Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dakota
I understand the technicality argument (and, for me, the discussion is academic since I don't know of any fields around here like that). My point is solely this:
What is the point of a foul pole without a fence if it is NOT to mark a boundary of the playing field?
Suppose there was a chalk line running in an arc from one foul pole to the other? Does that make a difference?
If so, what do you do with your "2 feet from the ground" situation?
If not, what if there are no foul lines or out of play lines at all anywhere, just the foul poles? Why is the "outfield fence line" the only imaginary line the umpire does NOT recognize?
|
I don't like to view the regs/rules in the technicality sense in all honesty. If you do the technicality argument, you're going to get very different (but probably very well thought out) situations which may or may not be the expressed intent of the rule. It's so much better to view the rules as black and white or right and wrong.
That's the reason the ASA has clarified definitions and removed intent from judgment situations in recent history, and I don't think we should try and make this situation/ruling more than it is. It's a field with no distance fences, which means there can be no over the fence HR in any situation. As the batter/runner in this instance you should get the "standard/default" situation rule, which is two bases from time of pitch.