no call or foul ball?

[Bluefoot]

Is a tree a part of the ground?

Are the hands a part of the bat?

DOH!

[Striker991]

Lenny...
How can you call a foul ball in fair territory? You have a few choices on overhanging obstacles in fair territory, but foul is not one of them. For natural obstacles, like trees, it is either live ball with no effect (possible catch), or live ball no catch possible (like a grounder). Why would you punish the offense on a well-hit ball? As I mentioned before, we always cover this in our pre-game, but it is always live ball, play on, catch is possible. The trees are only down the first base line, and the branches are quite high. I have only seen them hit one time, in foul territory.

"And out of sarcarsm what if batted ball hits wood light pole what do you do then?"

The wood light pole is:

1. Usually out of play and always at least foul. Dead ball, foul or out of play.

2. Foreign to the natural ground. Once it is hit, ball is dead.

Natural doesn't refer to what it is made of, but rather how it relates to the environment of the field.

Precedent: Seattle's old Kingdome. If a ball hit a speaker or other structure over fair territory, live ball, fair, play on (catch possible).

Try and keep up... :-)

Also, no matter what Dakota says, a tree is very much part of the natural ground.

So based on the rule as written, and the precedent set by MLB at the Kingdome, it is my opinion that overhanging branches over live ball territory are live and playable as if nothing happened. I would also agree with the decision that if you decided so at the plate meeting, branches in foul territory may still be called foul when touched by the ball. In the absence of the plate meeting, though, you have to go with the rule as it is written.

Once again, however, COVER IT IN THE GROUND RULE DISCUSSION at the plate meeting.

[Dakota]

I agree that it should be discussed during the ground rule part of the plate meeting, and save yourself all this agony... but if there is an oops,

a) The original question was not about overhanging branches over fair territory;

b) A tree is not dirt or rock;

c) MLB domed stadium ground rules don't mean squat unless you are calling a MLB game in a domed stadium.

If you oops and don't discuss it during the plate meeting, with the tree over foul territory, calling the ball foul is a reasonable interp of the definition. I'm still waiting for someone to offer an authoritative interpretation for ASA, NFHS, or some other softball body that treats an overhanging tree as part of the natural ground. No baseball interp, especially MLB, counts. If it can be provided, I will gladly stand corrected.

Having said all of that, ASA 10-1 would seem to give the umpire the discretion to rule however suits him, since trees are not specifically convered in the rules.

[mcrowder]

I'm with Dakota. A tree is not ground. It grows from the ground, but is not ground. Dirt - yes, part of the ground (in fact, the main substance making up the ground). Rock - yes, part of the ground (just hardened dirt). Tree - uh, no.

Ball in foul territory hit's tree - Foul Ball. Ball in fair territory hit's tree - Fair ball. The only question becomes catchable or not catchable - and if you neglected it in ground rules, I'd rule both catchable.

[Striker991]

Mcrowder:

In one statement, you said that if a ball hits the tree in foul territory it is foul. In the next, you said it would be catchable.

"Ball in foul territory hit's tree - Foul Ball. Ball in fair territory hit's tree - Fair ball. The only question becomes catchable or not catchable - and if you neglected it in ground rules, I'd rule both catchable."

A ball cannot be both foul and catchable. In order to be catchable, it must be live. If it is still live when it hits the tree, then bounces or rolls and settles in fair territory before 1st or third base, it must be fair. A foul ball is dead and therefore cannot be caught.

So, in essence, if you neglect to cover it in ground rules, you are agreeing with me.

Dakota, a tree is part of the natural environment of the park. This rule is completely the same as baseball, so don't be getting into the difference between baseball and softball.

I stand with my initial opinion. IF it is not covered in the initial ground-rule discussion, over-hanging branches in live ball territory remain live.

Again, umpires, COVER THIS ISSUE AT THE PLATE MEETING!!!

[kellerumps]

Dead ball....Foul.

Cover it in pre-game, but if you don't, then you still have a dead ball/Foul.

Let's not get into backyard youth wiffle-ball games..."Okay anything left of the big Oak Tree is fair..If it hits the maple limbs above the fence then it's a home run, unless you catch it.".

[Striker991]

The rule states foreign to the ground. A tree is not foreign to the ground.

You have simply made a statement that is your opinion. This is fine if you cover it that way in your pre-game. I am using the rule as it is worded and a precedent.

Nice try at a put-down, though. Those of us that live in the beautiful northwest actually have parks surrounded by big, beautiful trees.

[mcrowder]

Striker ... did you just try to tell us that a foul fly ball is not a live ball? Or did I misunderstand you? I hope I'm misunderstanding you.

I meant what I said. And of COURSE you can catch a foul fly ball.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by mcrowder
And of COURSE you can catch a foul fly ball.

Actually, there is no such thing.

There are fly balls and there are foul balls. A fly ball over foul territory is not a foul ball, since the fly ball is live and the foul ball is dead.

That is the contradiction Striker was pointing out.

If a fly ball hits the screen, it is immediately a foul ball and is dead. The catcher catching it means nothing.

Same thing if you call a fly ball off a tree a foul ball. It is dead and a catch means nothing.

If you are keeping the ball live for a catch off the tree, you must also keep it alive for all other purposes. For example, the ball hits the tree branch over foul territory, drops to the ground and rolls into fair territory. If you are keeping the ball live for a catch, then what I just described would be a fair ball.

Striker, being part of nature does not mean part of the ground. A ball cannot become blocked by the natural ground. Would you consider a ball that went into the tree and rattled around in the branches several seconds a blocked ball? Would you consider a ball that went into a tree and lodged in the crotch of one of the branches a blocked ball? If yes, then how can the tree be part of the natural ground? Shouldn't you be requiring the fielders to climb the tree?

I know I am being absurd, but it is absurdity to make a point. You want consistency - let's have consistency.

Without a ground rule discussion, if it hits the tree over foul territory, it is a foul ball.

You keep bringing up the tree over fair territory, probably because you think it is a better argument, so you ignore the foul territory issue that was the original scenario.

Name me one MLB park with a tree overhanging the field. MLB rules for speakers in domed stadia mean absolutely nothing wrt amateur softball.

And don't have such a thin skin.

[Striker991]

Did you miss my smiley?

Actually, I am enjoying this debate. Don't have a game until tomorrow, then three weeks straight! So, I have a little time on my hands.

Dakota, please don't get me wrong. I understand your point perfectly and I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, if I am a coach (god help us all), and the ball hits the branch in foul territory in the air, bounces and settles in fair territory, and my batter-runner is standing on second, I will argue that the tree is not foreign to the natural ground. Of course, as an umpire, your response should be: "Coach, in my judgement, the tree is foreign to the natural ground." His protest is now over, because you have stated and applied the rule correctly and it has now become a judgement call. Hee hee...I would love to see the look on the coach's face after that statement!

A blocked ball is a different issue here. We aren't discussing that. We are discussing an instance where the ball merely hits or touches an overhanging branch. If a ball becomes blocked, the play is killed and the appropriate action is taken.

I think we have, by our discussion, made one point perfectly clear and we both agree...these issues need to be clarified at the plate during the ground rule discussion. This also means that umpires need to take the time to inspect the field when they first arrive to make note of items like this. Our association is very clear about this in our training.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by Striker991
Did you miss my smiley?

Sorry - yes I did.

Originally posted by Striker991
However, if I am a coach (god help us all), and the ball hits the branch in foul territory in the air, bounces and settles in fair territory, and my batter-runner is standing on second, I will argue that the tree is not foreign to the natural ground. Of course, as an umpire, your response should be: "Coach, in my judgement, the tree is foreign to the natural ground." His protest is now over, because you have stated and applied the rule correctly and it has now become a judgement call. Hee hee...I would love to see the look on the coach's face after that statement!

What I would probably say is something like, "Coach, the rules do not specifically address trees in playable territory. Therefore, I am ruling this as the same effect as if the ball contacts the fence or the backstop. Foul ball."

Originally posted by Striker991
A blocked ball is a different issue here. We aren't discussing that.

True, but I brought it up since you are arguing that the tree is part of the natural ground. Therefore, a ball that is sitting up on a branch in the tree is not blocked, just as a ball sitting on the ground is not blocked. Right?

And, to bring back up your fair territory situation, I would rule a ball that contacts a tree overhanging fair territory (in the abense of any ground rules) to be a blocked ball. Two bases from the TOP.

In the general case, a ball hit into a tree will not come out of the tree immediately and will not come out of the tree on a predictabe path. To consider it to be the same as a fly ball would seem to put the defense at a disadvantage.

Originally posted by Striker991
I think we have, by our discussion, made one point perfectly clear and we both agree...these issues need to be clarified at the plate during the ground rule discussion. This also means that umpires need to take the time to inspect the field when they first arrive to make note of items like this.

Absolutely agree.

[Ed Maeder]

Definitions: Catch E. A ball which strikes anything other than a defensive player while it is in flight is ruled the same as if it struck the ground. Only difference I can see is if it got stuck in the tree in fair territory we would have a blocked ball.

[TexBlue]

Originally posted by Striker991
The rule states foreign to the ground. A tree is not foreign to the ground.

Well, if we're gonna get into semantics, let's use the right wording. Definition for Foul Ball states ".... or any object foreign to the natural ground

Now, that seed that started that tree was FOREIGN to the ground. Although natural to nature, it's still foreign when it grows up big and hangs over the playing field to give the umpire shade. Soooooo, foul ball.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by TexBlue
Now, that seed that started that tree was FOREIGN to the ground. Although natural to nature, it's still foreign when it grows up big and hangs over the playing field to give the umpire shade. Soooooo, foul ball.

In there an echo in here? ...

[TexBlue]

Originally posted by Dakota
Is there an echo in here? ...

Ahh, you know, " Great minds ........"

[Edited by TexBlue on Jun 28th, 2004 at 01:50 PM]