Ball hits a tree

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I think you guys are making this too hard. "Can't supersede a book rule" means simply that.

A ground rule cannot change the rule for a situation the book covers.

I agree with you. But I think Bret's point was that a ground rule's EFFECT should not conflict with a book rule's EFFECT for a similar situation.

His argument: When a fair batted ball is ruled dead because it got stuck in a fence, bounced over it, etc., the award is two bases. So the two-base award should also apply for any ground rule that is required. You cannot have ground rules that award only one base or three bases on fair batted balls. I don't believe that's true.

[BretMan]

Can anyone illustrate for me a circumstance where you would have a ground rule single or ground rule triple?

[MD Longhorn]

I have a ground rule triple example. One field I used to umpire on was at a park. In right field, about 250 feet out, the ground fell away (downward slope) toward a ravine. If you hit it past a spray painted line out there on the ground, it was a ground rule triple. No fence on that part of the outfield.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I have a ground rule triple example. One field I used to umpire on was at a park. In right field, about 250 feet out, the ground fell away (downward slope) toward a ravine. If you hit it past a spray painted line out there on the ground, it was a ground rule triple. No fence on that part of the outfield.

Why wouldn't that just be a GR double for a ground roller or a HR if it cleared on the fly? What is special about a painted line instead of a fence that would mean this should be a triple?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Can anyone illustrate for me a circumstance where you would have a ground rule single or ground rule triple?

True story: Our Little League Junior League baseball team played on a visiting field that had no outfield fence. It was all-you-can-get when the ball was hit past the outfielders for the most part. However, deep in left field, there were some woods that basically ran perpendicular to the left field line. In the left field corner, the woods were probably 350 feet away, and ran further away from home as it went from left to right.

We had a ground rule to prevent fielders from running into the woods that if a fair batted ball bounced into them from the foul line to essentially left-center, it would be killed and the batter would be awarded three bases. From left-center and beyond, it would be a four-base award. The theory was that if there were no woods in those areas, the batter would probably get a triple or a home run by the time the left fielder or center fielder retrieved the ball and threw it back in. It was umpire judgment which "wedge" the ball entered the woods. Obviously, anything in flight into the woods was a four-base award.

I've never seen a field where an anomaly could be dealt with using a one-base-award ground rule. But that doesn't mean it cannot be allowed as you surmise.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Manny A

True story: Our Little League Junior League baseball team played on a visiting field that had no outfield fence. It was all-you-can-get when the ball was hit past the outfielders for the most part. However, deep in left field, there were some woods that basically ran perpendicular to the left field line. In the left field corner, the woods were probably 350 feet away, and ran further away from home as it went from left to right.

We had a ground rule to prevent fielders from running into the woods that if a fair batted ball bounced into them from the foul line to essentially left-center, it would be killed and the batter would be awarded three bases. From left-center and beyond, it would be a four-base award. The theory was that if there were no woods in those areas, the batter would probably get a triple or a home run by the time the left fielder or center fielder retrieved the ball and threw it back in. It was umpire judgment which "wedge" the ball entered the woods. Obviously, anything in flight into the woods was a four-base award.

I've never seen a field where an anomaly could be dealt with using a one-base-award ground rule. But that doesn't mean it cannot be allowed as you surmise.

As a baseball umpire, I wouldn't allow that.

You can set a dead ball area/line, but once you do the rules take precedence. That, by rule, is a two-base award in baseball.

Perhaps softball is different. I actually thought this was posted on the baseball board until I looked up and saw "Softball" in the forum link.

[BretMan]

Mike and Manny: You established a dead ball area, be it a chalk line, imaginary line or a bush.

What is the rule when a fair batted ball bounces into a dead ball area?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Mike and Manny: You established a dead ball area, be it a chalk line, imaginary line or a bush.

What is the rule when a fair batted ball bounces into a dead ball area?

It's a little old and it's baseball. But here's a precedent: 1903 World Series - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[MD Longhorn]

I see your point. But it was not designated as a dead ball area. It was a safety rule that if a batted ball went beyond that line the fielder didn't have to play it. If a fly ball was CAUGHT out there, it was an out. If for some odd reason a ball was thrown past that line, it was live.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Rich

You can set a dead ball area/line, but once you do the rules take precedence. That, by rule, is a two-base award in baseball.

We never set a dead ball area/line for the rest of the outfield that wasn't fenced in, so why should we have done so with the woods?

And I've seen both in baseball and softball fields where there is no fence in the outfield, and we play all-you-can-get if the ball just goes and goes.

Most rule sets I'm familiar with set no max limit on how far a fence can extend from home plate (ASA is an exception). Most books list a recommended distance. Even OBR says fences can be "XXX feet or more". So if a field has no fence, why the need for a line?

[EsqUmp]

It is either in play or it is out of play. Who would think? There is no provision in ANY rules book for a grounds rule single or a grounds rule triple.

As an aside, it is not a "ground" rule, but a "grounds" rule. It's a matter of correct terminology.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

It is either in play or it is out of play. Who would think? There is no provision in ANY rules book for a grounds rule single or a grounds rule triple.

As an aside, it is not a "ground" rule, but a "grounds" rule. It's a matter of correct terminology.

