fair pole

[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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by JPRempe

I don't like to view the regs/rules in the technicality sense in all honesty.

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?

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

[JPRempe]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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?

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.