Official 2010 Baseball Thread

[Truthspeaker]

You guys are both wrong.

A ground ball in this particular case, would denote the ball hitting the ground before passing first or third base. The ball can literally bounce back and forth foul and fair a million times, but it's what territory the ball was in as it passed the base that matters.

Beyond the base means NOTHING. The ball could bound directly over the bag and then slice foul landing over the line, and the only thing that mattered was that it passed the bag in fair territory.

You guys are arguing this situation on emotion rather than just reading the fucking rule.

I knew damn right well you'd come in here arguing about it without just reading it for yourself.

Baseball Rules Fair and Foul Balls



The rule merely mentions the ball passing the base. It says NOTHING about where the ball hits after it passes the base, only where it was as it passed it.

The only time it matters where the ball hits AFTER the base is on a fly ball, or line drive, or any batted ball that has not hit the ground before passing the bag.

The key part of the rule is the bag.

I think you're abusing the letter of the Law because you're a Phillies Phan. Everyone in the country knows it was a clearly blown call but you. What is clear here is that the letter of the law did not include a provision for balls that come back fair mid air like the one hit in this case.

The rule makers had never seen a ball like this hit before which clearly deserves a fair call so they didn't make a provision for it. But common sense tells us all that it is a fair ball.

Anyway, the umps owe us two games against you guys in this series so let's get it on Paulie Phanatic.

I said more than once here that he blew the call.

That doesn't change the fact that the rule for a ground ball is where the ball is in relation to the bag as it passes it. Where it lands is irrelevant.

I give you the rule and you still deny it, because you 'lost 2 games' or whatever. That's pretty stupid, my man.

Let me give you 2 illustrations showing you why you're wrong...

In this image, you can see that the batted ball bounces first in fair territory, goes past third base in fair territory, and then makes its next bounce in foul territory. That ball is a FAIR BALL. Where it landed made no difference, because it passed third base in FAIR TERRITORY.

Now let's look at the next image...

Here, the batted ball bounces first in fair territory as well, and proceeds past third base while in foul territory, and makes its next bounce in foul territory. That is a FOUL BALL, because it passed third base in foul territory.

In neither of those scenarios did it matter that the ball landed in foul territory.

You don't seem to understand the rule.

Dude, everyone understands the visuals and the rule you posted. I've known this rule since I was in little league. but you're next graphic shows a situation that hasn't happened before and therefore the rule book didn't cover it. So either you think he blew the call or he didn't. According to you, you say by rule the ball was foul. Yet you contradict yourself saying the ump blew the call. Which side are you on?

 

[Truthspeaker]

Now here's the scenario that happened in the Phils/Marlins game, according to what the ump claims he saw..

The ball bounced first in fair territory, and then wrapped its way around third base in foul territory, before making it's next bounce in fair territory again.

Assuming that was actually what the ball did, which I doubt it, that would be a FOUL BALL, because it passed third while in foul territory. It doesn't matter in that case that it ended up bouncing again in fair territory, because the ruling was made as it passed the bag.

An ump doesn't need to look beyond the bag when ruling on a ground ball. They NEVER have, so I'm not sure why you seem to think so now.

I agree that the ball probably didn't take such a route but if it did, the rule needs to include a provision for this unnatural type of bounce and be amended immediately.

 

[Truthspeaker]

The Pittsburgh Pirates are about to endure their 18th consecutive losing season. I'm going to the Mets game Friday. The Pirates have currently lost 79 games this season and won their 40th game last night. I may be at the game that extends history! No professional franchise has ever had 17 straight losing season. I could be there when the Pirates lose their 81 game and extend that dubious record to 18 seasons.

Why, in such a great sports town like Pittsburgh, must we suffer with incompetent, stingy ownership?

I really have no answer for you, you poor poor Pirates fan. Perhaps you could enlighten all of us as to why your organization has been a model in futility for nearly 2 decades.

Four words: free agency, stingy ownership.

