2015 NFHS Baseball PPT Slide 8

[jcm1932x]

The NFHS Rules Committee at its June 8-10, 2014 meeting added some changes that were added to be consistent with language elsewhere in the rules book. One of the changes was the addition of rule 2.16.1.f, "a foul is a batted ball that hits the batter in the batter's box." See Slide 8 of the PPT. The batter has his front foot completely outside the batter's box. Doesn't the slide contradict rule 7.3.2 and Case Book 7.3.2 SITUATION C?

[jchamp]

Originally Posted by jcm1932x

The NFHS Rules Committee at its June 8-10, 2014 meeting added some changes that were added to be consistent with language elsewhere in the rules book. One of the changes was the addition of rule 2.16.1.f, "a foul is a batted ball that hits the batter in the batter's box." See Slide 8 of the PPT. The batter has his front foot completely outside the batter's box. Doesn't the slide contradict rule 7.3.2 and Case Book 7.3.2 SITUATION C?

If you're referring to sub-situation (c) within that situation which states:
"B1 strides forward when making contact with the pitched ball. His front foot (c) is on the ground entirely outside the line of the batter’s box." Ruling: ... in (c), the batter is out for making contact with the pitched ball while being out of the batter’s box.

Here's how I'm thinking of the situation from the power point slides...
There is a brief period between when the ball is struck and when it strikes the batter again. During that period, the batter's foot which was off the ground at the time of initial contact returned to the ground, and was resting there when the ball struck him.
If it is possible that the foot was off the ground when he made initial contact, then this is still a foul ball.
If I am absolutely certain that his foot was on the ground at the moment of initial contact, then I will call him out for "out of the batter's box".
Since I can't guess the batter out on such a play, if it looks like a normal batter's stride during the swing, I will rule a foul. If he was making a running bunt attempt, or had taken his stance with the foot outside the box at the time of the pitch release, then I would rule an out. In my few years, the only time I ruled an out for "out of the batter's box" was when the batter stepped on home plate to reach across, and I still asked for help from my base umpire on that one.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by jchamp

In my few years, the only time I ruled an out for "out of the batter's box" was when the batter stepped on home plate to reach across, and I still asked for help from my base umpire on that one.

Wow.

[john5396]

Originally Posted by jcm1932x

The NFHS Rules Committee at its June 8-10, 2014 meeting added some changes that were added to be consistent with language elsewhere in the rules book. One of the changes was the addition of rule 2.16.1.f, "a foul is a batted ball that hits the batter in the batter's box." See Slide 8 of the PPT. The batter has his front foot completely outside the batter's box. Doesn't the slide contradict rule 7.3.2 and Case Book 7.3.2 SITUATION C?

I believe the point of the slide is a batter's bat or batter hit by a fairly batted ball while at least 1 foot is still in the batters box is a foul ball. They are not changing the rule for the batter contacting the ball while 1 foot is entirely outside the box.

[jcm1932x]

Slide 8 reads and pictures that if the batter has one foot in the batter's box, the batter's not out of the box. Per rule 7-3-2 and Case Book 7.3.2.SITUATION C: sub-situation (c), if the batter has one foot grounded in the box and one foot grounded outside the box (as shown in slide 8), the batter is out for making contact with the pitched ball while being out of the batter's box.

[jchamp]

Originally Posted by Matt

Wow.

Kid was trying to beat a "non-intentional intentional walk" Bingo Long style. He fouled it into the backstop. My partner was on the infield, B or C, I'm not sure. I just wanted to do my due diligence before I ring him up. No harm in making sure, and it silenced the inevitable "get help on that, blue" crap that I figure is always going to follow a rare call.

I've moved across the country and called whatever games I can receive assignments for, for the last 10 years. Since I only last year got settled down for good, I've rarely had the opportunity to call higher level games, since I've always been the FNG.

I've got conflicting mechanics from Central Missouri, SW Ohio, Central New York State and Vegas in my head. I've seen just about every muni league rule modification imagined for 8-year-olds. For me, the "wow" is that I've never accidentally awarded 15 yards or tried to start the clock on the ready while wearing a mask.



I'll get better with practice, but for now, I'm just another muni league home-town ump.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by jchamp

Kid was trying to beat a "non-intentional intentional walk" Bingo Long style. He fouled it into the backstop. My partner was on the infield, B or C, I'm not sure. I just wanted to do my due diligence before I ring him up.

It's your call. What help could he possibly have?

Originally Posted by jchamp

No harm in making sure,

You just gave the monkeys a banana. You're going to get asked for more every time.

Originally Posted by jchamp

and it silenced the inevitable "get help on that, blue" crap that I figure is always going to follow a rare call.

"That's my call."
"That's enough."

[swkansasref33]

Whats wrong with conferring with a partner to make sure you properly applied a rule? Seems like an acceptable thing to do to me.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by swkansasref33

Whats wrong with conferring with a partner to make sure you properly applied a rule? Seems like an acceptable thing to do to me.

What's there to confer about?

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by swkansasref33

Whats wrong with conferring with a partner to make sure you properly applied a rule? Seems like an acceptable thing to do to me.

Hey Blue , could you check with your partner on whether that was really a strike?

He either stepped on the plate or didn't. if you have to check with your partner then you didn't see it clearly and if YOU didn't see it clearly, then it didn't happen.

[swkansasref33]

The poster obviously knows what he saw, but seems unsure if it is illegal or not. I'd rather have my partner confer with me on a rule he is unsure about than call it and be wrong.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by swkansasref33

The poster obviously knows what he saw, but seems unsure if it is illegal or not. I'd rather have my partner confer with me on a rule he is unsure about than call it and be wrong.

So would I, but this is not the case here.