Ball hits a tree

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Manny A

We never set a dead ball area/line for the rest of the outfield that wasn't fenced in, so why should we have done so with the woods? Safety, the field itself should be a relatively even and level surface with little to no variation in consistency or texture of the ground. The area beyond the field may vary in ground level, texture, and even inhabitants. Do we really want players, especially young players running into the woods to get a ball and not paying attention to where they are stepping or what they are stepping on? The last thing an umpire needs from a legal standpoint is to say the rulebook says we don't have a line, so a child runs into the woods, steps on a tree root/branch, ect or a wild animal, and becomes injured. By stopping play so the player may slow down and safely enter the area to retrieve the ball, we are helping to create a safer environment for the participants.

And I've seen both in baseball and softball fields where there is no fence in the outfield, and we play all-you-can-get if the ball just goes and goes. This is fine is the field is relatively level in terms of playing conditions. If there is no fence, but you have 600 feet to an obstruction (have a JV field I've work like this in right and center fields, left field fence is the baseball diamond fence, at about 150 and sloping away from the softball diamond), then the situation is simply, chase it until you can't chase it anymore. The only time this can't be used is when there is a potential safety hazard to the participants.

Most rule sets I'm familiar with set no max limit on how far a fence can extend from home plate (ASA is an exception). Most books list a recommended distance. Even OBR says fences can be "XXX feet or more". So if a field has no fence, why the need for a line?Again, safety for the participants. The line should designate a condition which would be unsafe for the participants.

Personally I have an issue with saying that a ball hit into the woods 350 feet from home plate would be a GRD, when the batter-runner may be at 3rd base before the ball gets there. I feel it should be the umpires judgment where would the batter runner have advanced to had the obstruction not been in place.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Manny A
We never set a dead ball area/line for the rest of the outfield that wasn't fenced in, so why should we have done so with the woods? Safety, the field itself should be a relatively even and level surface with little to no variation in consistency or texture of the ground. The area beyond the field may vary in ground level, texture, and even inhabitants. Do we really want players, especially young players running into the woods to get a ball and not paying attention to where they are stepping or what they are stepping on? The last thing an umpire needs from a legal standpoint is to say the rulebook says we don't have a line, so a child runs into the woods, steps on a tree root/branch, ect or a wild animal, and becomes injured. By stopping play so the player may slow down and safely enter the area to retrieve the ball, we are helping to create a safer environment for the participants.

And I've seen both in baseball and softball fields where there is no fence in the outfield, and we play all-you-can-get if the ball just goes and goes. This is fine is the field is relatively level in terms of playing conditions. If there is no fence, but you have 600 feet to an obstruction (have a JV field I've work like this in right and center fields, left field fence is the baseball diamond fence, at about 150 and sloping away from the softball diamond), then the situation is simply, chase it until you can't chase it anymore. The only time this can't be used is when there is a potential safety hazard to the participants.

Most rule sets I'm familiar with set no max limit on how far a fence can extend from home plate (ASA is an exception). Most books list a recommended distance. Even OBR says fences can be "XXX feet or more". So if a field has no fence, why the need for a line?Again, safety for the participants. The line should designate a condition which would be unsafe for the participants.

You misunderstood me. We did not designate a dead-ball line anywhere on the field where a fence would normally be located. If a kid hit a gapper in right-center, and the ball rolled 700 feet, it was all you can get. It wasn't, "Ooops, if there was a line there where the fence should have been, then that would be a two-base award, so he stays at second."

When it came to the woods, however, the kids knew not to go into them after the ball. So, yeah, there was a line, if you will, for safety purposes. There just wasn't a line where a fence would be. We could have just as easily made the ground rule "all you can get" and require fielders to enter the woods to retrieve the ball. But we felt safety was more important, and came up with our three-base or four-base award, depending how far away the ball was when it entered the woods.

From a fair and equitable standpoint, the ground rule was acceptable for everyone involved. In the vast majority of cases, the ruling would match what would happen if the ball hadn't entered any woods on the right side of the field. Limiting the runners to two bases was too restrictive, in everyone's mind. Sure, there could be the case where a batter laces a shot down the left field line that, had the woods not been there, he might've gone all the way around the bases. But then there would be the case where the ball barely entered the woods down the line, and awarding two bases might've been more appropriate. But to take all requirements of judgment out of the mix, where umpires would come up with two, three, or four base awards for the same batted ball, we felt our ground rule was best.

I agree for the vast majority of cases where more common situations require a ground rule, such as overhanging trees, tarps, storm drains, etc., along existing fences, two-base awards are the norm. What our field had was not the norm. A batter who hit a ball just to the left of dead center, and the ball eventually entered the woods some 600 feet away from home, should not be limited to two bases. And I still contend that the written rules do not force us to make that the universal limitation for every potential situation requiring a ground rule.

[BretMan]

(NCAA)

1.27 Ground Rule
An allowable amendment of the playing rules to accommodate a particular
circumstance (usually a field condition). Ground rules cannot conflict with or
supersede a playing rule.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by BretMan

(NCAA)

1.27 Ground Rule
An allowable amendment of the playing rules to accommodate a particular
circumstance (usually a field condition). Ground rules cannot conflict with or
supersede a playing rule.

And the way I read that is that you cannot create a ground rule when a book rule already exists to address the situation.

For example, there's a gate behind first base with a gap underneath, and a thrown ball can go through it. That's clearly something covered by the rule on balls going through or under a fence. So you cannot create a ground rule for it, especially one with, say, only a one-base award.