Xavier Nady, Jason Bay, Nate McClouth. All left in their option year. The ownership built a beautiful ballpark here, arguably the prettiest park in the majors. The ownership throws in all the bells and whistles (Pittsburghers LOVE fireworks) with give-a-ways and promotions.

They simply won't pay for talented ball players.

It all started in 1993 with the loss of Bobby Bonilla, Barry Bonds and Andy VanSlyke. It's been a nightmare ever since. Believe it or not, I have gone from vital young man to middle aged crank by simply following the demise of my Pittsburgh Pirates since the first year of the Clinton administration.

Well that was more than 4 words but I get your point. Does management make excuses or cry poor?

It's true and it doesn't make much sense to me. Although I of course am partial to the most beautiful park ever built in San Francisco, I understand the PNC is as pretty and nice as they come. It's hitter friendly, not overly pitcher unfriendly and the skyline is awesome. The facility is top notch and the fan base is obviously in the top 3 in loyalty to keep coming out to view the inferior product. Pirate fans must be like Golden state Warrior fans, and battered women: No matter how hard or how often you slap them around, they keep coming back for more because of their condition.

So I guess Pirates ownership is like Warriors ownership, pimps and abusive men.

 

[Paulie]

I think you're abusing the letter of the Law because you're a Phillies Phan. Everyone in the country knows it was a clearly blown call but you. What is clear here is that the letter of the law did not include a provision for balls that come back fair mid air like the one hit in this case.

The rule makers had never seen a ball like this hit before which clearly deserves a fair call so they didn't make a provision for it. But common sense tells us all that it is a fair ball.

Anyway, the umps owe us two games against you guys in this series so let's get it on Paulie Phanatic.

I said more than once here that he blew the call.

That doesn't change the fact that the rule for a ground ball is where the ball is in relation to the bag as it passes it. Where it lands is irrelevant.

I give you the rule and you still deny it, because you 'lost 2 games' or whatever. That's pretty stupid, my man.

Let me give you 2 illustrations showing you why you're wrong...

In this image, you can see that the batted ball bounces first in fair territory, goes past third base in fair territory, and then makes its next bounce in foul territory. That ball is a FAIR BALL. Where it landed made no difference, because it passed third base in FAIR TERRITORY.

Now let's look at the next image...

Here, the batted ball bounces first in fair territory as well, and proceeds past third base while in foul territory, and makes its next bounce in foul territory. That is a FOUL BALL, because it passed third base in foul territory.

In neither of those scenarios did it matter that the ball landed in foul territory.

You don't seem to understand the rule.

Dude, everyone understands the visuals and the rule you posted. I've known this rule since I was in little league. but you're next graphic shows a situation that hasn't happened before and therefore the rule book didn't cover it. So either you think he blew the call or he didn't. According to you, you say by rule the ball was foul. Yet you contradict yourself saying the ump blew the call. Which side are you on?

Apparently you've lost a handle on the discussion here.

You originally started out by saying the ball was fair because it bounced in fair territory after passing the bag. All I was saying was that is not how the ball is judged based on the rule.

The only angle we ever saw was one that doesn't show where the ball actually was in relation to the bag as it passed it. All we can see is that it bounces fair before passing it, and bounces fair after passing it. So one would conclude that it was fair because it seems impossible for it to have swerved around the bag foul, in that split second.

I'm only saying I think he blew it based on what seems most logical. The fact is, I don't have definitive proof, and neither does anyone else unless they have a replay of it from above, or from right on the line in front of the ball's travel.

There doesn't need to be any special rule for this play. It's so simple, and you're making it so complex for no reason. The ump merely looks at the bag as the ball is passing it, and judges fair or foul based on where the ball is while it passes.

That's it.

Nothing brand new happened here at all. It's just another close call out of the BILLIONS throughout baseball history.

The only thing it MIGHT make a case for, is reviews on those kinds of plays.

 

[Paulie]

Now here's the scenario that happened in the Phils/Marlins game, according to what the ump claims he saw..

