20 sec rule FED 7-3-1

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by David Emerling


I never badger batters about having one foot in the batter's box when taking their signs because I could never understand what difference it makes. We're all going to have to wait until the coach is done giving the signs, one way or the other.

David we do not HAVE to wait until the coach is done giving the signs. That's the point of the rule. As far as one foot in the box it DOES speed up the game. The player simply turns, gets the sign and is ready to hit. If he is COMPLETELY out of the box, it will take longer.

We should not have to wait 1 or 2 minutes in between pitches and IMO, an umpire is NOT nit-picken should he/she enfore the rule.


On the other hand, I *will* mention it to the batter if he's one of these guys that likes to go through a lengthy, out of the batter's box ritual, after every pitch. But if it's just a matter of getting the signs from the coach, I could really care less where his feet are.

David, talk is "cheap" and the fact is if you "mention" it and nothing happens then what. Also, the rule applys to BOTH teams. IMO it's being a good Official to do some preventative umpiring in inning one so that the game has a "flow" to it.

Why! Suppose the game is tight and the threat of rain/darkness is imminent, by not following the rule IN THE BEGINNING you have allowed one team to take an unfair advnatge over another not intened by the rules.

The problem is with umpires who do not enforce the rule in inning one and now all of a sudden start enforcing it in inning 5-7. IMO, it's the same as a PU who in the late innings starts to "shrink" / widen his/her zone and a pitch that was a strike/ball in innings one through 4 is now the opposite.

You can give all the warnings, talks you want but until you ACTUALLY penalize the team will they get it. I raised 4 kids and i could talk to them until I was "blue in the face" it's only when I ACTED ie; grounded them or took the keys away, then they "got it"

As mentioned, Do some Preventative Umpiring and let both temas KNOW that we are here to play baseball and not a reading assignment on what the coaches signs are.

By the way I do not know if it will come to fruition, but there is talk that MLB might adopt the FED ruling about B1 keeping one foot in the box so that guys like Nomar and Jeter do not delay the game.

Keep the Game moving

Pete Booth

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by PeteBooth
Originally posted by David Emerling


I never badger batters about having one foot in the batter's box when taking their signs because I could never understand what difference it makes. We're all going to have to wait until the coach is done giving the signs, one way or the other.

David we do not HAVE to wait until the coach is done giving the signs. That's the point of the rule. As far as one foot in the box it DOES speed up the game. The player simply turns, gets the sign and is ready to hit. If he is COMPLETELY out of the box, it will take longer.

We should not have to wait 1 or 2 minutes in between pitches and IMO, an umpire is NOT nit-picken should he/she enfore the rule.


On the other hand, I *will* mention it to the batter if he's one of these guys that likes to go through a lengthy, out of the batter's box ritual, after every pitch. But if it's just a matter of getting the signs from the coach, I could really care less where his feet are.

David, talk is "cheap" and the fact is if you "mention" it and nothing happens then what. Also, the rule applys to BOTH teams. IMO it's being a good Official to do some preventative umpiring in inning one so that the game has a "flow" to it.

Why! Suppose the game is tight and the threat of rain/darkness is imminent, by not following the rule IN THE BEGINNING you have allowed one team to take an unfair advnatge over another not intened by the rules.

The problem is with umpires who do not enforce the rule in inning one and now all of a sudden start enforcing it in inning 5-7. IMO, it's the same as a PU who in the late innings starts to "shrink" / widen his/her zone and a pitch that was a strike/ball in innings one through 4 is now the opposite.

You can give all the warnings, talks you want but until you ACTUALLY penalize the team will they get it. I raised 4 kids and i could talk to them until I was "blue in the face" it's only when I ACTED ie; grounded them or took the keys away, then they "got it"

As mentioned, Do some Preventative Umpiring and let both temas KNOW that we are here to play baseball and not a reading assignment on what the coaches signs are.

By the way I do not know if it will come to fruition, but there is talk that MLB might adopt the FED ruling about B1 keeping one foot in the box so that guys like Nomar and Jeter do not delay the game.

Keep the Game moving

Pete Booth

I understand your point - and it's a good one.

I don't believe I'm ignoring any rule. An umpire should penalize a batter for being out of the batter's box *IF* such action delays the game.

After receiving the sign from the 3rd base coach, if the batter promptly prepares to hit, whether by bringing his other foot into the batter's box, or, by entering the batter's box from being completely out of the batter's box - makes no difference to me. We're talking fractions of seconds and it is overly officious to badger the batters on issues that are of no substance.

Again, this is just my opinion. I would not criticize an umpire for handling it your way. Perhaps it's a matter of style than substance. It's not my style.

And I've observed it is also NOT the style of MOST umpires. At least in my area, no umpires are very strict on this matter and our games move right along.

I would only enforce this rule IF the action delayed the game. And, I believe, that is the rulebook criteria. It's one of those, no harm, no foul type of things ... in my opinion.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[DG]

[/B][/QUOTE]
I don't believe I'm ignoring any rule. An umpire should penalize a batter for being out of the batter's box *IF* such action delays the game.