If you can show me a provision in a rule book that covers what you call "grounds rules" that says we cannot allow them to have unique base awards if the anomaly presents a unique situation, I will stand corrected.

And if you go to the MLB website and click on the OFFICIAL INFO link, under the Umpires link you will find the listing of MLB stadiums' respective ground rules, not grounds rules. If MLB calls them ground rules on their official info site, sounds like that's the correct terminology.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Manny A

We never set a dead ball area/line for the rest of the outfield that wasn't fenced in, so why should we have done so with the woods? Safety, the field itself should be a relatively even and level surface with little to no variation in consistency or texture of the ground. The area beyond the field may vary in ground level, texture, and even inhabitants. Do we really want players, especially young players running into the woods to get a ball and not paying attention to where they are stepping or what they are stepping on? The last thing an umpire needs from a legal standpoint is to say the rulebook says we don't have a line, so a child runs into the woods, steps on a tree root/branch, ect or a wild animal, and becomes injured. By stopping play so the player may slow down and safely enter the area to retrieve the ball, we are helping to create a safer environment for the participants.

And I've seen both in baseball and softball fields where there is no fence in the outfield, and we play all-you-can-get if the ball just goes and goes. This is fine is the field is relatively level in terms of playing conditions. If there is no fence, but you have 600 feet to an obstruction (have a JV field I've work like this in right and center fields, left field fence is the baseball diamond fence, at about 150 and sloping away from the softball diamond), then the situation is simply, chase it until you can't chase it anymore. The only time this can't be used is when there is a potential safety hazard to the participants.

Most rule sets I'm familiar with set no max limit on how far a fence can extend from home plate (ASA is an exception). Most books list a recommended distance. Even OBR says fences can be "XXX feet or more". So if a field has no fence, why the need for a line?Again, safety for the participants. The line should designate a condition which would be unsafe for the participants.

Personally I have an issue with saying that a ball hit into the woods 350 feet from home plate would be a GRD, when the batter-runner may be at 3rd base before the ball gets there. I feel it should be the umpires judgment where would the batter runner have advanced to had the obstruction not been in place.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Manny A
We never set a dead ball area/line for the rest of the outfield that wasn't fenced in, so why should we have done so with the woods? Safety, the field itself should be a relatively even and level surface with little to no variation in consistency or texture of the ground. The area beyond the field may vary in ground level, texture, and even inhabitants. Do we really want players, especially young players running into the woods to get a ball and not paying attention to where they are stepping or what they are stepping on? The last thing an umpire needs from a legal standpoint is to say the rulebook says we don't have a line, so a child runs into the woods, steps on a tree root/branch, ect or a wild animal, and becomes injured. By stopping play so the player may slow down and safely enter the area to retrieve the ball, we are helping to create a safer environment for the participants.

And I've seen both in baseball and softball fields where there is no fence in the outfield, and we play all-you-can-get if the ball just goes and goes. This is fine is the field is relatively level in terms of playing conditions. If there is no fence, but you have 600 feet to an obstruction (have a JV field I've work like this in right and center fields, left field fence is the baseball diamond fence, at about 150 and sloping away from the softball diamond), then the situation is simply, chase it until you can't chase it anymore. The only time this can't be used is when there is a potential safety hazard to the participants.

Most rule sets I'm familiar with set no max limit on how far a fence can extend from home plate (ASA is an exception). Most books list a recommended distance. Even OBR says fences can be "XXX feet or more". So if a field has no fence, why the need for a line?Again, safety for the participants. The line should designate a condition which would be unsafe for the participants.

You misunderstood me. We did not designate a dead-ball line anywhere on the field where a fence would normally be located. If a kid hit a gapper in right-center, and the ball rolled 700 feet, it was all you can get. It wasn't, "Ooops, if there was a line there where the fence should have been, then that would be a two-base award, so he stays at second."

When it came to the woods, however, the kids knew not to go into them after the ball. So, yeah, there was a line, if you will, for safety purposes. There just wasn't a line where a fence would be. We could have just as easily made the ground rule "all you can get" and require fielders to enter the woods to retrieve the ball. But we felt safety was more important, and came up with our three-base or four-base award, depending how far away the ball was when it entered the woods.

From a fair and equitable standpoint, the ground rule was acceptable for everyone involved. In the vast majority of cases, the ruling would match what would happen if the ball hadn't entered any woods on the right side of the field. Limiting the runners to two bases was too restrictive, in everyone's mind. Sure, there could be the case where a batter laces a shot down the left field line that, had the woods not been there, he might've gone all the way around the bases. But then there would be the case where the ball barely entered the woods down the line, and awarding two bases might've been more appropriate. But to take all requirements of judgment out of the mix, where umpires would come up with two, three, or four base awards for the same batted ball, we felt our ground rule was best.

I agree for the vast majority of cases where more common situations require a ground rule, such as overhanging trees, tarps, storm drains, etc., along existing fences, two-base awards are the norm. What our field had was not the norm. A batter who hit a ball just to the left of dead center, and the ball eventually entered the woods some 600 feet away from home, should not be limited to two bases. And I still contend that the written rules do not force us to make that the universal limitation for every potential situation requiring a ground rule.