The ball bounced first in fair territory, and then wrapped its way around third base in foul territory, before making it's next bounce in fair territory again.

Assuming that was actually what the ball did, which I doubt it, that would be a FOUL BALL, because it passed third while in foul territory. It doesn't matter in that case that it ended up bouncing again in fair territory, because the ruling was made as it passed the bag.

An ump doesn't need to look beyond the bag when ruling on a ground ball. They NEVER have, so I'm not sure why you seem to think so now.

I agree that the ball probably didn't take such a route but if it did, the rule needs to include a provision for this unnatural type of bounce and be amended immediately.

Why does there need to be a provision?

I don't get it.

If the ball really did swerve around the bag foul in between two fair territory bounces, it doesn't change how the ball is judged based on the rule.

It would simply be ruled FOUL, because it passed the bag in foul territory.

Again, it doesn't matter where it lands after the bag. That's what you don't seem to be getting.

 

[Modbert]

Is that play still seriously being debated?

 

[Paulie]

I'm not debating the play. I'm trying to make him understand how a ground ball is judged, and why the ump called it the way he did.

The ump says he saw the ball in foul territory while it passed the bag. That's the reason he ruled it foul, and that's the proper way to judge the ball whether he was right about where the ball was or not.

 

[Truthspeaker]

I said more than once here that he blew the call.

That doesn't change the fact that the rule for a ground ball is where the ball is in relation to the bag as it passes it. Where it lands is irrelevant.

I give you the rule and you still deny it, because you 'lost 2 games' or whatever. That's pretty stupid, my man.

Let me give you 2 illustrations showing you why you're wrong...

In this image, you can see that the batted ball bounces first in fair territory, goes past third base in fair territory, and then makes its next bounce in foul territory. That ball is a FAIR BALL. Where it landed made no difference, because it passed third base in FAIR TERRITORY.

Now let's look at the next image...

Here, the batted ball bounces first in fair territory as well, and proceeds past third base while in foul territory, and makes its next bounce in foul territory. That is a FOUL BALL, because it passed third base in foul territory.

In neither of those scenarios did it matter that the ball landed in foul territory.

You don't seem to understand the rule.

Dude, everyone understands the visuals and the rule you posted. I've known this rule since I was in little league. but you're next graphic shows a situation that hasn't happened before and therefore the rule book didn't cover it. So either you think he blew the call or he didn't. According to you, you say by rule the ball was foul. Yet you contradict yourself saying the ump blew the call. Which side are you on?

Apparently you've lost a handle on the discussion here.

You originally started out by saying the ball was fair because it bounced in fair territory after passing the bag. All I was saying was that is not how the ball is judged based on the rule.

The only angle we ever saw was one that doesn't show where the ball actually was in relation to the bag as it passed it. All we can see is that it bounces fair before passing it, and bounces fair after passing it. So one would conclude that it was fair because it seems impossible for it to have swerved around the bag foul, in that split second.

I'm only saying I think he blew it based on what seems most logical. The fact is, I don't have definitive proof, and neither does anyone else unless they have a replay of it from above, or from right on the line in front of the ball's travel.

There doesn't need to be any special rule for this play. It's so simple, and you're making it so complex for no reason. The ump merely looks at the bag as the ball is passing it, and judges fair or foul based on where the ball is while it passes.

That's it.

Nothing brand new happened here at all. It's just another close call out of the BILLIONS throughout baseball history.

The only thing it MIGHT make a case for, is reviews on those kinds of plays.

obviously we need replay in baseball. Getting it right is more important than "Tradition". The ump is lying if he says the ball passed over 3rd base foul. But what makes sense logically is that you could say if the ball bounces fair and lands fair it must be fair. The ump has no way out. He's probably got philles underwear on.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Now here's the scenario that happened in the Phils/Marlins game, according to what the ump claims he saw..

The ball bounced first in fair territory, and then wrapped its way around third base in foul territory, before making it's next bounce in fair territory again.

