Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Fenway right field foul pole/line


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
44 replies to this topic

#1 travis bickled

  • Pip
  • 366 posts

Posted 04 May 2011 - 09:12 AM

Last week or so a ball hit to right field brought the foul line into question. The yellow line on the wall is not directly in line with the pole. The confusion came about when the ball went over the wall just past the line (marked) on the wall but before the pole causing the umps to review it with the decision being it was a foul ball. Watching the game on tv last night I see it hasn't changed. Any news on this?

Edited by travis bickled, 04 May 2011 - 09:17 AM.


#2 czar


  • fanboy


  • 3,583 posts

Posted 04 May 2011 - 09:30 AM

Last week or so a ball hit to right field brought the foul line into question. The yellow line on the wall is not directly in line with the pole. The confusion came about when the ball went over the wall just past the line (marked) on the wall but before the pole causing the umps to review it with the decision being it was a foul ball. Watching the game on tv last night I see it hasn't changed. Any news on this?


It was the camera angle. Since the wall is at such a sharp angle at that point, it will look like the line is misaligned with the pole if you look at it from the side (outfield). IIRC, Terry and the umpires said after the game that the yellow line on the wall is lined up with the pole if you look at it from home plate.

#3 Rice4HOF

  • 1,422 posts

Posted 04 May 2011 - 11:07 AM

I just read a blog article covering this exact topic yesterday. It's here complete with pictures from different angles: http://letsgosox.blo...n-home-run.html

#4 behindthepen


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,906 posts

Posted 04 May 2011 - 12:34 PM

I just read a blog article covering this exact topic yesterday. It's here complete with pictures from different angles: http://letsgosox.blo...n-home-run.html

From the 4/24 Sunday Glob ( cafardo's column)

"Remember that weird right field foul pole/yellow line incident April 15 when a Blue Jays home run was reversed after replay because the ball was shown landing to the right of the pole even though it was within the yellow line on the railing? MLB and the Red Sox have been working on making sure the pole and line of the railing are lined up. A view from home plate to the pole is aligned — an optical illusion — but once you get to the spot, there’s an obvious gap between the yellow line and pole. That this was never noticed before and that it never came into play was amazing to team and league officials, but by the time the Red Sox return home from their current trip, the lines should line up"

#5 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,165 posts

Posted 04 May 2011 - 12:42 PM

From the 4/24 Sunday Glob ( cafardo's column)

"Remember that weird right field foul pole/yellow line incident April 15 when a Blue Jays home run was reversed after replay because the ball was shown landing to the right of the pole even though it was within the yellow line on the railing? MLB and the Red Sox have been working on making sure the pole and line of the railing are lined up. A view from home plate to the pole is aligned — an optical illusion — but once you get to the spot, there’s an obvious gap between the yellow line and pole. That this was never noticed before and that it never came into play was amazing to team and league officials, but by the time the Red Sox return home from their current trip, the lines should line up"


Cafardo is an idiot. If they line up looking at it from home to the pole then they line up because that's the goddamn line. The way to "fix" this non problem is to paint the top of the wall from where the line is to the bottom of the pole. Paint it yellow. There ya go. That once in a century issue is resolved.

If two things line up when you're looking down the line they are supposed to be lined up on and don't look lined up when you're looking at them from another angle, THAT'S NOT AN OPTICAL ILLUSION YOU FUCKING NITWIT.

#6 travis bickled

  • Pip
  • 366 posts

Posted 04 May 2011 - 01:20 PM

I will be in town for Saturday's game....Someone better have this resolved by the time I arrive...I don't care who, just fix it!

#7 joe dokes

  • 3,106 posts

Posted 04 May 2011 - 01:42 PM

Cafardo is an idiot. If they line up looking at it from home to the pole then they line up because that's the goddamn line. The way to "fix" this non problem is to paint the top of the wall from where the line is to the bottom of the pole. Paint it yellow. There ya go. That once in a century issue is resolved.

If two things line up when you're looking down the line they are supposed to be lined up on and don't look lined up when you're looking at them from another angle, THAT'S NOT AN OPTICAL ILLUSION YOU FUCKING NITWIT.


