Ball hits a tree
 

Ok, here is a question regarding a field I work on occasion. Over the left field corner there is a tree that overhangs into left field (fair territory). What is the proper ruling if a batted ball hits the tree.

I have always been told it is a foul ball, but a couple weeks ago the ruling was supposedly a do over in this instance.

I can see the do over as a possibility if the ball is in fair territory because you can put both teams in jeopardy with the ball hitting the tree. The ball hitting the tree could prevent a ball from clearing the fence for a home run. It could also prevent the defense from making a catch on the batted ball.

What is the official ASA ruling on this. Also, what is the NFHS ruling on this because I will be at a couple fields next spring that will have this issue, but over the third base line on the infield.

Should be covered at the plate meeting when discussing ground rules. There is a local field that had a tree over-hanging the left center field fence. If the ball hit the tree and went over the fence, HR, if the ball hit the tree and came down in fair territory, ground rule double. Luckliy this season, someone had trimmed the tree and was not in play this year.

This is to be covered by the local ground rules. This will not be covered in official ASA (or NFHS) rules or rulings, since official ASA (or NFHS) fields do not have overhanging trees! ;) This should be discussed at the plate meeting so both coaches know what the ground rule is dealing with the tree.

If I'm new to a field, I'll ask the home team manager for their ground rules.

If it's a tournament setting and some vegetation has encroached into LBT, we'll deal w/ it as a ground rule. Example might be if a batted ball goes into the bushes, it's 2 bases. Another might be if a foul ball hits overhanging tree branches, it's a dead ball.

We have one field that has an electrical or phone type of wire that crosses from left field about 60 feet beyond 3rd base out to another pole in left-center field. When I work that field, it's for a church league. I've told them any ball that hits or doesn't hit the wire is a live ball. If a line drive that's heading to the next county hits that wire and then falls into a fielder's glove, I have an out. If a fielder is camped under a high fly ball and the ball hits the wire and falls to the ground, live ball and play on.

I've explained this ground rule as an act of God, and so far, it's played well for this league. ;)

As long as you (or they) want to believe that God really pays enough attention to generate or affect this act of random chance, go for it.

NO! NO! NO! :eek:

That's what ground rules are for, as others have alluded. You put ground rules into effect for field anomalies that you won't find in regulation fields. And ground rules should never, EVER result in "do-overs" just because the anomaly can affect both teams. Rather, the ground rules should result in a fair and equitable ruling as if the anomaly wasn't present.

And that's what the ground rule should be. Any fair batted ball that was destined to clear the fence in flight should be ruled a home run.

So what? Both teams are affected by that when they are on defense.

I have never seen a ground rule that allows for a fielder to be given credit for a catch when the anomaly prevents the fielder from doing so. A number of high school and college fields here have rolled-up tarps against the fence in foul territory. Should a batted fly ball go near the tarp and prevent the fielder from making a catch, we don't award the fielder with a catch. It's just a foul ball.

So I wouldn't suggest a ground rule that allows the defense to be credited with a catch on a ball that hits the tree and wasn't going to clear the fence. An equitable ground rule would be a dead ball with a two-base award. Leaving the ball live wouldn't make much sense because it could take the ball a while to come out of the tree.

Wait ... REALLY? You have a HIGH SCHOOL field that has a tree overhanging the third base line in the INFIELD? Am I misreading this?

Why? If the field is weird and it's fair for both teams why can't you have a ground rule that states, for example in a YSIFL game: in the event of a land mine detonation after the pitch has left the pitchers hand and before it has reached the batter, no pitch shall be ruled?

We have a number of high schools who use city park fields. While I can't think of one that does have an obstruction, I wouldn't think such a thing would be unheard of at all. Not all states can afford to spend $60 million on high school sports stadiums with built-in cracks! ;)

Yours is a case where the ball hasn't been put into play. And a land mine detonation is not a static anomaly on the field, which is the purpose of a ground rule.

Your example is more akin to the "Randy Johnson Hitting a Dove" rule.

I get that all games are not played on expensive parks. But I honestly cannot even imagine a field where there were trees overhanging fair ground in the INFIELD. No level of ball could really be played on that field. Tee-ball I suppose. It doesn't take $60M to cut down a tree.

I work a HS tournament every year at small town school that uses both of their practice fields to play tournament games on.