I would only enforce this rule IF the action delayed the game. And, I believe, that is the rulebook criteria. It's one of those, no harm, no foul type of things ... in my opinion.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN [/B][/QUOTE]Read 7-3-1. It says the batter must keep at least one foot in the batter's box throughout the time at bat, and then lists exceptions. Now how many times has the batter stepped out of the box when one of these exceptions did not apply and you called a strike, by rule you could.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by DG

I don't believe I'm ignoring any rule. An umpire should penalize a batter for being out of the batter's box *IF* such action delays the game.

I would only enforce this rule IF the action delayed the game. And, I believe, that is the rulebook criteria. It's one of those, no harm, no foul type of things ... in my opinion.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN [/B][/QUOTE]Read 7-3-1. It says the batter must keep at least one foot in the batter's box throughout the time at bat, and then lists exceptions. Now how many times has the batter stepped out of the box when one of these exceptions did not apply and you called a strike, by rule you could. [/B][/QUOTE]

You're right - by rule you could call a strike. It's probably a regional thing. We just don't get all anal about it here.

We kind of treat it like the OBR version of how the base coaches have to remain within the confines of the coach's box. It's a rule. You could badger them about it. Or, you can let it go unless somebody complains -or- it starts to become a problem. Other than that, we just let it go.

I have to tell you - our games move right along and there just doesn't seem to be any need. If the batters start getting ridiculous, WE WOULD INVOKE IT. But I don't recall ever having to do that.

Let's remember why FED changed the appeal rule. Even they acknowledged that many of the umpires were reluctant to call it. This is how change comes about. Bad rules are eventually ferreted out. I think calling strikes on batters for simply having both feet out of the batter's box is one such rule (without even delaying the game!). And I know I'm not alone. If I started calling that in the Memphis area, I would rapidly become the bearded lady at the circus - an oddity. To me, this rule is nothing more than a question on a written exam.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Mar 11th, 2006 at 07:32 PM]

[DG]

There is a difference between batter stepping out of the box and coach stepping out of the box. One carrys a defined penalty by rule, the other does not. The stepping out of the batter's box penalty is one that is routinely ignored by everybody I know. I have never seen it called. However, everybody I know is going to tell the batter to keep one foot in the box if he steps out when one of the exceptions does not apply. The original poster wanted to know how to handle this situation. Unless he wants to be an OOO he will keep batters in the box also, and save the penalty for an extremely rare situation.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by DG
There is a difference between batter stepping out of the box and coach stepping out of the box. One carrys a defined penalty by rule, the other does not. The stepping out of the batter's box penalty is one that is routinely ignored by everybody I know. I have never seen it called. However, everybody I know is going to tell the batter to keep one foot in the box if he steps out when one of the exceptions does not apply. The original poster wanted to know how to handle this situation. Unless he wants to be an OOO he will keep batters in the box also, and save the penalty for an extremely rare situation.

The comparison with the coaching box was just an analogy. Of course there's a difference. The point was not that the rules are the same, rather, that many people treat them the same; i.e. don't sweat it unless it becomes an issue.

I think telling the batters to keep a foot in the batter's box without assessing them a strike is fine and workable. It just sounds like a lot of unnecessary work (and badgering) for something that probably isn't affecting the game one iota. In other words, you're "fixing" something that's not broke.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[DG]

Originally posted by David Emerling

The comparison with the coaching box was just an analogy. Of course there's a difference. The point was not that the rules are the same, rather, that many people treat them the same; i.e. don't sweat it unless it becomes an issue.

I think telling the batters to keep a foot in the batter's box without assessing them a strike is fine and workable. It just sounds like a lot of unnecessary work (and badgering) for something that probably isn't affecting the game one iota. In other words, you're "fixing" something that's not broke.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

We disagree. If you don't keep them in the box, the game will last longer than necessary. You apparently think long games are ok.

[SAump]

Allow the batter time to pick up the bat and get his head on straight. Afterall, he just perceived/experienced the most common of all optical illusions, BALL FOUR. The deliberate strike call usually straightens out any confusion.

[mcrowder]

Originally posted by smoump

My original question centered around the and/or of the rule. I have never issued a strike for this. I am comfortable with a deliberate strike and if this timing is too slow for an impatient batter, so be it.

7-3-1 does say "The batter must keep at least one foot in the batter's box throughout the time at bat".

But common sense dictates that we do not call this a strike. However, Pete is correct in saying that years ago (96 ish) when I coached, this was a strict rule. Anytime they stepped out, it was a strike (assuming not meeting one of the exceptions). For umpires that were not working or understanding the rule then, may not be aware now of its existence.

You misunderstand me, so I'll clarify. There was a time when we were to call this rule strictly... but not in the sitch provided here. No clinic I ever attended nor spoke at ever told an umpire to call a player out in THIS scenario. Stepping out for no reason is a completely different situation, one to which I was not referring.

