Ground rules question
 

Situation: Batted ball lands fair down left-field line, hooks past outfield fence into out-of-play area. Outfielder does not signal with two hands raised, but rather chases ball into out-of-play area. Does the ball become dead by the simple fact that it rolled out of play, or rather when fielder signals that it has done so? As the third-base coach, in the absence of a signal, I had batter-runner continue around the bases. After a lengthy conference, the umpires returned him to second base. I contended that in pre-game, umpires had emphasized that on ball in that area, or ball rolling under outfield fence, play would continue in the absence of an outfielder signal. Interpretations and citations, please? Thanks in advance.

I should add...
 

...that it was a game at the high-school level.

Out of play is out of play. Chasing after it does not keep it live.

BTW the outfielder signal just means he thinks the ball is out of play. Only the umpire can actually declare the ball out of play. Their pre-game did not mean that they couldn't declare the ball put of play - only that it should be treated that way until a determination could be made.

You were right to keep the runner going just in case the ball was not out of play.

Sounds like it was caled correctly.

Thanks, Rich
 

I thought that was probably the case, but wanted to check with the experts.

The fielder raising his hands is just indicating (a) "hey -- umpire -- come out and take a look", and (b) "I didn't touch / push the ball out of play."

When a ball in near the bottom of the fence, there's no real way to tell from the infield whether it's just in play or just out of play. So, if the fielder grabs it, we're going to assume it was always in play. And, if he reaches for it, we're possibly going to assume that he pushed it out of play to "hold" the runner to a double.

At a pre-game conference, I have seen to many times where everyone shakes their heads and then something like this happens and it still questionable what was said in the pre-game. In an area as discussed, it should be clearly obvious that when the ball goes in dead-ball territory, it is a dead ball and book rules apply accordingly.

I always mention at the plate, "if the ball goes under the fence or in the tarp, or any other dead ball area , tell your OF's to put up their hands , we will let the play continue and complete. We will then go out and make a determination of the award if any".

Now, do the coaches explain that to the OF's, I don't know, but it pays to make sure everyone understands the ground rules.

In Carl Childress's book, "151 ways to Ruin a Baseball Game", this is No. 1.

I agree with Rich on this one. I make it a point at the plate conference to emphasize the out of play areas on fields like this. My partner and I try to do our best to view the ball and make the call as soon as possible.

I cringe when people say "if the player keeps playing it, it's live..."

No, it's not -- if it's dead, it's dead. If we can't tell, we may use the fielder digging it out of a place as an indicator that it isn't lodged or isn't out of play, but out of play is out of play and if we can see it from where we are, we're calling it accordingly.

JMO, but they should know better. As others have pointed out, that only applies when it is too hard for the umpires to tell unless one of them goes out there. If it's pretty obvious that the ball entered DBT, then there's no reason to keep the ball Live just because the fielder forgot to raise his hands.

I umpired on a field that had a tarp in front of the backstop. At the base of the tarp right behind home plate, there was a good 12-inch tear. A ball could go through the tear and end up behind the tarp. There were plenty of times where the catcher would go digging for the ball when that happened. Just because he did that, it doesn't mean the ball should stay live. You can see the ball is out of play, so make the call.

Do NOT instruct players what to do. That's coaching. We don't want coaches to umpire and we should not coach.

What if the player was wrong? The ball is either in play or out of play. We shouldn't direct players what to do. If that is what the coach wants to tell his players to do, so be it. But it is not our position to coach players.

This is pretty much a standard instruction that umpires give at plate conferences when games are played on fields that aren't completely enclosed with permanent fencing. I've never heard anyone--until now--say that this is a form of coaching.

What are you talking about?

I really don't care if the coach tells his players to stick there hands where the sun don't shine. Putting your hands up is a form of commmunication that has be acceptable in the sport for years. However, maybe your suggesting that to keep up with the times, the player should now take out his phone and text the coach who will call time and relay the message to the umpires on the field.

Would that me more appropriate in your world?:confused::confused:

"Realistic officiating does the sport good."

Like Manny said, this is pretty standard stuff across the country.

If you, personally, feel it crosses that coaching line, then simply phrase it differently. "If your fielders raise their hands to indicate it's out of play, we will come out to check it." Something along those lines.

That is the sometimes the instruction that I hear coaches say when they are going over the ground rules at their park. I don't have any problem with coach saying this.

If we're playing lower level games and I am giving the ground rules, I don't think its necessary for me to say this. If a ball rolls under a fence, outfielders have a way of communicating that they can't play the ball. I don't feel the need to instruct the coaches to instruct their players to throw up their arms.

And I don't feel the need to discuss what, or what was not, discussed at the pre-game, again during the game.

Are we clear?

the only problem that I've seen with this happened last year in a H.S. jv game(I wasn't on the game, just there watching a friends kid play). The ball was hit to the base of the outfield fence and with runners rounding the bases the outfielder put his hands up to say that he thought that the ball was "dead" The offense kept running eventually clearing the bases, at which time the base umpire judged that the ball indeed was still live and not dead, and all runs stood. Needless to say the defense was upset cause they let 2 or 3 runs score. How should have this been handled, was it done correctly?

Since you quoted me, I guess you were asking me that question. No, we are not clear. I have no earthly idea what you were saying.

Offense did what they should do. If the outfielder thought the ball was stuck then he was wrong as BU determined.

I had one Saturday, bases loaded, fly ball ball hit over CF head to base of fence, F8 runs to it and then threw up his hands, runners keep running since I did not call time ( I am BU ). F8, after throwing his hands up immediately reached down and picked up the ball, rather easily it seemed to me. Then he fell down with the ball, long story short, all runners and the batter scored, 4 runs.

So coach comes to me and says his player threw up his hands, I say I saw that but then I saw him reach down and pick up the ball rather easily. I tell him if he is going to throw up his hands because he thinks the ball is stuck then he needs to walk away and let me go out and check and if I agree we will rule accordingly, but since he did not give me that chance, and he picked it up easily it must not have been stuck.

I don't wait until all runners have circled the bases. When I see outfielders indicate that the ball has gone out of play, I try to make eye contact with my partner, point that I'm going out, run to where I can see (or not see the ball) and call time, if the ball is OOP (signal safe, if in play...never had one of those).

Most of the time the reasons that there is discussions after the play has taken place , it is because it was not made "clear" at the pre-game. Asking the coaches to have their players raise their arms indicating the ball is unplayable, so we can come out to verify that is the option the coaches chooses to do or not to do. But, I have made it perfectly clear at the pre-game what I am going to do, so we don't need to discuss it again.

I guess that is your style however, what difference does it make when you go out?

If it happens quickly enough, and you judge that the ball is still in play, maybe the defense can hold the batter to a triple.

In most situations involving HS or college players and older (slower than the players) umpires, the batter will have circled the bases by the time the umpire can see the ball still in play and the fielder can throw the ball back in.

If I were a betting man, I would guess this would be possible 1 out of maybe 50-60 times. The ball is hit to the fence and the fielder raises his hands. The BU then reacts and heads for the outfield (lets say 200 ft away) and has to get close enough to make a good decision, then the OF has to reacte and get the ball to the infield. Hmmm, now that I have replayed it in my mind........

I will change those odds to 1 out of a 100. Not realistic.

I can't imagine a game time discussion on this matter being any more than a coach that just gave up runs whining. And do you really think that any coach is going to leave your plate meeting and pass on your communication directions to his outfielders.

Batter hits one to the fence, outfielder thinks that ball is OOP, I decide whether ball is in play or not, ASAP. I don't have to assume that the fielder is trying to pull a fast one. If he is, then I may not give the indication as quickly as I might otherwise.
Surely I am not the only 1.

Hey, if it works for your games thats cool!

Next year when we all get to MLB and work the parks that they don't have to worry about this crap, we can sit around after the game and laugh about these discussions over a beer.

Enjoy the Season.

Nah. If the fielder throws his hands up and it turns out the ball stayed in play, then he deserves not having the opportunity to get the ball back in and holding the batter at third. :p

Are those the same guys who see the need to itemize all twenty-nine places in the fence where a ball might possibly leave the field of play?

I find it ironic that one person is smacked down for hurrying out to check out a live ball in the outfield when the fielder puts his hands up, and another is smacked down for saying that if the fielder is playing it, it's live. Can't really smack down both of these, can we?

Personally, if a fielder throws up his hands and I cannot determine the ball's status from where I already am, I'm going out. The whole reason we go out is to make an accurate ruling on something we could not rule accurately on from the infield --- so it is completely consistent with that to go immediately check it out when this happens. It may very well be that one poster was correct that 99/100 of these will indeed be ruled blocked/stuck/dead/whatever. But I see no purpose in waiting to go out, whether it's the 99 of 100 or the 1 of 100.

I also agree that if the player is playing it, I'm assuming it's playable - and sticking with my "normal" responsibilities. I actually find it rather bizarre that Rich had a problem with that... are you suggesting that you would head out to the outfield to check it out even if the outfielder is playing the ball? Seems odd.

That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about the morons who point out the dead-ball areas (e.g., a bullpen bench) where a ball is reachable, but not easily, or out-of-play areas with readily discernible demarcation lines. They utter nonsense like, "If the ball goes in there, have the players throw up their hands and we'll kill it, but if they play it, we're keeping it live." If you don't clearly see the ball in one of those areas, a player continuing to play it is certainly evidence that the ball remained in live-ball territory.

If you <I>do</I> clearly see the ball in a dead-ball area, the play should be killed whether or not the defense attempts to keep playing, and dingbat umpires shouldn't advise otherwise at the plate meeting.

That's all he's saying.

Ah, understood. And agreed.