|
Steve,
Upon a more careful read of the case play, I am compelled to concur with your assertion. As written it actually suggests that if the batter does have one foot "completely outside the box" (as he did in the OP) he would be called out for interference. Which is contrary to what I have been taught as well.
Another example of FED's remarkably poorly written rules, or do they really want it called this way?
JM
__________________
Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all.
|