Thread: Foul or Out?
View Single Post
  #73 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 25, 2010, 06:49pm
MigoP MigoP is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump View Post
So does everybody else. Now not that I believe you are seriously having difficulty with this, but let's suppose I do believe long enough to give you a chance to figure out what's going on. As a matter of trying to communicate, one thing that's often helpful is to attempt to restate the argument you're being given in your own words. Can you explain why everyone else is saying you're wrong?
No I can't which is confusing to me too. The original post was a fed question. If a batter hits the ball in fair ground somewhere in front of the plate and comes out of the box running to 1st with 1 foot out of box and has contact is it foul or fair. If 1 foot is out of box and on the ground and the runner contacts ball she is out. She has been hit by a batted ball before it passed a fielder. Out.
I think what the original question refered to is do both feet have to be out of box to be considered out of box. You've seen the rule cites from NFHS book I cited determining what constitute out of box. 1 foot out is out of box. I've asked repeatedly for a rule to the opposite but can't get one. I think they think I'm wrong because they say so. I prefer to go by published rules not opinions. Maybe you'd be better served to ask them what contradicts these rules in the NFHS book. Some wanted to say both feet need to be out, most just basically said take my word for it. If it wasn't in the book I'd understand NFHS hasn't made it clear enough to understand. When it's in the book, which has been established by rule cites, I can't tell you what their thinking.
I've argued my point with rule book and case book rulings. I can't explain why you'd make a call on an opinion or what someone told you.
If you could find something to contradict these rules it would help us all see where the mis interpretation is. I don't debate things so strongly when there is evidence to the contrary, but in this case I've seen none.
Reply With Quote