Assuming that was actually what the ball did, which I doubt it, that would be a FOUL BALL, because it passed third while in foul territory. It doesn't matter in that case that it ended up bouncing again in fair territory, because the ruling was made as it passed the bag.

An ump doesn't need to look beyond the bag when ruling on a ground ball. They NEVER have, so I'm not sure why you seem to think so now.

I agree that the ball probably didn't take such a route but if it did, the rule needs to include a provision for this unnatural type of bounce and be amended immediately.

Why does there need to be a provision?

I don't get it.

If the ball really did swerve around the bag foul in between two fair territory bounces, it doesn't change how the ball is judged based on the rule.

It would simply be ruled FOUL, because it passed the bag in foul territory.

Again, it doesn't matter where it lands after the bag. That's what you don't seem to be getting.

Well it should matter first of all, second of all if a ball starts and finishes fair, it's a slippery slope for an umpire to go down if he's bold enough to claim it went foul in the air.
That's why the provision must be made to make it clear cut.

 

[Truthspeaker]

I'm not debating the play. I'm trying to make him understand how a ground ball is judged, and why the ump called it the way he did.

The ump says he saw the ball in foul territory while it passed the bag. That's the reason he ruled it foul, and that's the proper way to judge the ball whether he was right about where the ball was or not.

Dude, I know how to judge a ball. I know the rule regarding it. What I'm now saying is that if a ball starts and stops fair it should overrule the over-the-bag provision.
I also believe the umpire was lying and that was the only way he could try to justify his call. Rather than admit his mistake he'd rather lie about it.

Let's also not rule out corruption among umpires. If it has happened in professional sports nothing makes umpires immune to corruption as well.

 

[Paulie]

Dude, everyone understands the visuals and the rule you posted. I've known this rule since I was in little league. but you're next graphic shows a situation that hasn't happened before and therefore the rule book didn't cover it. So either you think he blew the call or he didn't. According to you, you say by rule the ball was foul. Yet you contradict yourself saying the ump blew the call. Which side are you on?

Apparently you've lost a handle on the discussion here.

You originally started out by saying the ball was fair because it bounced in fair territory after passing the bag. All I was saying was that is not how the ball is judged based on the rule.

The only angle we ever saw was one that doesn't show where the ball actually was in relation to the bag as it passed it. All we can see is that it bounces fair before passing it, and bounces fair after passing it. So one would conclude that it was fair because it seems impossible for it to have swerved around the bag foul, in that split second.

I'm only saying I think he blew it based on what seems most logical. The fact is, I don't have definitive proof, and neither does anyone else unless they have a replay of it from above, or from right on the line in front of the ball's travel.

There doesn't need to be any special rule for this play. It's so simple, and you're making it so complex for no reason. The ump merely looks at the bag as the ball is passing it, and judges fair or foul based on where the ball is while it passes.

That's it.

Nothing brand new happened here at all. It's just another close call out of the BILLIONS throughout baseball history.

The only thing it MIGHT make a case for, is reviews on those kinds of plays.

obviously we need replay in baseball. Getting it right is more important than "Tradition". The ump is lying if he says the ball passed over 3rd base foul. But what makes sense logically is that you could say if the ball bounces fair and lands fair it must be fair. The ump has no way out. He's probably got philles underwear on.

He's not lying, he blew the call and is covering his ass. Big deal.

How can you expect an ump to judge based on where the ball lands after the bag? That's not the RULE!! No one's talking about "tradition", dude. It's simply THE RULE.

Why don't you get that? In that case, you would expect the ump to watch where the ball is at the bag, and also where it lands? On a play like that where the ball is bounding so fast and frequently, it's impossible to catch both of those and be able to get it right.

So yes, replay would be a good option. I'd be in favor of it but there would have to be limitations. I don't care so much about the time issue as much as I do about the human element being removed from the equation.

If instant replay is so perfect a solution, let's just get rid of 3 of the 4 umpires and only have one umpire who judges trivial things like balks, runners out of base paths, interference, etc.?

We can just computerize the balls and strikes process, and judging close call plays.

