Covering base with dirt

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Ump153

You still don't get it.

"Why would you want to do that?" (serious)

"If nobody can see the base, they can't really argue with your safe/out calls!" (joke)

There is a discussion becuase some here apparently think they are responsible for groundskeeping, or they are confused with softball.

Umpires are not groundskeepers. Read Bob's post.

I didn't ever say we were responsible for groundskeeping. Read my post. I said that in the pros, the bases are kept clean. In our games, there are no groundskeepers. I guess nobody here has to umpire in some of the sandpits I see here on a weekly bases, but trust me, we work without foul lines or any sort of field maintenance, so the bases get OBLITERATED, not just a little dusty. I will kick the dirt out from in front of second base after a runner packs a ton of dirt up against the edge. I do this after granting the runner time to brush the ton of dirt that got all over him when he slid.

That is all.

[Kleff]

I agree with SandiegoSteve some of these fields are sandy/dusty just not the best baseball conditions. As far as foul lines go I constantly work with out them,when they do decide to put them down after their done you wish they had not! Fans may see chalk fly but the ball may still be a foot foul. Makes a thankless job even harder

Mike

[Kleff]

I'm probably going to get reemed for this one but here goes. Since covering a base with dirt is technicaly not obstruction because of lack of physical contact and I'm sure covering a base with dirt to confuse base runners is not covered in any rule book. I still have to believe that is still somewhat illegal. Could you call obstruction then attempt back it up with 9.01 (c)??????

Mike

[RPatrino]

Kleff, no. In the case of players purposely covering a base with dirt, order them to stop. If they don't, eject them. Simple solution.

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by Kleff

I'm probably going to get reemed for this one but here goes. Since covering a base with dirt is technicaly not obstruction because of lack of physical contact and I'm sure covering a base with dirt to confuse base runners is not covered in any rule book. I still have to believe that is still somewhat illegal. Could you call obstruction then attempt back it up with 9.01 (c)??????

Mike

9.01 (c) is specifically for situations not covered by rule. Obstruction is covered by rule.

RPatrino has the best solution. Warn, then eject.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Kleff

I'm probably going to get reemed for this one but here goes. Since covering a base with dirt is technicaly not obstruction because of lack of physical contact and I'm sure covering a base with dirt to confuse base runners is not covered in any rule book. I still have to believe that is still somewhat illegal. Could you call obstruction then attempt back it up with 9.01 (c)??????

Mike

WHAT?!

Physical contact is not required.

2.00 OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

[tballump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

but trust me, we work without foul lines

imaginary lines=imaginary arguments

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by tballump

imaginary lines=imaginary arguments

Yes, during ground rules I state that whatever we call for fair/foul is going to be the call and there will be no arguing. Works most of the time.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Yes, during ground rules I state that whatever we call for fair/foul is going to be the call and there will be no arguing. Works most of the time.

Why would it be different if there were lines?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Why would it be different if there were lines?

Exactly. If it's truly that close that you can't tell one way or another what's it matter?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Why would it be different if there were lines?

Because with lines, they can come out and argue the call, and without them I will not accept a peep out of them.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Because with lines, they can come out and argue the call, and without them I will not accept a peep out of them.

IMO, either way it's arguing a judgment call. I'll treat them equally (that is, consider what they have to say, how they say it, other actions in the game, etc.)

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

IMO, either way it's arguing a judgment call. I'll treat them equally (that is, consider what they have to say, how they say it, other actions in the game, etc.)

But normally we allow a brief discussion over a judgment call (other than ball/strike, of course). Safe/out is often argued, as is fair/foul. If not prolonged, profane, physical or personal, we allow a little venting and ranting before telling them that we've had enough. Without foul lines I allow ZERO discussion of fair/foul. It's what I say it is and they know better in advance than to question it.