fair pole

Originally Posted by Dakota

So, you're saying it could hit the pole 10 feet above the ground and we can declare it a double?

No, because the ball is in play. I guess I should explain...our UIC told us if we work on a field that has no outfield boundary, e.g. no fence or chalk line, the ball is in play all the way out to the next town if need be. Question was asked if the ball went off the pole, can that be an exception. He said it's still live, unless it goes past the side fence extended, then it would be out of play and then ball out of play effects would come in.

The rule you cited, 8-5-I, can only be effective IF there is some kind of boundary, whether a fence or a chalk line. The foul pole CANNOT become an imaginary boundary for this purpose, because it would be chaotic if one umpire says it hit the pole at 6 feet therefore homerun while another would leave the ball in play and not say anything. There has to be some kind of tangible, visible boundary marker. Our UIC has hammered on this several times. He was challenged with 8-5-I, and responded that due to a lack of a visible boundary, the ball stays in play. He said he keeps bringing this up at NUS (just for the kicks and to see what responses he gets from the National staff) and every time, he gets the same response that he's been telling us all along.

Another justification we've had is that the foul poles aren't always set at the same distance from home on all of our fields without a fence. It depends on the configurations of the park, but most of the poles are 250-300 feet from home. If we were using a 250' fence and someone hit it off the fence, it wouldn't be a homerun because the rulebook says the fences need to be a minimum distance greater than that (I don't have my book with me here at work). So, you can see why the foul poles are in play when there is a lack of a visual, tangible boundary marker.

[bkbjones]

An easy way to fix this is give some kids $20 for gas and have them go out and turn donuts in the outfield, accidentally knocking down the pole.

We have a handful of fields with just a foul pole, nothing more...and darn, if a ball hit one, well, I know it would definitely be a fair ball...beyond that, I would suppose it's live.

At one of our softball emporiums, a pre-game check had best include which way they have turned the foul poles on the temporary fencing. More than once the screen has been on the foul side of the line. I know, I know, but the guys who "take care" of these fields could screw up a wet dream. Last game I did, we had a girl who went down after taking a line drive to the noggin. She was ok and getting up, wanting us to get going...when here came S4Brains on a John Deere tractor putt-putting across the field. I asked him WTF are you doing, we're still playing, get off the field...

"No you're not playing, she's hurt and I'm driving across," says Mr. Rocket Scientist.

I think the next to the next to the last thing I hollered at him was "ignorant." The next to last thing had something to do with one of his parents, and it was not his father.

(OK...I didn't say these out loud...but I wanted to.)

[CecilOne]

Batted ball hits fair/foul pole - it is fair.

Batted ball hits fair/foul pole or anything else in fair ground beyond the bases, it is live until and unless it enters dead ball territory.

If it enters dead ball territory, it is dead, no matter what (if anything) it hit on the way. There is no automatic dead ball territory unless discussed as ground rules.

On a batted ball that goes dead, BR & Rx get 2 bases from the TOP.
No judgement or opinion required, just arithmetic.
The "2 bases" is both an award and a limit. A limit because the defense can no longer make a play.


I'm sure someone will tell me if I missed something.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I'm sure someone will tell me if I missed something.

ASA 8-5-H.

[BretMan]

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.

[Dakota]

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?

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

[JPRempe]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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?

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.