Interesting how you immediately assume something adverse about my experience from this though...

[mcrowder]

The only reason I mentioned experience is that you seemed to think I was not around 7 years ago when the rule was more strict. But I was. And at no time did I ever see, do, or hear of Peter's assertion that we should call a strike on a batter who thought he'd received ball 4.

If it matters...

Baseball OBR since 1985.
Baseball FED since 1992.
Softball ASA since 1990 (except 2003) / UIC since 2001.
Softball FED since 2000.
Softball NCAA Fill-In since 2003.
Never worked U-trip, although I keep current on the rules just in case.
Football NCAA since 2002.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by mcrowder

The only reason I mentioned experience is that you seemed to think I was not around 7 years ago when the rule was more strict. But I was. And at no time did I ever see, do, or hear of Peter's assertion that we should call a strike on a batter who thought he'd received ball 4.

If it matters...

Baseball FED since 1992.

If you were doing FED games since 1992 then how can you say "And at no time did I ever see, do, or hear of Peter's assertion that we should call a strike on a batter who thought he'd received ball 4.

Not to beat a dead horse, but it's one thing to not enforce a rule and one thing to say You never saw or heard of it.

As I and Bob Jenkins pointed out, it's right in the FED case Book. If you have a copy of an old FED case book before the rule was changed, read the Case play on the situation being discussed.

BTW did you hear about accidental appeals in FED or you never heard or saw those either.

Pete Booth

[mcrowder]

Originally posted by PeteBooth
Originally posted by mcrowder

The only reason I mentioned experience is that you seemed to think I was not around 7 years ago when the rule was more strict. But I was. And at no time did I ever see, do, or hear of Peter's assertion that we should call a strike on a batter who thought he'd received ball 4.

If it matters...

Baseball FED since 1992.

If you were doing FED games since 1992 then how can you say "And at no time did I ever see, do, or hear of Peter's assertion that we should call a strike on a batter who thought he'd received ball 4.

Not to beat a dead horse, but it's one thing to not enforce a rule and one thing to say You never saw or heard of it.

Pete Booth

I did not say I'd never heard of the rule. Good grief. I do remember that the rule was unusually strict immediately after it was put in. But I also remember this coming up in clinics when someone wanted to point out the absurdity of the rule as written, and being told (more than once) that the rule was not intended to be implemented in cases like the one discussed in the OP. Yes - the rule DOES include this case, but it was not the INTENT of this rule (according to my bosses at the time) to be used in this case. Kind of absurd to think that the rulesmakers would have wanted us to call an extra strike on the batter simply because we took a second longer than he thought we would in making our strike call. What's to prevent the OOO's in the house from simply delaying ALL of their 3-1 strikes until the batter started heading toward first base on what he thought was a BB - only to call STRIKE! and STRIKE THREE! for vacating.

Perhaps it was taught that way elsewhere. We were never told to be this absolute with the rule.

[mcrowder]

Originally posted by btman
the football doesn't matter, thanks for the response, impressive number of years.

li'l problem with your FED knowledge but whattheheyblue, no one is perfect. [/B]

You don't know me. You don't know my level of knowledge. Those that have been around this site for a while would (probably!) attest to the fact that I generally know my rules and the appropriate interps for the various rulesets. There are those that might disagree with me on different subjects that come up for debate from time to time, but I don't think anyone here (except the 6 trolls) would say I don't know the rules in ANY of these rulesets.

My KNOWLEDGE of the rule in question is not really the question, is it? I've said I remember this rule being used in a strict manner.

My point was, however, that at no time (in my experience, at least - which may vary from yours in another part of the country) was I EVER told that that rule was supposed to be implemented in THAT (the initial post) case - and was in fact told exactly the opposite.

[smoump]

all umpires are learning. Some guys know more for a multitude of reasons, but we are all learning. We seek confirmation, advice, etc for one another. The site is designed for that purpose.

However, noone wants to be demeaned. "6 trolls" could possibly be demeaning. I have no idea if it is, but I could see how someone might think that it is.

You made a comment at the beginning of this thread that indicated that you felt some posters were not knowledgeable about this rule. This may be so. The need to point it out, however, is unclear.

Can we not be civil with one another, or is it a necessity to be condescending?

Just my two cents.

[SanDiegoSteve]

The troll question is just too easy, so I'll pass.

As far as 7-3-1 goes, I'm sure anybody who says that they have never seen it, means that they have never seen it enforced (right, mccrowder?).

I have been doing top-level HS Varsity ball since 1987, and not one single time have I ever called it, or seen it called by anybody. My Varsity 7-inning games average between 1:40 and 1:55 in length. If I think a batter is starting to stall or delay my post-game sandwich, I say, "hey, get in the box." I've never had one defy my order as of yet.

So, the bottom line is, a batter stepping out of the box to get his sign does in no way significantly delay the game. To say that two minutes transpire between pitches is ridiculous.