Dugouts

[mstaylor]

I was involved in a thread over at the NFHS site and for some reason the dugout extention rules is giving guys a fit. Is anyone else seeing or hearing about problems about this.

I will post a responce I made this morning after a very lenghty discussion. Some of the guys from here were involved. This is a 56 post thread.

I'm not sure why this rule is causing all this consternation. Unless they are one of the base coaches, on deck batter, batter, runner or playing defense they aren't allowed out of the dugout, on buckets standing or anything else. This a safety rule but also a playing rule, less chance of interference.

They are allowed by rule to exrend their dugout, as long as they do both, but it becomes a dead ball area. If they extend the dugout it has to no closer to the foul line then the face of the dugout area and has to be away from home plate. In the extention they can have equipment, players, coaches and even the infamous buckets. This is to give the players and coaches more room and by extending away from home plate it is a safer way of doing it.

If a coach wants to stand or sit in front of his dugout or even down the line beside the dugout,in live ball territory, he can't, he must either go in the dugout or mark an extention.

If they persist in violating this rule, toss them. It doesn't matter if it's a state like Alabama that requires a fine to be paid or restriction first, if they contiually break the rules then throw them out of the game.

If anybody still has questions feel free. Maybe it is more difficult than I thought.

[dawg-man]

I have coaches to tell me that they can not call pitches if they are in some dugouts. I always tell them that they can step out and call the pitch but they have to be in the dugout ( in dead ball territory ) when the ball is pitched. Its not a hard rule to follow, they are just so used to sitting on the bucket. I do like how you handle them if they continually break the rule.

[BrianC14]

I was involved in a thread over at the NFHS site and for some reason the dugout extention rules is giving guys a fit. Is anyone else seeing or hearing about problems about this.

I will post a responce I made this morning after a very lenghty discussion. Some of the guys from here were involved. This is a 56 post thread.

I'm not sure why this rule is causing all this consternation. Unless they are one of the base coaches, on deck batter, batter, runner or playing defense they aren't allowed out of the dugout, on buckets standing or anything else. This a safety rule but also a playing rule, less chance of interference.

They are allowed by rule to exrend their dugout, as long as they do both, but it becomes a dead ball area. If they extend the dugout it has to no closer to the foul line then the face of the dugout area and has to be away from home plate. In the extention they can have equipment, players, coaches and even the infamous buckets. This is to give the players and coaches more room and by extending away from home plate it is a safer way of doing it.

If a coach wants to stand or sit in front of his dugout or even down the line beside the dugout,in live ball territory, he can't, he must either go in the dugout or mark an extention.

If they persist in violating this rule, toss them. It doesn't matter if it's a state like Alabama that requires a fine to be paid or restriction first, if they contiually break the rules then throw them out of the game.

If anybody still has questions feel free. Maybe it is more difficult than I thought.

I don't agree with the "mark an extension" bit. That's a loophole just waiting to be abused.

You have a dugout, stay in it. If you want to make a permanent extension, then fine, as long as it fits the prescribed criteria (no closer to foul lines, and no closer to home plate than it currently is, etc.)

The "marking" bit can turn into all sorts of crazy things. I've worked at one school here that tried using an "L" screen as an extension, and the coaches put buckets, equipment and all sorts of stuff behind it. And of course, when I told them it had to go away, the response was "But we've always done this..." B)

[Majordave]

In the Lexington, KY area almost all of the nicer fields have a frontal dugout extension about four feet out front like a porch with a fence to protect those standing/sitting on the "porch". Unless it is cold or windy or hot very few players or coaches actually sit in the dugouts. I have seen players not in the game fighting over a bucket to sit on. Since they are behind the 3.5 to 4 foot high fence they are "in" the dugout. Sometimes when it is warm but not hot it looks like a bunch of lizards out sunning themselves on rocks. It helps the coaches who call pitches from buckets see and be seen. I'm sure that it is a solution driven by those who do not like to be inside the confines of the dugout during a game. Not really a problem for me just another dead ball area to look after.

Edited March 5, 2009 by Majordave

[mstaylor]

It will be interesting to see that response John. I know for a fact that our SI said allow the extention and it is part of the dugout.

