Without quoting everything Mike said.
Again, bear in mind that the last paragraph wasn't what "Fred" said, so those were not his words exactly. Those were my words meant to be taken only within the context in which they were framed: a batter whose foot is an inch outside of the box. Even with the lines, I'm not going to split that hair. How do I know the boxes are the right dimensions? How do I know they're straight? "Coach, in my judgment, the batter's foot was not out of the box when he contacted the ball."
I'll admit that I was not 100% taken with
everything that "Fred" said about the reasons for not calling the batter for being out of the box on contact. I think it sets you up for problems with the defensive coach when everyone else seems to see the foot out of the box except for you. And once it starts with one coach or team, it spreads fast. You're absolutely correct: if you call it one way for one team and the other way for the other team, why are you even out there? "Call it both ways, Blue" may be an annoying thing to hear, but that is our goal out there.
The big takeaway from that conversation was not the reasons for
not calling the batter out, but rather, the reasons
for calling the batter out and how to sell them. Fred repeatedly made it clear that he had no problem with my call. What he had a problem with was how I sold the call: showing the crisp footprint that was clearly out of the box. While this is evidence that bolsters your argument with a coach, it does two things. It can come across as picking nits (ie., "looking for a call"), and it can be received badly by a coach who may think you're showing him up.
More specifically to the conversation, he tossed this out there: instead of it happening in the second inning, what if it happened in the bottom of the 7th to end the game? How do you sell that call to the coach who will
definitely blow a gasket on that call, guaranteed? Do you tell the coach that his player violated a technicality and here's his foot? Or do you tell the coach that he violated a technicality, thus giving himself an advantage that he would not have had if he had stayed in the box? The former, while just as correct as the latter, is a pretty weak "textbook" argument that tells the coach that you know what the rules say, but not why they say it. The latter argument is the "why" portion of the rule.