I like the human element, personally. I'm ok with plays being blown occasionally. It's not like I haven't been a part of just as many that went against my team.

Earlier in the year MLB did a study over a 2 week span, and they concluded that calls were made properly almost 70% of the time, with the other 30% split between the wrong call, and inconclusive evidence.

70% right vs. 15% wrong isn't bad.

 

[Paulie]

Dude, I know how to judge a ball. I know the rule regarding it.

You only know it now because I showed it to you.

The other day, you didn't have a clue:

It doesn't matter if it curves mid air and does whatever. If it both starts and ends fair it doesn't matter, it's fair.

Those were your words.

Anyway, our 3 game set against you guys starts right now.

I'm out. Good luck

 

[Truthspeaker]

[

He's not lying, he blew the call and is covering his ass. Big deal.

If he's "covering his ass" then he's lying.

How can you expect an ump to judge based on where the ball lands after the bag? That's not the RULE!! No one's talking about "tradition", dude. It's simply THE RULE.

I already said I know the rule. But in this case the rule is wrong. It needs to be amended. Rules need to be made as time goes on and new situations arise.

Why don't you get that?

I do. and only too well since my team is on the butt end and yours is on the winning end.

In that case, you would expect the ump to watch where the ball is at the bag, and also where it lands?

Oh so difficult. How dare we ask professionals to do their job? How can we expect them to keep an eye on the ball? Outrageous, walking AND chewing gum? Forget it.

On a play like that where the ball is bounding so fast and frequently, it's impossible to catch both of those and be able to get it right.

Dude it's not that hard. It ain't rocket science. Plus they already have a home plate umpire who can judge fair past the bag as well as the 3rd base dude. The 3rd base guy is only necessary for the "over the bag" plays. Plus they can confer together.

So yes, replay would be a good option. I'd be in favor of it but there would have to be limitations.

I agree with limitations.

I don't care so much about the time issue as much as I do about the human element being removed from the equation.

Screw the "human element." Let's get it right. I don't even know what people mean by "human element." I think people are afraid of umpires losing their jobs or not hearing the umpire yell his unique version of strike three. That's never going to be lost no matter how computerized the game gets. It's really not an issue. We could over computerize it and still need all 4 umps. They're still going to make all the calls but would just be corrected by replay or instant notification. The human element is always going to be there because it will always be played by humans. I don't hear people complaining about how bad tennis, cricket, or other sports suck now that the calls are made right by computers. It's not like we're replacing the players with robots.

But my limitations would include for now:
1. Umpire calls all balls and strikes.(I'm fine with this for now, but as a hitter, I know the strike zone and usually the errors an umpire makes only benefit the pitcher. If I knew the strikezone was computerized, I'd have taken a lot more ball fours in high school and college and you'd see a heck of a lot more in the bigs. You'd see averages go up and find out who the truly great pitchers are and which guys truly have a good eye. As it is the strikezone is completely different each game, so I'd be open to computerized strikezones. they'd have to be custom made for each player before the season starts because not all guys are the same height.But not ready to open that can of worms.)
2. Replay on Homeruns
3. Replay on fair foul balls that get challenged.(Here is an opportunity for an umpire to be an umpire and make a judgment call on who should have scored and which bases runners should be on. You see we still need umps.)

If instant replay is so perfect a solution, let's just get rid of 3 of the 4 umpires and only have one umpire who judges trivial things like balks, runners out of base paths, interference, etc.?

You'd still need all four umpires forever because the replay would only be needed when calls get questioned. I think a rule should be implemented where each manager gets a red ball to throw on the field to challenge a call. If he loses his challenge, he loses the right to challenge for the rest of the game. If he wins his challenge he can keep challenging. This seems like a perfect solution to me. That way we don't challenge every play.

We can just computerize the balls and strikes process, and judging close call plays.

We could but I don't think we need to. Just have the umps watch the play closer on replay and be an ump from there.

I like the human element, personally. I'm ok with plays being blown occasionally. It's not like I haven't been a part of just as many that went against my team.

