"ground" rule double

[nopachunts]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

But the question of the ball bouncing into the screen was a question posed to me and I was not able to convince the questioner about the logic of the screen and foul pole having the same effect on a fair ball that bounded into either.

Where would the ball have gone if the pole and screen were not there?

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by nopachunts

Where would the ball have gone if the pole and screen were not there?

Using this logic, a ball that bounces and hits the outfield wall would also be a double.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by yawetag

Using this logic, a ball that bounces and hits the outfield wall would also be a double.

Or a fielder.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by yawetag

Using this logic, a ball that bounces and hits the outfield wall would also be a double.

HUH?

If the pole/screen wasn't there it would continue on and go over the fence and be a double.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

HUH?

If the pole/screen wasn't there it would continue on and go over the fence and be a double.

And if the fence wasn't there, the ball would continue into dead ball territory and be a double.

The rule *could have been* written so the foul pole / screen was just part of the fence (e.g., the fence is 8' high except for the last 18" on each side where it's 25' feet high), and a ball bouncing off it and remaining in play is still live. But, it wasn't.