Here is a novel thought. It it is too unsafe for an on-deck circle, perhaps they shouldn't have one. More so if the field doesn't allow it to be done safely. Allow the hitter to warm up behind a fence. I know some of the newer city fields that I have seen have a little area next to the bench that is big enough to allow that.

In most cases, the leagues that advocate using the opposite side on deck circle are the younger kids. They probably don't need the on-deck circle anyway. For me personally, it was quite distracting to have multiple players passing behind me between batters and pitches. I can see that becoming an issue during a play when one of these young players decides to move to the on-deck circle too early.

Maybe this is a regional thing, but I haven't worked a single game in the 11 years I've lived in this area where a team tried to use the other circle. Probably cause it wouldn't be allowed...

One's OOO is another's expected practice.

I agree and I am certainly not saying it is common for the games I have done either however, the few times I have allowed it, is when it was an obvious safety concern and it was most always in a youth league, probably 13-14 and below. Similar to a condition that could easily be found in a Babe Ruth game that was in the original op. Again, sometimes you just have to umpire.

Where I work at 12 and below (we only do a small fraction of the 12 year old games) they typically allow this weird (to me) practice, but once they are playing Babe Ruth (or above) it is not allowed.
When I started working games at this level I would ask about rules differences and they always say there are none, then this would come up and they would tell me it's ok. I just had to ask the coaches why they didn't mention the rules difference. I can work with whatever rules they tell me are in effect but not telling me what the rules are is a little unfair and tough to work with.

BTW I do understand the safety aspect of this rule as it is normally only used with much younger players (12 and below) and as they are normally not playing on 90' diamonds their on-deck batters only have 15'-20' if they are backed up against a fence, I just wish the coaches would mention stuff like that if asked for rules differences, most of us work games under 2-5 rules codes during the year with all sorts of little "local" rules thrown in just for "fun".

Stuff like that reminds me of working Pop Warner football in its first season locally (we have another youth football group as well), we ask both coaches before the game what rules differences there are from NFHS rules as the league did not provide our association with a rule book. They go over some point differential rules, and the first half goes off without a hitch. Then in the 2nd half one team brings out a football that looks like an arena football, gold ball with some odd looking black stripes (they had previously been using a regular looking HS football). I don't allow it and the team freaks out. I go over to talk to the head coach and ask him why he didn't mention the ball before the game and he said he didn't know there were any rules about the ball in the rule book. :confused: Apparently the football was the 'official Pop Warner' football and perfectly legal, after confirming that by talking to both coaches, it still stuns me when I ask for rules differences and there is something so obvious and it doesn't get mentioned. Then we enforces the "normal" rules we get yelled at.

Jasper

Wouldn't it be unsafe if an wild pitch hits a batter who insists on going to the other side of the diamond? Now I have not seen anyone get hit yet, but it has almost happen several times in my career, which is the reason I believe the NF has the rule in the first place to stay on your side of the diamond. Now if you cannot pay attention during live play and get hit by a ball anyway, well that is a different story. Now I do not work Babe Ruth or any OBR games under those rules, but as a general rule I would not allow a player to use the other batter's box.

Peace

I don't want to get into a needless argument here. It's not a big deal. But your post tells us WHO is allowed in the ODC. The question was - are they allowed to use the ODC on the other side.

Personally, it bugs me when they want to use the opposite ODC, but not to the point that I'm going to stop it, especially when I have no rule support for doing so.

Rut, a player can trip up the dugout steps , miss a pop fly and and get hurt with the ball breaking his nose, trip over a glove, etc, etc. But just because some kid is clumsy or injured because of lack of ability doesn't mean that the umpire then has a right to not use some common sense.

Stratref get over your hangup about coaches not caring about the same rules you spend hours learning because it is not going to change. Coaches even at the PRO level don't no or care about all the rules we do. THIS IS A GAME to most of them and the participants, just a GAME!

No, the NF rule was put in as a preventitive sportsmanship measure. Evidently, some areas of the country were having issues with OD batters being in front of (or very near) the opposing dugout.

That is not the way I remember it being explained when the rule was emphasized. And when players cross they often do so when there is a warmup. Either way I do not see much benefit for going to the other batter's box for multiple reasons.

Peace

Well you call it common sense, I call it liability. If you do not apply the rule and someone gets hurt, they will come after you for not applying the rule. There are already evidence of these situations. Just look at the situation that took place in Texas and the football coach that was run into by an officials on the field (Referee Magazine highlighted this story and court case). Sorry, but if a kid falls on the steps and breaks his nose is quite different than getting hit by a ball while not being the the proper space by rule. One is an accident, the other someone might hold you responsible on some level.

Peace

I don't believe it's accurate that one box is safer than the other. Unless the box is DIRECTLY behind the batter (it rarely is), I see no difference.

As explained to me, the feeling is that if there is a right handed batter at the plate, the safest on-deck circle to be in would be the one behind him.

I still contend that if the age group of the players is such that they can't pay enough attention to be in their proper on-deck circle and do so safely, or if their particular field does not accomodate on-deck circles that are far enough away from the plate to be safe, then they don't need on-deck circles at all.

They might try to hold you liable. In the case you mentioned, the officials were exonerated.

I did not say they won. But those officials also had to get lawyers, take time away from their jobs and deal with a court case hanging over their head for a period of time. So they had to spend some money or lose money to defend themselves either way. This is why companies and individuals often settle for an amount to not spend all the money fighting a case only to find out they were not responsible.

And for the record to everyone else, it was not the individual that sued the officials in the case I referenced, it was the insurance company that paid medical bills and wanted to hold the officials responsible to get their money back. So it might not be the kid or the family that sues you for not applying a rule, but some other body that feels you did not do your job and wants to limit their responsibility.

Peace

How hard is it to keep the player on his side of the dugout? Not very hard, IMO. If he don't like it, tough caca!