I like the human element but I don't like errors in judgment. The human element is the voice of the players and officials and the smell of the grass and hotdogs. the human element is the crack of the bat and the cheering of the crowd. All those will stay but mistakes will be drastically lessened. We'd never acheive perfection but near perfection is way better than what we have.

I'm NOT ok with blown calls. The injustice of your team losing is just wrong. And if you win because of a bad call, it's like kissing your sister, yeah you wanna kiss the girl but not if it's your sister. I HONESTLY truly would rather lose if I deserve to lose rather than win because of a blown call. Screw that, let's have the truth. Give Armando Gallarraga the Perfecto and be done with it.

Earlier in the year MLB did a study over a 2 week span, and they concluded that calls were made properly almost 70% of the time, with the other 30% split between the wrong call, and inconclusive evidence.

That is a horrendous percentage omg is it THAT bad? You do know how bad that is right?

70% right vs. 15% wrong isn't bad.

If you're a hitter there's nothing better but as an umpire, you need to be fired. I simply don't believe it's that bad. I think umps are way better than that as a whole.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Dude, I know how to judge a ball. I know the rule regarding it.

You only know it now because I showed it to you.

The other day, you didn't have a clue:

It doesn't matter if it curves mid air and does whatever. If it both starts and ends fair it doesn't matter, it's fair.

Those were your words.

Anyway, our 3 game set against you guys starts right now.

I'm out. Good luck

I think I'm right too. Because I think it's impossible for a ball to curve from fair to foul to fair after hitting fair in the first place.

 

[Paulie]

Dude, I know how to judge a ball. I know the rule regarding it.

You only know it now because I showed it to you.

The other day, you didn't have a clue:

It doesn't matter if it curves mid air and does whatever. If it both starts and ends fair it doesn't matter, it's fair.

Those were your words.

Anyway, our 3 game set against you guys starts right now.

I'm out. Good luck

I think I'm right too. Because I think it's impossible for a ball to curve from fair to foul to fair after hitting fair in the first place.

Assuming that it is physically impossible for the ball to do that, then the ump blew the call and it was a fair ball.

Assuming that is IS physically possible, then there doesn't need to be any "provision" in the rule. The rule clearly states that the ball would be considered foul, simply because it passed third base in foul territory.

You still don't seem to be getting that part. You're making no sense when you keep saying the rule needs to be amended.

It doesn't matter how whacky of a movement the ball potentially takes, the ruling is simple: Ball is in fair territory while passing bag: FAIR ... Ball is in foul territory while passing bag: FOUL. It's friggin black and white, dude.

I see you SAYING you understand the rule, but calling for rule provisions because of this type of play tells me that you don't.

The only thing I can take from this is that you think they need to make a provision where if a ground ball swerves around the bag through foul territory but bounced fair before and after it, that it should be considered fair.

I can't agree with that if that's what you're saying, and it's really a ridiculous request on your part because it clearly skirts the rule. You're talking about a round ball that has laces on it, and is spinning wildly...it's going to occasionally do some crazy things when it's in motion. That's part of the game. It's ridiculous to go amending the rule to accomodate all the different crazy things the ball might do while in motion. The only thing that should matter is what territory the ball is in.

You're only saying this crap because you feel robbed of a game and want a special rule that would have potentially had you tied with us in the WC race at the moment instead of down a game

 

[Jeremy]

Man that Twins / Sox game was freakin sweet last night.

 

[Truthspeaker]

You only know it now because I showed it to you.

The other day, you didn't have a clue:



Those were your words.

Anyway, our 3 game set against you guys starts right now.

I'm out. Good luck

I think I'm right too. Because I think it's impossible for a ball to curve from fair to foul to fair after hitting fair in the first place.

Assuming that it is physically impossible for the ball to do that, then the ump blew the call and it was a fair ball.

Assuming that is IS physically possible, then there doesn't need to be any "provision" in the rule. The rule clearly states that the ball would be considered foul, simply because it passed third base in foul territory.

