[Dakota]

Originally posted by Striker991
Did you miss my smiley?

Sorry - yes I did.

Originally posted by Striker991
However, if I am a coach (god help us all), and the ball hits the branch in foul territory in the air, bounces and settles in fair territory, and my batter-runner is standing on second, I will argue that the tree is not foreign to the natural ground. Of course, as an umpire, your response should be: "Coach, in my judgement, the tree is foreign to the natural ground." His protest is now over, because you have stated and applied the rule correctly and it has now become a judgement call. Hee hee...I would love to see the look on the coach's face after that statement!

What I would probably say is something like, "Coach, the rules do not specifically address trees in playable territory. Therefore, I am ruling this as the same effect as if the ball contacts the fence or the backstop. Foul ball."

Originally posted by Striker991
A blocked ball is a different issue here. We aren't discussing that.

True, but I brought it up since you are arguing that the tree is part of the natural ground. Therefore, a ball that is sitting up on a branch in the tree is not blocked, just as a ball sitting on the ground is not blocked. Right?

And, to bring back up your fair territory situation, I would rule a ball that contacts a tree overhanging fair territory (in the abense of any ground rules) to be a blocked ball. Two bases from the TOP.

In the general case, a ball hit into a tree will not come out of the tree immediately and will not come out of the tree on a predictabe path. To consider it to be the same as a fly ball would seem to put the defense at a disadvantage.

Originally posted by Striker991
I think we have, by our discussion, made one point perfectly clear and we both agree...these issues need to be clarified at the plate during the ground rule discussion. This also means that umpires need to take the time to inspect the field when they first arrive to make note of items like this.

Absolutely agree.