I misread John's quote and didn't realize he was posting the answer with the question.

The SI went through the whole,"Don't let the guys sit on buckets outside the dugout." Somebody then asked about the extensions. He said they are part of the dugout so of course they can sit on them there.

Edited March 7, 2009 by mstaylor

[MCLEOD36]

NOW, this will pain me...I agree with Brian. It is simple, you can extend the dugout, away from home, but it is done to help with congestion in the dugout, not to give a coach or player unobstructed view with no protection to call pitches. When that happens, and there no batters box lines or lousy lines, I keep them inside and say, sorry. Remember, HS/FED rules caution on the side of safety. If coaches try that bucket / chair outside, I put them in early and or a ondeck batter too close. If it takes me walking over and going, hey, I dont want you getting hit, that usually clears it right up quickly.

It is like helmets on coaches and nets behind goals in hockey. Not a bad idea.

[mstaylor]

The problem is that if it is properly marked then is now part of the dugout. As so, they can stand in it, sit on buckets in it, or store gear in it. If has to be away from the plate and no closer to the foul line than the dugout, plus it has to be properly marked on both dugouts. If all of these conditions are met then it is now part of the dugout. If they fail to mark the area then it now illegal and they have to stay in the dugout proper.

I can appreciate your concern for safety but NFHS has already factored this into the equation. Now if players or coaches try to circumvent the rule or insist on standing in live ball illegally I will shut them down quick and toss if needed. I am a stickler about it to a fault.

[mstaylor]

The case of the "L" screen was that it was placed on the home plate end of the dugout.

That's strike one.

The particular field had a tiny foul ball territory, where the on-deck hitter was no more than 15 feet away, and the dugouts about 18 feet. (and to THIS they wanted to extend closer to the plate)!

That's strike two.

The "L" screen would have allowed a throw ball to bounce well back into the field of play. In addition, it created an unsafe condition for a fielder trying to catch a pop foul. Oh, and no similar accomodation was made for the visitors; but given the location, I wouldn't have allowed theirs to stay, anyway.

That was strike three.

The bit about extending a dugout was meant that by using chalk lines to draw all manner of extensions - the end result being that coaches and players can now stand outside the dugout. That, in my opinion, creates an unsafe situation, and can create some headaches if equipment is stored there (ball gets trapped, or ball gets a crazy bounce off equipment).

Our state association has instructed us not to allow it. So those are the rules we follow. I don't make them up.

Brian:

I agree with John completely in his interp, it mirrors mine exactly.

like John I have found you to be very knowledgable and obviously are interested in making yourself as good as you can be.

In the quoted section above, I was with you through the whole l-screen story. Everything they did was illegal. I don't care if the foul area was 40ft wide, I'm not going to allow a coach to illegally extend his dugout.

Where we parted ways was when you began your discussion of the legally extended dugout lines. It seems as though you have a personal dislike of the idea of extending dugouts. To be honest, there are some fields where this is no big deal and others where I'm not wild about either. As umpires we aren't allowed to decide what we will enforce or not enforce according to our opinions. As far as what's in it, that isn't our concern. It is part of the dugout now and so any ball that enters is dead.

As far as the state assoc is concerned, I would ask your local interpreter to double check with your state interpreter and verify what your local group is teaching.

I don't think you are making up rules in as much as inserting your opinion into your umpiring.

[Umpire in Chief]

I think what we have here are two people who are not as far off as it seems. Brian's L screen situation was illegal and he didn't allow it, simple enough. I wonder if some of the opinions Brian stated were taken as facts or rules interpretations.

The opinion I agree with is that I hate artificial or imaginary lines give me a real line of some sort or leave it alone. But unfortunately the coach has the right to legally extend his dugout and can even use imaginary lines if needed. What I'd like to see is some sort of ruling on when they can extend it though I know it would be really hard. If they only have 12 kids on their squad they don't have any reason to need to, but can if they want. If they have the JV team present too then you have an issue.

Unfortunately this is one of those rules which probably came into existence because some coach somewhere didn't use common sense and put a kid out of the dugout on the plate side and got hurt and the kids parents sued and got a lot of money.