I do not know about you, but except for playoffs and tournament games, most fields I work in are not properly lined and are open fields.

In this 1 particular field I was umpiring at, DBT was only about 6 feet on either side (both first and third), and then you had the woods.

Practically every ball that is overthrown goes into DBT, therefore, during Pre-game with the coaches, the Home Coach mentioned they refereed to the first / third base side as a <b> Dead Zone </b> rather than DBT for award purposes, meaning any ball (thrown from no matter where) entering this area would receive only 1 base.

The VT coach did not have a problem with this since his players would be facing the same dilema. I also though that this was fair (ok don't give me that baseball isn't fiar routine - G) given the fact of the close proximatity of DBT relative to the first and third base.

Also, they are paying me, so as long as things are known up
front I personally do not see a problem with this.

Any of you ever hear the term "Dead Zone" or been faced with House rules superceding the rule book.

Thanks

Pete Booth

Pete,

The only house rules I am ever faced with
are at home and the Louisiana Casinos. :D

No, I have never heard of the *Dead Zone*
[have heard of the *Twlight Zone*], nor did I
think that house rules superceded Rule Book.

Appears as tho you had it covered

I wouldn't accept that ground rule. You are giving up the difference in overthrows from the rubber and from the field. Your giving up first play by an infielder i.e TOP vs TOT. Ground rules shouldn't supercede book rules. I realize that isn't written in stone but this one seems to go a little too far.

As far as being fair, it would be equally fair to both teams no matter which way you went.

If I were convinced to go with it I would make it crystal clear what the ramifications could be, so neither team could come back at me with, "But I didn't realize that Blue, you should have told me that" when the change cost's them, or gains the other team, the winning run. Could be dangerous.

As to DEAD ZONE vs DEAD BALL TERRITORY, it appears to be simple semantics.

"been faced with House rules superceding the rule book."
Easy in FED, 4-1-2, "Ground rules do not supersede a rule book rule".
I do LL to Semi-Pro ball, I have some on fields with trees and bushes in the out field and no fence, coachs want home run if they it the trees or bushes, sorry against rule book, can only be ground rule double. Ask them to get up some money and put up a fence, it doesn't cost much if they do the work themselves.

I couldn't quickly locate anything regarding OBR elsewhere except for J/R. It may be there, but I couldn't find it in a quick search.

<ul><b>J/R states:
<hr color=gold>
Ground Rules

Before the initial game of a series, the home team manager should specify for the umpires 3.13 and opposing manager any ground rules (which refer to areas or things which are live ball territory or dead ball territory). If such rules are acceptable to the visiting manager and do not conflict with or supersede any official or league rule, the plate umpire should concur in acceptance of the ground rules. However, if the opposing manager objects to a ground rule, or an umpire recognizes a conflict, <u>the plate umpire should mediate the objection or conflict and, if necessary, impose a relevant solution</u> [my emphasis]. Furthermore, a plate umpire can impose other ground rules that he believes are necessary.

Because of the threat of injury, a home team manager often propounds a ground rule prohibiting a catch in the dugouts; such a rule (for example) supersedes a book rule regarding a catch (see Chapter 2).</b>
<hr color=gold></ul>
It doesn't state the umpire cannot circumvent the rule if agreed to, merely that he should impose a relevant solution. It appears for OBR they recognize the differences that may occur and want to be certain it is acknowledged and agreed to by both coaches before starting the contest.

Of course, Fed is very direct in that their book rules cannot be superseded by local rule. They address that with casebook example.

Just my opinion,

Freix

Golly guys,
 

For over 30 years I have worked fields that were so non-traditional that "different" ground rules were the norm rather than not.

I have worked field were there was an outfield fence to near home plate that pop-ups could be home runs (their answer, any ball over that fence is a double), I worked a summer legion tourney where a light standard had started to fall apart (their answer, the right field foul line angled 90* IN towards second base just past the end of the dirt at first base, the line moved about 30 feet towards second then angled back towards the right filed corner . . . this was the foul line and DBT no players could enter . . . ground ball between F3 and F4 into RF -- FOUL BALL.)

I worked a game with EXACTLY the ground rule as described by Pete above.

I worked Legion Games where at the pre-game conference you are told "we play FED".

For all of you that say "I wouldn't work a game under those condiditons" I feel sorry for you. Where I work we don't have nice fenced in fields, and the game is played by KIDS for kids.

I play the rules that I am told are "the rules" to refuse to allow this is not only a break in customer service (oh no, that sounds like Peter) but it is really nothing that you really have anything to say about.

Now I WOULD listen if you talked about SAFETY (I don't mean little picky $hit stuff) then I'd have a better tendency to listen.