Clipping:Interpreting foul bunts
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Wednesday, March 13, 1889 |
|---|---|
| Text | [reporting on a meeting of the AA officials and umpires] The official definition of the rule, which refers to “an obvious attempt to hit a ball foul,” is that the batsman can only be considered as hitting the ball foul intentionally when such intention is apparent to the umpire. When the game is in such a position as to render the hitting a ball foul as a detriment to the batting side—as in the case of a bunted ball when a runner is on a base—in such case the umpire cannot legally call the bunted ball a strike as was wrongfully done, time and again, last year. In fact to call a strike on a ball hit foul at any time can only be done when the intention to do so is obvious, that is, unmistakeable. The Sporting Life March 13, 1889 [from Chadwick's column] In the case of all bunted balls, when runners are on bases no strike can be called on a ball bunted foul, unless such foul hits are repeatedly made and plainly made for the purpose of hitting them foul. Last year all balls bunted foul after two strikes were called when called a third strike. This is no longer the rule. The Sporting Life March 20, 1889 |
| Source | Sporting Life |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />