The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 29, 2006, 01:17pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 45
Would a strike be called on the batter if the coach is taking out lines.
__________________

ump mac
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 29, 2006, 03:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 964
If you are talking NFHS, you could. The rule applies to "team personnel" and "any lines on the field of play." Those lines are part of the rules because they define where a coach has to be prior to the release of the pitch.

But I probably wouldn't (unless the coach was being a jerk about other things!).

WMB
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 29, 2006, 07:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Do we all agree that boxes and foul/fair limits exist, even if the "lines" are missing?
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 29, 2006, 08:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 83
I agree with W.M. Blue....you could call a strike, but I wouldn't unless the team had been warned.
Also, I agree the boxes are there the entire game. You can still call a batter out if a slap hitter runs out of the box and hits the ball late in the second game of a doubleheader even if there is no evidence that a batters box ever exsisted.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 29, 2006, 09:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 112
Of all the question they could have put on the test about erasing lines they just had to choose that play.. Can't understand the logic
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 30, 2006, 10:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally posted by Gmoore
Of all the question they could have put on the test about erasing lines they just had to choose that play.. Can't understand the logic
Since the test is not only open book, but open discussion, I have assumed the test has the primary objective of requiring the umpire to re-aquaint himself/herself with the book.

In that light, a question where you have to consider a situation that is less than obvious will have you think about not only the rule, but the enforcement of the rule. That makes this an excellent question on the erasing the lines rule.

That, and the other primary objective of the NFHS test... nobody scores 100%!
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 30, 2006, 03:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Back in TX, formerly Seattle area
Posts: 1,279
Quote:
Originally posted by Gmoore
Of all the question they could have put on the test about erasing lines they just had to choose that play.. Can't understand the logic
Logic and the test? Now THAT is funny...
__________________
John
An ucking fidiot
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 07, 2006, 12:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 2,672
Quote:
Originally posted by Dakota
..That, and the other primary objective of the NFHS test... nobody scores 100%!
This is the truth...I proctored the Part I NFHS test last night for about 30 experienced umpires. Most scores were 95 and up, but no 100's.

We give the test as an open book, individual test. No discussion. We do provide a reference sheet that lists the page number in the rulebook where the applicable rule can be found for each question.

I have always maintained that NFHS rules tests for all sports are as much reading tests as they are rules tests.
__________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all that's important!
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 07, 2006, 07:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 994
SC is neither open book nor open discussion. In our local association of 35 people, we a couple of 92s and three 91s. I think it was quite a bit tougher this year than normal.
__________________
Dan
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 09, 2006, 02:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 102
Quote:
Originally posted by umpharp
I agree with W.M. Blue....you could call a strike, but I wouldn't unless the team had been warned.
Also, I agree the boxes are there the entire game. You can still call a batter out if a slap hitter runs out of the box and hits the ball late in the second game of a doubleheader even if there is no evidence that a batters box ever exsisted.
The new rule refers to intentionally removing lines. A strike or ball is to be assessed, and a team warning issued. For subsequent violations the head coach is ejected.

According to our state rules interpreter, at the national meeting in Indiana they stressed that this was a reaction to what Fed considers cheating, or at least an attempt to influence the umpire.

So why warn before assessing a ball or strike?

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 09, 2006, 06:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Back in TX, formerly Seattle area
Posts: 1,279
Quote:
Originally posted by mccann
Would a strike be called on the batter if the coach is taking out lines.
According to the NFHS website, from one of their situations:
SITUATION 10: In the top of the first inning, the lead-off batter for the visiting team starts kicking out the front line of the batter’s box as she enters the box. The umpire calls “time” and issues a strike on the batter. The umpire also issues a team warning to the offending head coach. Four innings later, the base umpire notices the first base coach on the visiting team removing the lines of the coach’s box. RULING: The base umpire shall call “time” and restrict the head coach to the dugout for the remainder of the game. Also, the plate umpire shall issue a “strike” on the batter. (3-6-17)
__________________
John
An ucking fidiot
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 09, 2006, 07:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Talk about nonsense rules and stretching my willingness to apply all of them verbatim.
As I said earlier "boxes and foul/fair limits exist, even if the "lines" are missing"
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 10, 2006, 03:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 102
Quote:
Originally posted by CecilOne
Talk about nonsense rules and stretching my willingness to apply all of them verbatim.
As I said earlier "boxes and foul/fair limits exist, even if the "lines" are missing"
Certainly lines disappear routinely during the course of a game. But why do you think the coach is deliberately removing them?

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 10, 2006, 10:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 964
So the coach removes lines and we can penalize him. But what if he leaves the lines alone, but wanders all over the place? Can we penalize him? (NFHS)

If yes, what is penalty, and what is rule?


WMB
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 22, 2006, 06:04pm
smsuatroy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I think the main reason for putting in the rule was the slap hitters werre erasing the line to try to gain an avantage and FED felt the coaches were telling thier player's to do it . so that is why the coach penalty.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:03pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1