Baseball rules question

[Sea Bass]

Man on first. Batter hits a liner down the first base line. 1B playing behind bag, goes to his left and gets a very small piece of the ball while it's still in the air and in fair.

Ball, after touching first baseman's glove, lands foul, past the bag, and goes all the way down into the RF corner. Base ump doesn't see 1B make contact with ball, sees ball land foul, calls it foul. Both batter and runner stop after hearing ump's call.

However, after consulting with his partner, base ump changes call to fair.

Where can/should the umps place the runner and hitter?

 

[CD Boogie]

Man on first. Batter hits a liner down the first base line. 1B playing behind bag, goes to his left and gets a very small piece of the ball while it's still in the air and in fair.

Ball, after touching first baseman's glove, lands foul, past the bag, and goes all the way down into the RF corner. Base ump doesn't see 1B make contact with ball, sees ball land foul, calls it foul. Both batter and runner stop after hearing ump's call.

However, after consulting with his partner, base ump changes call to fair.

Where can/should the umps place the runner and hitter?

Put them on first and second, then bring in a Red Sox reliever to give up a game-winning 3-run home run.

 

[maumann]

Rule 5.05(a) ...

(9) Any fair fly ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands, or over the fence into foul territory, in which case the batter shall be entitled to advance to second base; but if deflected into the stands or over the fence in fair territory, the batter shall be entitled to a home run. However, should such a fair fly be deflected at a point less than 250 feet from home plate, the batter shall be entitled to two bases only.

So put them at second and third, in my opinion.

Until I looked that up, I never realized "ground-rule double" is a misnomer. In the Rules, it's an "automatic double." Huh.

 

[ChrisLong]

Since I was a kid, it was ground-rule double. Vin Scully said so. Then some douchebags started calling it book-rule double. I think they were talking to the patrons at Augusta.

 

[Chef2]

Put them on first and second, then bring in a Red Sox reliever to give up a game-winning 3-run home run.

I would say 1st and 2nd also, but it would have to go to review, and you can be rest assured someone is getting ejected.

 

[JC]

I would say 1st and 2nd also, but it would have to go to review, and you can be rest assured someone is getting ejected.

You'd probably also toss some one to make sure people knew you were there.

 

[Chef2]

You'd probably also toss some one to make sure people knew you were there.

Duh.

 

[jackfinarelli]

I believe this is completely a judgment call by the umps based on where he/they believed the most likely outcome would have been without the missed call. It could be first and second. It could be second and third. If the umpire(s) thought the right fielder was shifted so far toward left field that he could have taken an inning-and-a-half to get to the ball in the right field corner, maybe they give the batter a triple. It is their call - - unless they rule something that is so outrageous that the overseers in NYC tell them to "chill out".

Because I think this is a judgement call and that there will be outrage in whichever dugout the call is made non-beneficially, the most likely outcome of this entire matter is that someone will be thrown out of the game where all this happened.