Bingo. The "gap" between the line and the pole is irrelevant. If the ball goes into the STANDS to the right of the pole its a foul ball. Its quite simple. That's what the pole is for. The line on the wall is only there to tell the ump whether the ball hit the WALL fair or foul.

Way back in the mid-70s, Nick had similar concerns about people working in the Hancock. As many people know, when you look at the building from a certain angle, it appears two-dimensional. Nick was worried that all those people had disappeared.

Edited by joe dokes, 04 May 2011 - 01:43 PM.


#8 Noah

  • 3,168 posts

Posted 04 May 2011 - 02:33 PM

The way to "fix" this non problem is to paint the top of the wall from where the line is to the bottom of the pole. Paint it yellow. There ya go. That once in a century issue is resolved.


Yeah, exactly. So then didn't the umps make the wrong call on the Lind ball? Since the foul line should really be painted along the top of the wall in that gap, effectively what happened is that the ball bounced on the line and into the stands. So it should have been an automatic double. I think that's what Farrell was arguing with all that pointing he was doing.

http://mlb.mlb.com/v...ent_id=13833767

#9 travis bickled

  • Pip
  • 366 posts

Posted 04 May 2011 - 02:37 PM

Bingo. The "gap" between the line and the pole is irrelevant. If the ball goes into the STANDS to the right of the pole its a foul ball. Its quite simple. That's what the pole is for. The line on the wall is only there to tell the ump whether the ball hit the WALL fair or foul.Way back in the mid-70s, Nick had similar concerns about people working in the Hancock. As many people know, when you look at the building from a certain angle, it appears two-dimensional. Nick was worried that all those people had disappeared.


a) If this is the case that means there are 2 distinctly different "foul lines" within a very close proximity.

b) When this occurred it appeared IIRC the umps were confused along with Remy and Orsillo or perhaps the umps needed to review the play to determine exactly where the ball went into the stands.

#10 ToeKneeArmAss


  • Paul Byrd's pitching coach


  • 2,298 posts

Posted 04 May 2011 - 02:53 PM

Yeah, exactly. So then didn't the umps make the wrong call on the Lind ball? Since the foul line should really be painted along the top of the wall in that gap, effectively what happened is that the ball bounced on the line and into the stands. So it should have been an automatic double. I think that's what Farrell was arguing with all that pointing he was doing.

http://mlb.mlb.com/v...ent_id=13833767


Nice call Noah - I think that's exactly what Farrell was arguing. You can see him gesture that the ball hit on top of the wall, which he seems to indicate that it's the same as it hitting on the line. That's gotta be a fair ball, right?

Except ... it seems pretty clear that the replay rules don't allow the umpires to make that call. They can only use it to decide if it's a home run or a foul ball. Or if it did or didn't leave the field of play, or was or wasn't interfered with by a fan. Same as they can't use replay to decide if a ball hit the chalk.

I wonder if it's addressed in the park ground rules? If it isn't, it should be.

#11 ToeKneeArmAss


  • Paul Byrd's pitching coach


  • 2,298 posts

Posted 04 May 2011 - 02:58 PM

Which makes me wonder why the foul pole isn't right at that corner of the wall?

Is there any other place in a major league park where there's a section of wall in fair territory, that isn't a home run boundary?

Weird, weird Fenway.

#12 gator92

  • 178 posts

Posted 04 May 2011 - 03:24 PM

Which makes me wonder why the foul pole isn't right at that corner of the wall?

Is there any other place in a major league park where there's a section of wall in fair territory, that isn't a home run boundary?

Weird, weird Fenway.



It's actually not that uncommon for there to be some separation between the wall and pole. Here's one instance in Detroit.

Comerica Park LF pole


Even the ones that are done really well have a bit of separation...
New Yankee Stadium LF pole


...which is an improvement over this one...
Old Yankee Stadium LF pole

#13 travis bickled

  • Pip
  • 366 posts

Posted 04 May 2011 - 06:40 PM

Lurker 88 MVP ask I post this for him....sorry I wasn't able to add the diagram.



Sent Today, 04:55 PM

Hey, I'm a lurker so I couldn't post a response directly to the thread, but this diagram might help explain the issue with the pole:





The white line is the foul line extended, the green line represents the wall. The yellow line is the painted stripe on the wall and the yellow circle is pesky pole.

In most stadiums the wall is roughly perpendicular to the foul line so this isn't an issue. But at Fenway, because the wall intersects the foul line at an angle and the wall has thickness to it, there are two different planes intersecting the foul line - the inner wall, which intersects the line at one point, and the outer wall, which intersects at another. Thus a ball that is crosses the wall will have a different intersect point with the foul line than a ball that strikes the wall without making it all the way over. So you end up with the once every 100 years scenario where a ball that has a left to right slice to it is still fair when it crosses the outer wall (and thus inside the line painted on the wall) yet by the time it makes it all the way across the wall it is in fact foul.

I'd appreciate it if you would post this to the main board - I think the diagram helps, and maybe it helps me get promoted from lurker status. Thanks.

Edited by travis bickled, 04 May 2011 - 06:46 PM.


#14 JMDurron

  • 4,332 posts

Posted 05 May 2011 - 07:50 AM

Here's the diagram from 88 MVP.

Posted Image

#15 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,165 posts

Posted 05 May 2011 - 05:35 PM

Yeah, exactly. So then didn't the umps make the wrong call on the Lind ball? Since the foul line should really be painted along the top of the wall in that gap, effectively what happened is that the ball bounced on the line and into the stands. So it should have been an automatic double. I think that's what Farrell was arguing with all that pointing he was doing.

http://mlb.mlb.com/v...ent_id=13833767


It CAN'T be a double. It didn't hit the ground. It's either a fair ball and a home run or a foul ball.

A FAIR BALL is a batted ball that...first falls on fair territory on or beyond first base or third base


FAIR TERRITORY is that part of the playing field within, and including the first base and third base lines, from home base to the bottom of the playing field fence and perpendicularly upwards. All foul lines are in fair territory.


6.0.9 d A fair ball passes over a fence or into the stands at a distance from home base of 250 feet or more. Such hit entitles the batter to a home run when he shall have touched all bases legally. A fair fly ball that passes out of the playing field at a point less than 250 feet from home base shall entitle the batter to advance to second base only;


Fair ball? Check. Past 250 feet? Check. It's a dinger.

If the ball is a few inches higher and goes into the stands on the fly then it's a foul ball but as soon as it touches the wall left of the line on the wall it's a fair ball.

#16 Noah

  • 3,168 posts

Posted 05 May 2011 - 05:58 PM

Fair ball? Check. Past 250 feet? Check. It's a dinger.


That's really interesting, thanks for researching it.

As someone said before, the proper placement of the pole would really be right at the front of the wall where the line is painted. But foul poles are always actually behind the wall (probably for structural reasons). So that leaves a small gap in most cases, but in Fenway it's a bit larger because the sharp angle of the wall.

So I think this means that slicing (or hooking) fly balls down the RF line that pass just barely to the right of the pole could have actually cleared the wall in fair territory.

#17 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,165 posts

Posted 05 May 2011 - 07:10 PM

So I think this means that slicing (or hooking) fly balls down the RF line that pass just barely to the right of the pole could have actually cleared the wall in fair territory.


True enough but also irrelevant.

A FOUL BALL is 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.


Once you get past the base what matters is what it touches and where. If it hits fair territory which includes the walls, lines, and poles, it's a fair ball even if it then goes foul. If it hits in foul territory including walls, fat guys in the stands, and Heidi Watney's left butt cheek it's a foul ball even if it then bounces fair. In that instant where it passes from fair territory to foul territory and it's hovering in air it is neither fair nor foul and if a freak wormhole opened up and deposited the ball back into fair territory it would be a fair ball.

I find it odd in a theoretical sense that the bases make so much difference. Between home and the bags it doesn't matter what the ball touches but where it comes to rest or is fielded and after the bag it's where it's touched. And yet in a practical game play standpoint the rule totally makes sense.

