You could see it coming.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Worked on a recently renovated high school field yesterday. The one item that stood out over all others was the new RF foul pole. It was placed two feet inside the foul line.

Third inning, I was in A and the batter hit a shot down the line. I went out on it. The ball went out to the right of the foul pole and to the left of the foul line. I signaled homerun. As anticipated, 50% of the fans thought I was blind.

The home coach later informed me that he had complained to the district about the placement of the pole only to be told that they didn't have the funds to "replant" it.

That should guarantee some exciting moments for some time.

The coach should have the district draw the lines so they go from the edge of the outfield grass to the pole. Sure, it's not quite a straight line, but 2' off over 200' distance is not going to be too noticeable.

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The coach should have the district draw the lines so they go from the edge of the outfield grass to the pole. Sure, it's not quite a straight line, but 2' off over 200' distance is not going to be too noticeable.

Are you suggesting that you take away any number of doubles and triples from kids that hit what should be fair balls on the line and are now foul in order to avoid an argument on what might be 1 or 2 calls a year?

I'd rather have a true foul line and give the kids their due on the dozens of hits per season that are close and in the park than take away those hits so as to cover my butt on the 1 or 2 HRs a year that will be affected by the misplaced foul pole.

[mbyron]

Oh, well if the difference between a diamond with an 89.9* angle and one with a 90* angle makes such a huge difference to the "kids," let's open it up to, what, 95*? Why stop there? We could widen the field to 120* - just think how many triples kids could hit with such a wide field!

I had no idea that the objective was to maximize the number of extra bases. Heck, we could bring the fence in to do that.

[/sarcasm]

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Oh, well if the difference between a diamond with an 89.9* angle and one with a 90* angle makes such a huge difference to the "kids," let's open it up to, what, 95*? Why stop there? We could widen the field to 120* - just think how many triples kids could hit with such a wide field!

If the baseball rules gave the latitude of 90-120 then I'm all for it, as it is the rules say 90 not 89.9 and not 95. By taking 2 feet of fair territory away at the fence and 1 foot away 40 paces from the infield you will be significantly changing many games.

I put it in terms of how many hits would be taken away by changing the foul line because I believe the game is about the players, ususally kids, and I don't think it's necessary to take away many hits to protect the ump on one call a year.

Originally Posted by mbyron

I had no idea that the objective was to maximize the number of extra bases.

What is the objective of the 89.9 angle? To eliminate a possible argument that may happen twice on that field all year?

Is your motivation to make it easy for you or to be a fair arbiter of the game?

Originally Posted by mbyron

Heck, we could bring the fence in to do that.

Many MLB parks have done just that

[umpduck11]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Oh, well if the difference between a diamond with an 89.9* angle and one with a 90* angle makes such a huge difference to the "kids," let's open it up to, what, 95*? Why stop there? We could widen the field to 120* - just think how many triples kids could hit with such a wide field!

I had no idea that the objective was to maximize the number of extra bases. Heck, we could bring the fence in to do that.

[/sarcasm]

Yes, and let's implement an " everyone plays, everyone hits, everyone scores" rule also. That'll make little Johnny feel even better about himself.