us to complain. Our team found a way to win, we're on the threshold of immortality. Enjoy the moment folks!

Near the end of the season, or early in the postseason, AJ turned a carbon copy DP of the one turned against us last night. In both instances, the catcher grabbed the ball while it was in fair territory and turned the play easily. It only really happens on bunts where there's all that overspin that can direct the ball into fair territory.

nlentz88
10-26-2005, 11:22 AM
The rule clearly states that the first time the ball hits the ground it must land in fair territory to ever have a chance of being considered a fair ball. That one didn't.


For example, a ball can go Fair-foul-fair and it is fair, but it cannot go foul-fair and ever be fair.

It doesn't matter where the catcher fielded the ball. When it landed foul immediately off the bat, it was foul forever and nothing can change that fact.

Go ahead, look it up...

Yeah, I wondered about that play too. After watching the replay, it looked like the bunt attempt first hit in the batter's box and then spun in the air back towards fair territory where Ausmus grabbed it and threw to second. When the umpire didn't call the ball foul, I assumed that there must be some crazy MLB rule about the batter's box being considered fair territory in a bunt attempt or something. That's the only thing I could come up with besides the ump just blowing the call. I'm curious about the correct ruling on this play.

Look, I'm enjoying the hell out of this world series. I can't wait for game time tonight and the celebrations afterwards (hopefully). But a small part of me gets angry every time I hear someone say that the Sox' success in the playoffs is due to luck and bad calls by the umpires. Last night's game showed that bad calls can affect either team, but the best teams know how to rebound from bad calls or even take advantage of them. I hope the Sox players don't feel like they're not getting the respect they deserve because, jeez, they've been simply amazing for the past month regardless of luck and bad calls by the umps.

ilsox7
10-26-2005, 11:24 AM
Look, I'm enjoying the hell out of this world series. I can't wait for game time tonight and the celebrations afterwards (hopefully). But a small part of me gets angry every time I hear someone say that the Sox' success in the playoffs is due to luck and bad calls by the umpires. Last night's game showed that bad calls can affect either team, but the best teams know how to rebound from bad calls or even take advantage of them. I hope the Sox players don't feel like they're not getting the respect they deserve because, jeez, they've been simply amazing for the past month regardless of luck and bad calls by the umps.

Our t-shirts and hats won't say anything but "World Champions" and the players' rings will be 100% real. No need to worry about any calls going or not going our way. One more win and that's all she wrote.

Soxboyrob
10-26-2005, 11:25 AM
Wow, I could have sworn that was part of the rule. My bad. I'm surprised more teams don't try to let balls bounce fair after hitting foul. I get so used to seeing the umpires throwing up their hands the minute the ball strikes foul off the bat.



That's just because it's usually popped up and hit the batter, creating a foul ball situation.

bluestar
10-26-2005, 11:29 AM
I think as Sox fans we have to be content to enjoy our success and try to forget all the external comments.

I heard Colin Cowherd this morning proclaim, "I would rather watch footage of Al Roker's gastric bypass than watch this World Series." What kind of comment is that for someone that is supposed to be a sports journalist?

jmcts
10-26-2005, 11:35 AM
I for one am really tired of Fox zooming in on every single play to see if it was right. They just want to generate controversy. It really makes me angry. :mad: In fact, I've gotten to the point where I just mute the sound -- they really are morons anyway -- and just watch the game. Or listen to ESPN on the radio.

If baseball is a reflection of life, which I think it is, then there should be some room for human error. It took Fox a good five or ten minutes to zoom in on the homerun that the Astros hit last night to show that it actually hit on that billboard. How in the world can we expect an umpire standing at second base to see that?!?!?! In life we don't get an instant replay, we have to make decisions based on the information at hand, and sometimes, often, that information is wrong. Just like the umpires. I just wish they would say, "hmm, I'm not sure that the umpire made the correct call there," and leave it at that.

voodoochile
10-26-2005, 11:38 AM
I think as Sox fans we have to be content to enjoy our success and try to forget all the external comments.

I heard Colin Cowherd this morning proclaim, "I would rather watch footage of Al Roker's gastric bypass than watch this World Series." What kind of comment is that for someone that is supposed to be a sports journalist?

See it's becoming all the rage to denigrate the series. I mean the fact that the teams are playing such close hard fought games, proves that neither one deserves to be here. They were supposed to have great pitching but the combined ERA is in the 7's so naturally, it is a crappy series. I mean what good is a World Series where the experts' oppinions don't mean anything and you can throw the stats out the window?

They just want to look like the cool kids at school who thumbed their nose at everything that didn't fit in with their version of cool.

Idiots the lot of them. Now the story is becoming about the press and the calls and the lack of big name teams instead of about the game itself and that's a crying shame, because whether well played or not, there has been enough drama in this series to fill a year's worth of "reality TV shows".

And oh those side story lines. Look at all of the unlikely heros. Look at the huge performances by the Sox bullpen. Look at the Astros clawing tooth and nail last night to try and get a win. This is reality. This is life. This is baseball and the dumbasses are missing it.

:meidadumbass:
"These trees look awfully ragged, moldy and boring..."