Anyone know if there is an mlb rulebook for iphones and ipads?

#18 Noah

  • 3,168 posts

Posted 05 May 2011 - 08:08 PM

I find it odd in a theoretical sense that the bases make so much difference. Between home and the bags it doesn't matter what the ball touches but where it comes to rest or is fielded and after the bag it's where it's touched. And yet in a practical game play standpoint the rule totally makes sense.


Yeah, it has to be that way for a couple reasons. First of all, it would be really difficult to judge choppers that first hit near the line near the plate (especially at lower levels of baseball where you don't have umpires on each line). And maybe more importantly, those choppers can have a lot of spin on them that hit initially fair but end up way out in foul ground that would be ridiculous to be played as fair balls.

It's basically just separate rules for ground balls and fly balls.

#19 Guapos Toenails

  • 1,844 posts

Posted 05 May 2011 - 08:59 PM

Posted Image

From opening day for reference.

#20 Rice4HOF

  • 1,422 posts

Posted 06 May 2011 - 01:26 AM

Anyone know if there is an mlb rulebook for iphones and ipads?


Yep. I don't have a link, but it's on my phone, and it's called Baseball rule book. It's made by JBMJBM. Should be easy to find on itunes.

#21 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,165 posts

Posted 06 May 2011 - 10:10 AM

Yep. I don't have a link, but it's on my phone, and it's called Baseball rule book. It's made by JBMJBM. Should be easy to find on itunes.


Thanks,

#22 HangingW/ScottCooper

  • 1,062 posts

Posted 06 May 2011 - 11:22 AM

Here's the diagram from 88 MVP.

Posted Image



Posted Image

From opening day for reference.


Really there should be a line on the top of the wall connecting the yellow line on the face of the wall with the foul pole.

#23 ToeKneeArmAss


  • Paul Byrd's pitching coach


  • 2,298 posts

Posted 11 May 2011 - 05:04 PM

Really there should be a line on the top of the wall connecting the yellow line on the face of the wall with the foul pole.


Really, there should be a pole right on top of the line on the wall.

The more I think about this, the more I think this post by Ras upthread mostly nails it:


6.0.9 d A fair ball passes over a fence or into the stands at a distance from home base of 250 feet or more. Such hit entitles the batter to a home run when he shall have touched all bases legally. A fair fly ball that passes out of the playing field at a point less than 250 feet from home base shall entitle the batter to advance to second base only;



Fair ball? Check. Past 250 feet? Check. It's a dinger.

If the ball is a few inches higher and goes into the stands on the fly then it's a foul ball but as soon as it touches the wall left of the line on the wall it's a fair ball.


I say "mostly" because it seems that a literal interpretation of this rule says even if it left on the fly, if it's beyond the line on the wall it's a homer - EVEN if it's in front of the pole.

#24 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,165 posts

Posted 11 May 2011 - 05:19 PM

Really, there should be a pole right on top of the line on the wall.

The more I think about this, the more I think this post by Ras upthread mostly nails it:

I say "mostly" because it seems that a literal interpretation of this rule says even if it left on the fly, if it's beyond the line on the wall it's a homer - EVEN if it's in front of the pole.


Nope. You're missing the fair foul designation. 609d applies to fair balls.

A FOUL BALL is a batted ball 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.


When it passes over the wall on the foul side of the pole and lands in foul territory it is a foul ball and cannot be a home run.

The key to the incident in question was that it hit the wall to the left of the yellow line on the wall. That made it a fair ball regardless of what happened afterwards.

#25 Guapos Toenails

  • 1,844 posts

Posted 31 May 2011 - 04:15 PM

Thanks dog

Edited by Guapos Toenails, 31 May 2011 - 08:01 PM.


#26 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 38,409 posts

Posted 31 May 2011 - 07:49 PM

http://lockerz.com/s/106541126 Check this out. Does this make it better or worse? (Can someone edit this and embed the picture for me? Can't do it from my Droid)


Posted Image

#27 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,165 posts

Posted 31 May 2011 - 09:12 PM

Posted Image


So if it hits the screen on the fly it's now a foul ball, just as before but if like before it hits the wall first it will either bounce back into the field of play and likely result in a single or get lodged in the screen for a double.