You still don't seem to be getting that part. You're making no sense when you keep saying the rule needs to be amended.

It doesn't matter how whacky of a movement the ball potentially takes, the ruling is simple: Ball is in fair territory while passing bag: FAIR ... Ball is in foul territory while passing bag: FOUL. It's friggin black and white, dude.

I see you SAYING you understand the rule, but calling for rule provisions because of this type of play tells me that you don't.

The only thing I can take from this is that you think they need to make a provision where if a ground ball swerves around the bag through foul territory but bounced fair before and after it, that it should be considered fair.

I can't agree with that if that's what you're saying, and it's really a ridiculous request on your part because it clearly skirts the rule. You're talking about a round ball that has laces on it, and is spinning wildly...it's going to occasionally do some crazy things when it's in motion. That's part of the game. It's ridiculous to go amending the rule to accomodate all the different crazy things the ball might do while in motion. The only thing that should matter is what territory the ball is in.

You're only saying this crap because you feel robbed of a game and want a special rule that would have potentially had you tied with us in the WC race at the moment instead of down a game

I don't think it's unreasonable at all to say that if a ball starts and finishes fair it should be fair. So a provision makes sense. Not to you because you're the beneficiary. You'll find that if I were in your shoes I'd be agreeing with someone like me. I believe in getting the call right. You believe in allowing bad calls. I think my rep is better than yours based on that alone.
I do understand the 3rd base rule. But it should be amended to give a guy a hit when he deserves one.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Man that Twins / Sox game was freakin sweet last night.

Yeah especially since Delmon Young is in my fantasy outfield. He was a huge boost to my fantasy win yesterday.

 

[Paulie]

I think I'm right too. Because I think it's impossible for a ball to curve from fair to foul to fair after hitting fair in the first place.

Assuming that it is physically impossible for the ball to do that, then the ump blew the call and it was a fair ball.

Assuming that is IS physically possible, then there doesn't need to be any "provision" in the rule. The rule clearly states that the ball would be considered foul, simply because it passed third base in foul territory.

You still don't seem to be getting that part. You're making no sense when you keep saying the rule needs to be amended.

It doesn't matter how whacky of a movement the ball potentially takes, the ruling is simple: Ball is in fair territory while passing bag: FAIR ... Ball is in foul territory while passing bag: FOUL. It's friggin black and white, dude.

I see you SAYING you understand the rule, but calling for rule provisions because of this type of play tells me that you don't.

The only thing I can take from this is that you think they need to make a provision where if a ground ball swerves around the bag through foul territory but bounced fair before and after it, that it should be considered fair.

I can't agree with that if that's what you're saying, and it's really a ridiculous request on your part because it clearly skirts the rule. You're talking about a round ball that has laces on it, and is spinning wildly...it's going to occasionally do some crazy things when it's in motion. That's part of the game. It's ridiculous to go amending the rule to accomodate all the different crazy things the ball might do while in motion. The only thing that should matter is what territory the ball is in.

You're only saying this crap because you feel robbed of a game and want a special rule that would have potentially had you tied with us in the WC race at the moment instead of down a game

I don't think it's unreasonable at all to say that if a ball starts and finishes fair it should be fair. So a provision makes sense. Not to you because you're the beneficiary. You'll find that if I were in your shoes I'd be agreeing with someone like me. I believe in getting the call right. You believe in allowing bad calls. I think my rep is better than yours based on that alone.
I do understand the 3rd base rule. But it should be amended to give a guy a hit when he deserves one.

So you think if a ground ball manages to swerve around a bag foul during a bounce, it should be actually be ruled fair, simply because it started and ended the bounce in fair territory?

You're going to have to enlighten me on why the rule should be completely skirted just because the ball happened to do something strange while in motion.

 

[Oddball]

Man that Twins / Sox game was freakin sweet last night.

I may watch this video for the rest of the season:

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | Must C Clutch: Thome blasts first walk-off at Target - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia