How does this part of that rule: ...strikes the foul pole above the fence level...have any meaning if there is no fence?

Having no fence would seem to make that part of the rule moot.

I understand the technicality argument (and, for me, the discussion is academic since I don't know of any fields around here like that). My point is solely this:

What is the point of a foul pole without a fence if it is NOT to mark a boundary of the playing field?

Suppose there was a chalk line running in an arc from one foul pole to the other? Does that make a difference?

If so, what do you do with your "2 feet from the ground" situation?

If not, what if there are no foul lines or out of play lines at all anywhere, just the foul poles? Why is the "outfield fence line" the only imaginary line the umpire does NOT recognize?

Point of the foul pole without a fence is to give us a guidance as to where the foul line extends into the grass, because usually the dumb POS who marks the fields here will only line the dirt part of the foul line. It's also there to help that dumb POS figure out where to lay down that line. The softball fields here don't get marked in the grass unless there's a "big" tournament being played, and the director(s) of those tournaments get really anal about having a line there.

As for the chalk line from foul pole to foul pole, we did ask about having that as a boundary. The discussion was that if we did have it, and since there was no fence, it would be subject to the ball out of play rules. Any ball hitting the pole, regardless of height, would be a live ball until it goes out of play. (This coming from our UIC every year, as there's usually a 2nd or 3rd year umpire who has worked on one of these "naked" fields and wants to know how the hell to handle it).

As for the lack of fence, etc. All of the fields we have do have a fence that extends out from the backstop and usually ends about 10 feet past 1st and 3rd bases. However, I've worked on a field where they ended at the end of the "dugout" and were short of the bases. On that field, we were told to use the light pole as a boundary for determining ball out of play. As for the outfield "fence" being the one that's not recognized, I wouldn't say that's an accurate assessment. What could be said is that for a homerun to be ruled a homerun, it needs to go over a fence. Look at what the rules say about a ball bouncing from the field over the fence, it's a double. Look at what the rules say about a ball that hits the fielder and bounces over the fence, it's a 4-base award. Basically, you NEED a fence in order to determine a homerun.

Sorry if this all sounds academic, but I'm a college professor by occupation so I tend to really get detailed sometimes when there's a discussion like this. :)

I don't like to view the regs/rules in the technicality sense in all honesty. If you do the technicality argument, you're going to get very different (but probably very well thought out) situations which may or may not be the expressed intent of the rule. It's so much better to view the rules as black and white or right and wrong.

That's the reason the ASA has clarified definitions and removed intent from judgment situations in recent history, and I don't think we should try and make this situation/ruling more than it is. It's a field with no distance fences, which means there can be no over the fence HR in any situation. As the batter/runner in this instance you should get the "standard/default" situation rule, which is two bases from time of pitch.

You're arguing against something I didn't say.

The rules are written with the expectation of a fence being present. They are silent on how to deal with an unfenced field.

What about a collapsed fence that is "cleared" in flight. Is that a HR?

A collapsed fence should be covered in ground rules, just like the collapsed scoreboard I had once. Don't ask! :) Regardless, I would treat a collapsed fence like a normal fence and if the ball clears in flight, HR.

I'm not debating you, but the point (or points) of the technicality argument.

No fence, no OTFHR. It's that simple (again, unless some park/ground rules)

Depends entirely on the park/ground rules.

I just enjoy discussing the rules at the edges (or fences... ;) )

So, a temp fence has collapsed and is lying prone on the ground. A fly ball reaches the fence distance just above ground level, but does not actually touch the ground until it is slightly beyond the prone fence. OTFHR?

They better have some kind of ground rule at that field to cover that, or I'm making something up!

:D

I shall humble myself in your presence. I'll give you that one. I was imagining a fence that was partially collapsed at the top, not one that was prone to the ground. What you quoted, I would have covered with a ground rule (or try to put the damn thing back up before the game if I have time!).

Well, no need to go THAT far! :D This was not entirely hypothetical. In a national tournament (not ASA...) they were using temp fencing. It was a very windy day, and a section of the fence blew over to the infield side. So, the fence was prone to the ground, laying in live ball territory. My partner and I did try to prop it back up, but the wind would just blow it over again. Fortunately, the strong wind in meant a HR over the fence was highly unlikely (read: no possibility!).

That's where you give up, yell "Is there a mason in the house?" and if so, let him/her build a stone wall. :D

Especially if you have in mind the collapsible fences that never stand up correctly anyway.

But, with no fence Two base award