What's the point? that a guy shouldn't hit a 310 foot home run to the right of the pole?

#28 HriniakPosterChild

  • 3,917 posts

Posted 31 May 2011 - 10:31 PM

... get lodged in the screen for a double.

If a ball gets lodged in the screen, it has left the field of play (cleared the fence) in fair territory. That's a home run,

#29 Kevin Jewkilis

  • 1,220 posts

Posted 31 May 2011 - 10:51 PM

I really hope they make the new ground rules around this net explicit (not that it's likely to actually come into play). I assume that a ball hitting the meshing of the net on the fly would be foul, but the last thing we need is an umpire using his time at the replay making up a new rule.

#30 HriniakPosterChild

  • 3,917 posts

Posted 01 June 2011 - 12:09 AM

I really hope they make the new ground rules around this net explicit (not that it's likely to actually come into play). I assume that a ball hitting the meshing of the net on the fly would be foul, but the last thing we need is an umpire using his time at the replay making up a new rule.

I think the umpires understand the old rule:

6.09 The batter becomes a runner when—
***
(d) A fair ball passes over a fence or into the stands at a distance from home base of 250 feet or more. Such hit entitles the batter to a home run when he shall have touched all bases legally


In the unlikely event an ump at Fenway got it wrong, the manager would play the rest of the game under protest. See Pine Tar Game for details.

#31 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,165 posts

Posted 01 June 2011 - 12:33 AM

If a ball gets lodged in the screen, it has left the field of play (cleared the fence) in fair territory. That's a home run,


So they added a screen to make no change whatsoever? Doesn't make sense. The standing definition of fair territory includes the vertical wall delineating the difference between fair and foul so unless there is a line as in center and on the Monster then the screen is part of fair territory and not out of play and thus a ball lodged there would be akin to one getting lodged between the pads or in the ivy.

#32 HriniakPosterChild

  • 3,917 posts

Posted 01 June 2011 - 01:52 AM

So they added a screen to make no change whatsoever? Doesn't make sense. The standing definition of fair territory includes the vertical wall delineating the difference between fair and foul so unless there is a line as in center and on the Monster then the screen is part of fair territory and not out of play and thus a ball lodged there would be akin to one getting lodged between the pads or in the ivy.


They added a screen to make it easier to make the correct call.

The foul pole is several inches back from the line on the fence. By rule, the fence defines the boundary of the field of play, but since a ball could clear the fence in fair territory (barely) and pass to the foul side of the pole (barely), it was possible for the incorrect call to be made. Now, such a ball will hit that screen.

One possible path for such a ball would be:
Posted Image

If it were possible for the pole to be moved several inches closer to home plate, there would be no need for a screen to help get that call right.

Edit: Added image

Edited by HriniakPosterChild, 01 June 2011 - 01:55 AM.


#33 travis bickled

  • Pip
  • 366 posts

Posted 02 June 2011 - 06:35 AM

Posted Image


My first impression upon seeing this here was it's the work of a photo shop artist...

Before the game a couple of weeks ago I pointed to the pole/wall marking asking one of the field security personnel, "what's up with this?"...he replied with ..."they're talking about it".

What should be done is to add a strip of yellow "flexible" material directly below the pole that would protrude out 3 inches or so making it visible to the home plate umpire.

That cobb job is a disgrace and somewhat of a safety issue...although it's good place to stick your gum and all other types of shit.

Edited by travis bickled, 02 June 2011 - 07:44 AM.


#34 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,165 posts

Posted 02 June 2011 - 12:29 PM

They added a screen to make it easier to make the correct call.


Literally none of us have ever seen the wrong call made in that spot. We have seen the situation once in generations and they made the right call.

The foul pole is several inches back from the line on the fence. By rule, the fence defines the boundary of the field of play, but since a ball could clear the fence in fair territory (barely) and pass to the foul side of the pole (barely), it was possible for the incorrect call to be made. Now, such a ball will hit that screen.