:Soxfan:
"Yeah, but the forest isn't bad..."

slavko
10-26-2005, 11:39 AM
That's just because it's usually popped up and hit the batter, creating a foul ball situation.

Plus, if the batter is struck by his own batted ball on a bounce WHILE IN THE BATTER'S BOX, the umpire will rule the play dead, even if it occurs in the fair part of the batter's box.

Same subject, in games 1 & 2, the PBP's commented that the 3rd baseline dirt area at the Cell appears to slope INTO FAIR TERRITORY and showed examples to prove it. Chance, or groundskeeping magic to help our bunters?

the gooch
10-26-2005, 11:43 AM
the call last night (assuming the ball was over fair territory) was correct. It does not matter where a ball first hits the ground. All that matters is what airspace it is in when first touched. Applicable rule in bold.
i thought there was a ground ball this postseason that bounced down the 3rd base line foul then fair (before the base) and was ruled foul. announcers said 'it hit foul first.'
based on your interpretation of the rule, if a batter hits a foul straight back, hits the wall and rolls into fair territory its a fair ball?

voodoochile
10-26-2005, 11:46 AM
i thought there was a ground ball this postseason that bounced down the 3rd base line foul then fair (before the base) and was ruled foul. announcers said 'it hit foul first.'
based on your interpretation of the rule, if a batter hits a foul straight back, hits the wall and rolls into fair territory its a fair ball?

No, once it strikes the wall, it is definitely foul.

the gooch
10-26-2005, 11:47 AM
No, once it strikes the wall, it is definitely foul.
i agree but it is not mentioned in the 'rules' stated above.

ilsox7
10-26-2005, 11:50 AM
i agree but it is not mentioned in the 'rules' stated above.

That's b/c that was the rule for a fair ball. Here is the foul ball rule:

A FOUL BALLis a batted ball that settles on foul territory between home and first base, or between home and third base, or that bounds past first or third base on or over foul territory, or that first falls on foul territory beyond first or third base, or that, while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, or any object foreign to the natural ground. A foul fly shall be judged according to the relative position of the ball and the foul line, including the foul pole, and not as to whether the infielder is on foul or fair territory at the time he touches the ball. 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.

the gooch
10-26-2005, 11:54 AM
thank you.

ilsox7
10-26-2005, 11:55 AM
thank you.

No problem.

StockdaleForVeep
10-26-2005, 12:14 PM
I thought it quite hillarious in a "that was so predictable" manner how the announcers and everyone else basically refused to talk about either of these controversial plays, even though the HR basically was the reason this game went on to 14 innings (although we still had our chances to end it in 9)...

However, the various broadcasts talked about the AJ plays, the Dye HBP ad nauseum for days and days after they occurred, like we were some kind of charity case... hell, Jeff Brantley still refused to give us any credit as they dissected the game minutes after we won it..."I'm still not sure the Sox are a better team than the Astros, but this is the Astros team that went 15-30, not the second half team"... Hey douchebags, it's called "Pitching and defense"...

sheeesh...

I was waiting for the super zoom in on the "homerun" right after it happened but no, they do it like 4 innings later when it loses its value

akingamongstmen
10-26-2005, 01:12 PM
I think as Sox fans we have to be content to enjoy our success and try to forget all the external comments.

I heard Colin Cowherd this morning proclaim, "I would rather watch footage of Al Roker's gastric bypass than watch this World Series." What kind of comment is that for someone that is supposed to be a sports journalist?

That's EXACTLY what I've been thinking. Honestly, how could this Series be any more exciting/compelling/dramatic? The walk-off homer, unlikely heroes, gutsy pitching,...the list goes on. Just because the Yankees or Red Sox aren't involved doesn't discount the value of this BRILLIANT Fall Classic.

D. TODD
10-26-2005, 01:22 PM
The rule clearly states that the first time the ball hits the ground it must land in fair territory to ever have a chance of being considered a fair ball. That one didn't.

For example, a ball can go Fair-foul-fair and it is fair, but it cannot go foul-fair and ever be fair.

It doesn't matter where the catcher fielded the ball. When it landed foul immediately off the bat, it was foul forever and nothing can change that fact.

Go ahead, look it up... Can you show that rule, when I umped that was a fair ball, and I have never seen that rule . I am not saying you are wrong , just that as I recall that is not how the ruling on that ball is.

D. TODD
10-26-2005, 01:30 PM
Disregard my previous post, I see the rules have been explained in detail. I think every call was correct yesterday with the exception of the home run ball. That call is way to difficult to hold against the umpires in my opinion, due to the incredibly stupid left Field wall at the "juicebox".

asindc
10-26-2005, 01:33 PM
Disregard my previous post, I see the rules have been explained in detail. I think every call was correct yesterday with the exception of the home run ball. That call is way to difficult to hold against the umpires in my opinion, due to the incredibly stupid left Field wall at the "juicebox".

In addition, the ball bounced off an advertisement that had a white border around it. The ball hit squarely within that white border. MLB really has to step in and take charge on that one, and leave the roof issue to someone else.

