Batter out of box

[spots101]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I knew I was deprived. I have never seen a player do that. And you say it happens twice a year in your games?
Wow.

No smarta$$, it's called an exaggeration. His point, since you can't seem to get it is this. Even with some of you big wigs on this site saying you would never "see" this violation he is saying that some of them are too easy to "see". Can't teach an old dog new tricks I guess.

[spots101]

Originally Posted by GarthB

1. So you know where the batter's foot was after contact with the ball. We should change the rule to read "the batter is out when his bat makes contat with a pitched ball if his foot is completely out of the batter's box within a second or so after said contact."

I've got a better question. Why don't we get rid of the violation altogether since some of you choose not to call it.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by spots101

I've got a better question. Why don't we get rid of the violation altogether since some of you choose not to call it.

I don't believe anyone said they chose not to call it. I could be wrong, I didn't go back and read all the posts. But, what I believe is being said is that some don't see the foot at the time of contact, which is a prime requirement to enforce the rule.

[SanDiegoSteve]

[TussAgee11]

This thread is just becoming silly. Garth - if I'm off ignore and you see this - are you honestly saying that when tracking the pitch you are unable to see if the batter's foot is in the opposite batter's box when bunting?

It's like saying a LL ump can't tell when a runner leaves early because he can't possibly look at both at the same time.

What about a tag up. Sure, you can line it up, but you can't see both at the same time, your vision needs to adjust on the distances you are looking at. Do you choose to ignore runner's leaving early because "you can't tell?"

C'mon.

[3appleshigh]

Well Garth if the rules require you to be aware of this problem, and you cannot see it, I guess YOU ARE NOT DOING YOUR JOB!

I think you should go out and get the HSM, the improved vision might help one as myopic as you.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

I think you should go out and get the HSM, the improved vision might help one as myopic as you.

That must be it. I'll run out and buy another Hockey Mask tomorrow. Then, I'll set it so tight that I'll begin to believe that taking my eye off the ball at time of contact is more important than watching the contact, or that where the foot is after contact must be where it was at contact.

Hey, Rich. You're a helmet fan. Why didn't you tell me that was all I needed?

[RonRef]

Originally Posted by GarthB

That must be it. I'll run out and buy another Hockey Mask tomorrow. Then, I'll set it so tight that I'll begin to believe that taking my eye off the ball at time of contact is more important than watching the contact, tor hat where the foot is after contact must be where it was at contact.

Hey, Rich. You're a helmet fan. Why didn't you tell me that was all I needed?

Helmet masks are for cathers, not umpires.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by spots101

No smarta$$, it's called an exaggeration. His point, since you can't seem to get it is this. Even with some of you big wigs on this site saying you would never "see" this violation he is saying that some of them are too easy to "see". Can't teach an old dog new tricks I guess.

I'm sorry. I'm not familiar enough with the poster to know when he is exaggerating. Thanks for pointing that out, no wonder I've never seen that happen.