One possible path for such a ball would be:
Posted Image


You don't know what you're talking about. Go back and read all the quotes I gave from the rule book. A ball that goes over that spot on the fly would be called foul ball and the only reasonable error there would be saying it hit the pole or went to the left of the pole. That's a home run call that could be reviewed by replay and easily corrected.

In this situation, and assuming that they have declared the screen to be out of play in the ground rules then you're going to have something hit the screen, bounce back into play and someone is going to get a hit on a foul ball which cannot be reviewed under the current replay rules.

If it were possible for the pole to be moved several inches closer to home plate, there would be no need for a screen to help get that call right.


Again, in a place where we've never seen them get the call wrong.

#35 MannysDestination


  • is not a republican


  • 11,062 posts

Posted 02 June 2011 - 12:33 PM

If it were possible for the pole to be moved several inches closer to home plate, there would be no need for a screen to help get that call right.


There's no way they could move the Pesky pole midseason, that would be a non-trivial engineering project (though not hugely complex, obviously) and would likely require obtaining building permits and other planning steps.

The net seems like a good stopgap measure. We'll see if this is corrected in the offseason, but it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't think the likely multiple thousands of dollars required to move the entire pole is justified when a clip on net does the job just fine.

#36 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,165 posts

Posted 02 June 2011 - 12:53 PM

I don't know why I am getting so annoyed by this.

There's nothing to correct. There is no problem here. They could paint a yellow line to assuage the Cafardo style idiots of the world but they'll just find something else to be an idiot about.

The umpires didn't need help making the correct call because THEY MADE THE CORRECT CALL.

#37 Noah

  • 3,168 posts

Posted 02 June 2011 - 01:14 PM

The umpires didn't need help making the correct call because THEY MADE THE CORRECT CALL.


Didn't you reason before that the Lind ball should have been a home run?

#38 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,165 posts

Posted 02 June 2011 - 01:19 PM

Didn't you reason before that the Lind ball should have been a home run?


So what you're saying is that I'm an idiot?

I somehow remembered them calling it a home run.

Nevermind, feel free to call me Cafardo for the rest of the day.

Carry on with my apologies for my snark.

Edited by Rasputin, 02 June 2011 - 01:19 PM.


#39 HriniakPosterChild

  • 3,917 posts

Posted 02 June 2011 - 04:32 PM

You don't know what you're talking about. Go back and read all the quotes I gave from the rule book. A ball that goes over that spot on the fly would be called foul ball and the only reasonable error there would be saying it hit the pole or went to the left of the pole. That's a home run call that could be reviewed by replay and easily corrected.


You posts contend that a ball that goes over the fence in fair territory, then hooks to land onto the foul side of the line, is a foul ball. That is a remarkable interpretation of the rule, to say the least.

#40 Noah

  • 3,168 posts

Posted 02 June 2011 - 04:48 PM

You posts contend that a ball that goes over the fence in fair territory, then hooks to land onto the foul side of the line, is a foul ball. That is a remarkable interpretation of the rule, to say the least.


It does seem odd, but I think he's right. The definition of a foul ball specifically mentions using the position of the foul pole as a reference for judging a foul fly.

A foul fly shall be judged according to the relative position of the ball and the foul line, including the foul pole


So even if the foul pole isn't in the logical place, it doesn't matter. The ball would be foul, and the rule about clearing fences in fair territory doesn't apply, because it's not a fair ball by rule.

#41 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,165 posts

Posted 02 June 2011 - 06:05 PM

You posts contend that a ball that goes over the fence in fair territory, then hooks to land onto the foul side of the line, is a foul ball. That is a remarkable interpretation of the rule, to say the least.


Clearly I am capable of screwing up the simplest things and making myself look like an idiot.

However, we're talking about balls that leave the field of play on the fly and do so to the foul side of the foul pole. That's a foul ball.

The ball Lind hit was a fair ball because it hit the wall in fair territory. Once it does that, it's a fair ball regardless of where it goes the same way a ball that lands in fair territory five feet past the third base line and continues into foul territory is a fair ball.

