|
Sat Mar 11, 2006, 07:04pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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] 
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Threaded Mode
