Ball hits a tree

[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.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

A tree is not an anomaly. Trees are not unique. Trees overhanging a field are, unfortunately, not unique. The rulebooks already cover this situation. When a rulebook officially addresses a situation, I'm not in any hurry to reinvent the wheel.

[Rich]

You're setting up an area that's dead, for whatever reason. What's the ruling when a fair batted ball rolls or bounces into an area that's dead?

Some of these posts and the ground rules they report are really torturous.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

A tree is not an anomaly. Trees are not unique. Trees overhanging a field are, unfortunately, not unique. The rulebooks already cover this situation. When a rulebook officially addresses a situation, I'm not in any hurry to reinvent the wheel.

Which rule are you referring to?

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

A tree is not an anomaly. Trees are not unique. Trees overhanging a field are, unfortunately, not unique. The rulebooks already cover this situation. When a rulebook officially addresses a situation, I'm not in any hurry to reinvent the wheel.

As an aside, it is a Rules Book, not a rule book. It's a matter of correct terminology.

[Dakota]

Rule: 4-1 ART. 3 . . . Ground Rules. If there are unusual conditions, such as spectators or obstacles too near the playing field, the home coach shall propose special ground rules. If sanctioned by the visiting team, these shall be in force. If the teams cannot agree, the umpires shall formulate ground rules. Ground rules shall not supersede a rules book rule.

a. The field should be clearly marked. Markings may include flags on foul poles along the foul lines past first base and third base and vertical foul-line markings on any wall that limits the outfield.

b. When a fair or foul ball fly lands near a stand or fence, Rule 7-4-11 applies. If there is a screen behind the catcher or any permanent obstruction in front of the stands, a batted ball that goes behind these becomes dead. It is recommended that no such obstruction be less than 25 feet from the diamond.

c. Wild pitches, overthrows and batted balls that go over or through a fence or into a dugout are governed by Rule 8-4-1c, 8-4-3; if the field has unusual obstructions, ground rules should attempt to be similar to this rule.

d. For special field conditions, such as a drain pipe that makes a spot where it is impossible or very difficult for a fielder to retrieve the ball, the ball should become dead if it goes to that spot, and each runner's advance should be limited to two bases.

e. For an unfenced field, a chalk or imaginary out-of-bounds line should be established to define live-ball area. If cars are parked along the out-of-play lines, umpires should consider these the same as bleachers and the ball becomes dead if it bounces into the line of cars. The umpires should anticipate such a situation and announce the ground rule in advance.

[Dakota]

It's all a matter of proper nomenclature. MLB, ASA, USSSA Fastpitch Softball, NFHS Softball, and NFHS Baseball all agree that it is properly called a ground rule, not a grounds rule. These are all of the references I have readily at-hand.

[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.

[BretMan]

(NCAA)

1.27 Ground Rule
An allowable amendment of the playing rules to accommodate a particular
circumstance (usually a field condition). Ground rules cannot conflict with or
supersede a playing rule.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by BretMan

(NCAA)

1.27 Ground Rule
An allowable amendment of the playing rules to accommodate a particular
circumstance (usually a field condition). Ground rules cannot conflict with or
supersede a playing rule.

And the way I read that is that you cannot create a ground rule when a book rule already exists to address the situation.

For example, there's a gate behind first base with a gap underneath, and a thrown ball can go through it. That's clearly something covered by the rule on balls going through or under a fence. So you cannot create a ground rule for it, especially one with, say, only a one-base award.