Judging by this statement:

The foul pole is several inches back from the line on the fence. By rule, the fence defines the boundary of the field of play, but since a ball could clear the fence in fair territory (barely) and pass to the foul side of the pole (barely), it was possible for the incorrect call to be made. Now, such a ball will hit that screen.


You're misunderstanding the definition of fair territory.

Here is the definition from the rulebook:

FAIR TERRITORY is that part of the playing field within, and including the first
base and third base lines, from home base to the bottom of the playing field fence and
perpendicularly upwards. All foul lines are in fair territory.


Now look at the picture. When it passes into the stands just to the right of the pole it is not within the foul lines when it goes out of play.

#42 HriniakPosterChild

  • 3,917 posts

Posted 02 June 2011 - 08:28 PM

Now look at the picture. When it passes into the stands just to the right of the pole it is not within the foul lines when it goes out of play.


The dome at Tampa Bay had (and may still have) a pole on the upper catwalk that is in line with the foul line, but it was many yards back from the fence which defined the field of play. It was possible for a ball to pass to the "foul" side of that pole but have left the field in fair territory. There was a discussion of how worthless this pole was on SoSH back in 2008 when the ALCS was played in Tampa Bay.

The Fenway pole is only a few inches back from the end of the playing field, so it is still possible, but obviously far less likely, for the ball to leave the field in fair territory but pass to the foul side of the pole. The line that matters is the line on the fence, which I've circled here:
Posted Image

A ball that leaves the field along the yellow path travels on the foul side of the pole, even though it has left the field in fair territory.

#43 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,165 posts

Posted 03 June 2011 - 12:40 AM

The Fenway pole is only a few inches back from the end of the playing field, so it is still possible, but obviously far less likely, for the ball to leave the field in fair territory but pass to the foul side of the pole. The line that matters is the line on the fence, which I've circled here:
Posted Image

A ball that leaves the field along the yellow path travels on the foul side of the pole, even though it has left the field in fair territory.


No, the line that matters is not on the fence. The line that matters is the foul line which runs from the top of the line on the fence that you circled to the base of the foul pole.

Actually, I take back the bad things I have said about that screen. Look at where it is attached. If you're looking down the foul line from home plate, the screen is attached at the extreme right side of the line on the wall and the extreme right side of the pole. In effect, the screen is delineating the extreme right side of the foul line.

The only extent to which a ball can be considered leaving the field of play in fair territory is in the sense that the foul lines are fair territory and much of the top of the reddish wall is on the foul line. If there is room for a ball to fit on the top of the wall with no part of the ball extending onto the green part then maybe you can call that a ball leaving the field of play in fair territory. But it should be reiterated that the rule explicitly states that:

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.


When there is an apparent conflict between rules you abide by the one that more specifically addresses the situation which in this case is the foul fly rule so if it passes by the pole on the foul side of the pole it is by rule a foul ball. The Lind ball wasn't a foul ball because it didn't leave the field of play until after it hit the wall.

#44 HriniakPosterChild

  • 3,917 posts

Posted 03 June 2011 - 01:27 AM

Actually, I take back the bad things I have said about that screen.


Progress!

Now if I could only to get you to perceive that a ball going over the fence on the fair side of the line painted on the fence left the field of play in fair territory...

Edit: Try this thought: A ball that hits the foul pole is a home run, agreed? So, consider the net as part of the foul pole. It just happened to be installed somewhat later than the rest of the pole.

Edited by HriniakPosterChild, 03 June 2011 - 03:05 AM.


#45 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26,165 posts

Posted 03 June 2011 - 05:54 PM

Progress!

Now if I could only to get you to perceive that a ball going over the fence on the fair side of the line painted on the fence left the field of play in fair territory...

Edit: Try this thought: A ball that hits the foul pole is a home run, agreed? So, consider the net as part of the foul pole. It just happened to be installed somewhat later than the rest of the pole.


Why on earth would I do that and of what possible relevance is it to a ball leaving the ballpark in fair territory?

The fair side of the line on the fence is everything on the opposite side of the screen from where the picture was taken. Something is not fair territory because it is to the right of the line as we see it in the picture.