EastCoastSoxFan
10-26-2005, 01:36 PM
At the very least they could draw the damn yellow line against a solid dark backdrop instead of drawing it on tan stone and white-bordered signs...

tdh11
10-26-2005, 01:39 PM
I think as Sox fans we have to be content to enjoy our success and try to forget all the external comments.

I heard Colin Cowherd this morning proclaim, "I would rather watch footage of Al Roker's gastric bypass than watch this World Series." What kind of comment is that for someone that is supposed to be a sports journalist?

I am going to say this once: NOTHING COLIN COWHERD SAYS SHOULD BE TAKEN AS ANYTHING WELL THOUGHT OUT OR IN ANYWAY INTELLIGENT!

This is the same person who has said (paraphrasing) "Baseball players are not athletes... If you put any baseball player into any other sport they will be no good...If you put a player from any other sport in a baseball uniform they will be average to a great baseball palyer...nothing in baseball takes skill"


And when someone calls in with a viewpoint that he doesnt agree with he will argue with them until he realizes he is wrong and begin to degrade them.

NWSox
10-26-2005, 01:52 PM
I just thought Garland was getting squeezed the whole game and Oswalt was getting a generous strike zone. And then I hear Buck say something like, "If you ask Oswalt, he will probably tell you the Umps are squeezing him tonight, and I can see why." Was it just me? Was Oswalt really getting squeezed? Or was it the other way and Buck is just an idiot?

It was obvious that Oswalt felt he was getting squeezed and that he's used to getting a big strike zone. The problem is he wasn't throwing strikes. On nearly on every call where he winced (and Buck sympatized with him), the pitches were off the plate. I think the home plate ump did a good job with both starting pitchers (the calls got worse as the game went on).

I agree with everything on this thread. If Fox is going to obsess about a HBP that wasn't, how can they not obsess about a HR that wasn't? At least the Sox had to deliver on their breaks. The ump gave Houston a run. I know Buck and McCarver are NL guys, but the network needs to get on the Sox gravy train. The Sox are the only story of the postseason.

jmcts
10-26-2005, 01:54 PM
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. A fair fly shall be judged according to the relative position of the ball and the foul line, including the foul pole, and not as to whether the fielder is on fair or foul territory at the time he touches the ball. If a fly ball lands in the infield between home and first base, or home and third base, and then bounces to foul territory without touching a player or umpire and before passing first or third base, it is a foul ball; or if the ball settles on foul territory or is touched by a player on foul territory, it is a foul ball.

The key phrase in this rule is "between home and first base, or between home and third base." The ball in question landed behind home plate, bounced over the plate and was then in fair territory. The ball did not hit the ground first between home plate and first or third. It hit the ground initially between home plate and the backstop, in foul territory.

As an earlier poster pointed out, say some hits a popup with wicked backspin. It lands behind the ump and then bounces over batter/catcher/ump to land in fair territory. Fair ball?

Or say someone hits a ball that lands in foul territory on the third base (or first base) side and then bounces over the line into fair territory. Fair ball?

The ball was a foul because it landed behind the plate -- if only by centimeters -- and then bounced into fair territory.

bluestar
10-26-2005, 02:08 PM
I am going to say this once: NOTHING COLIN COWHERD SAYS SHOULD BE TAKEN AS ANYTHING WELL THOUGHT OUT OR IN ANYWAY INTELLIGENT!

This is the same person who has said (paraphrasing) "Baseball players are not athletes... If you put any baseball player into any other sport they will be no good...If you put a player from any other sport in a baseball uniform they will be average to a great baseball palyer...nothing in baseball takes skill"


And when someone calls in with a viewpoint that he doesnt agree with he will argue with them until he realizes he is wrong and begin to degrade them.

No argument here. I didn't mean that Cowherd's comments have any merit or validity. I just think it is pretty incredible that someone who claims to be a sports journalist would make a comment such as that about any major sporting event. Considering the source, I know no one should be surprised.

Randar68
10-26-2005, 02:10 PM
The key phrase in this rule is "between home and first base, or between home and third base." The ball in question landed behind home plate, bounced over the plate and was then in fair territory. The ball did not hit the ground first between home plate and first or third. It hit the ground initially between home plate and the backstop, in foul territory.

That area is included in this rule... It is not where the ball hits, it is where it is fielded, exempting hitting a non-natural obstruction such as dugouts, backstops, etc.

As an earlier poster pointed out, say some hits a popup with wicked backspin. It lands behind the ump and then bounces over batter/catcher/ump to land in fair territory. Fair ball?

FAIR BALL! YES! get it yet?

Or say someone hits a ball that lands in foul territory on the third base (or first base) side and then bounces over the line into fair territory. Fair ball?

FAIR BALL! YES!

The ball was a foul because it landed behind the plate -- if only by centimeters -- and then bounced into fair territory.

The ball was FAIR because it was fielded in fair territory and never touched foul BEYOND 1st or 3rd baselines.



Not sure how many times in this post you are wrong, but it is a large number.

jmcts
10-26-2005, 02:27 PM
Not sure how many times in this post you are wrong, but it is a large number.

Okay, you're right. It just seems weird, but you are correct.

Mea culpa.