On one of the fields there is a large tree outside the fence on the first base side where the tree branches overhang the field in foul territory starting just past first base and going back along the fence for twenty feet or so. No part of the tree overhangs fair ball ground.

Our ground rule is that if the ball touches the tree, it becomes a foul ball and dead.

Agree. A tree that close to the players is just downright dangerous, not only from batted balls that ricochet off of it, but also falling branches, potential lightning strikes, etc. Assuming a normal-sized field with adequate foul-territory spacing, you're talking about a huge tree if it has branches that overhang that far! I personally wouldn't call a game on that field because it's essentially unplayable.

At the very least, someone should cut back those branches.

I play on one with a tree maybe 10 feet shy of the home run fence, planted inches from the Dead Ball fence on the first base side. Limbs overhang about a third of foul ground. Our ground rule matches yours.

No, you are not mis-reading. The JV field does have a tree which overhangs the area near 3rd base.

The ground rule we used for that was a ball that hits the tree is a foul ball, no matter where it lands. This was the ground rule of the home team and it was never argued.

The problem on the city park field is the tree extends over fair territory in such a way around the left field corner that a ball could be prevented from 1) going over the fence 2) going foul (slicing hit), or 3) being caught.

I have not seen a league rule on this, and since I only umpire part time in the league, I had to go by what I was told by the other umpire, redo.


I'm trying to remember what the rule is at Tropicana field for balls hitting the catwalk. IIRC if it hits certain ones it is a home run. I'm not sure what the rule is if it hits the ones closer to the plate though.

There are four catwalks at the Trope. The two lower ones are furthest from home, and any fair batted ball that hits them or anything suspended from them is a home run.

The next one closer to the plate is partially in fair territory, and the closest one is completely in fair grounds. If a ball hits those in fair territory, it's treated as if it didn't hit anything and is judged fair or foul when it lands or is touched by a fielder. If caught, it's an out. If the ball gets stuck up there, it's a ground rule double. A ball that hits the foul portion of the second catwalk is dead and cannot be caught.

Why not use the book rule so that you have an accurate grounds rule?

Sure, if a team trys to tell you their field has a ground rule that doesn't jibe with the rule book...just say "no".

Earlier this year I had games on a field with an electrical wire running partly through live ball area in the outfield. The home team's coach tells me that if a batted ball hits the wire it's a dead ball.

So I ask him, "Then what? Where do you place the batter?".

He tells me first base. I asked what the base award is for other runners already on base. He says, "Ummm, I'm not sure. I've never seen a ball hit the wire before".

I told him that there's no such thing as a "ground rule single". A ground rule can't supersede a book rule. The book rule is that if a fair batted ball becomes dead and unplayable it's a two-base award. That's what we went with...it never came into play.

I don't think this is quite right. If supersede means can't create any situation different from the book rules, then what can ground rules do? Merely define dead ball territory?

Not true
Correct, but ground rules are there to provide guidance when something happens that is not in the rulebook but is possibly common because of a quirk at the GROUNDS at which you are playing.

A) To which book rule do you refer (there are several similar ... wondering which you're meaning here)...
B) how would hitting a wire suspended above cause it to become dead... OR unplayable?

Seems to me a wire across a field is EXACTLY the kind of situation that needs to be addressed by a ground rule.

I've never heard that before. Well, I take that back; I know that if there is a book rule to cover a situation, you cannot use a ground rule to supercede it.

But if a book rule doesn't exist for the situation, then a ground rule must be created, and the ground rule can pretty much say whatever it wants as long as it's fair and equitable. There's nothing in the book that says all ground rules have to have the same base awards as the closest book rule to it.

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.

League and local rules can do that, but not ground rules.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Which rule are you referring to?

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

NFHS on ground (not grounds) rules
 

Proper nomenclature
 

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.

Seems to me we're talking about E, and not D here, and E says nothing about number of bases the ground rule must be.

No, but thats because the rules already say what the rules are for batted/thrown/pitched/carried balls into the dead ball area.

Then why does E mention a ground rule at all?

My guess it is to address "non-standard" dead ball boundaries.

We had an unfenced field at a city park that the rule was "chase it until you get it" unless the ball went into a soccer goal that was in deep right field, in which case it was a dead ball and a double.

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.

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.

(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.