Intentionally Removing the Batter's Box Line

[cshs81]

I saw something I've never seen before and it was called twice.

High school game.

A strike was called on the batter because she was "intentionally removing the lines" in the batter's box. The batter in each case was digging into the back line in the box. Ump called time - called strike on the batter.

Can someone cite the rule and give me the wording.

Thanks

[hawk65]

Nfhs 3.6.17

[hawk65]

Actually, here's a more complete reply:

NFHS 3.6.17: ART. 17 . . . Team personnel shall not intentionally remove any lines of the batter's box or on the field of play.
PENALTY: (Art. 17) A strike shall be called on the batter if a member of the offense intentionally removes the line and a ball be awarded to the batter if a member of the defense intentionally erases a line. A team warning shall be issued, with the next offense resulting in a strike/ball, the offender and the head coach being restricted to the dugout.

[cshs81]

Originally Posted by hawk65

Actually, here's a more complete reply:

NFHS 3.6.17: ART. 17 . . . Team personnel shall not intentionally remove any lines of the batter's box or on the field of play.
PENALTY: (Art. 17) A strike shall be called on the batter if a member of the offense intentionally removes the line and a ball be awarded to the batter if a member of the defense intentionally erases a line. A team warning shall be issued, with the next offense resulting in a strike/ball, the offender and the head coach being restricted to the dugout.

I guess the "intentionally" part is what I'm questioning.

Is a batter allowed to stand on the back line?

[VanStanza]

...a batter can certainly dig a better footing hole in order to hit. It is usually the back line. However, you certainly will not let a batter remove a front line or either of the sides of a batter's box. A batter can place their foot on a line of the batter's box, as long as it is completely within the outer edge of the lines.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Actually, I don't like the rule. Let them remove the lines, who cares?

That simply makes the umpire job that much easier as it becomes purely their judgment and there is nothing on the ground to contradict it.

[NC_Blue]

That simply makes the umpire job that much easier as it becomes purely their judgment and there is nothing on the ground to contradict it.

I agree, Mike. Stop LOOKING for reasons to officiate (directed at those responsible for the strike rule)!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by NC_Blue

I agree, Mike. Stop LOOKING for reasons to officiate (directed at those responsible for the strike rule)!

AFAIK, this is only a Fed thing, and it is not intended to be OOO-applied. A skillful batter can still obscure the lines with appropriately sloppy "gardening". What it puts a stop to is the first batter up directly wiping out all the lines. It also applies to any other lines on the field, but fortunately it does not apply to the umpire... twice within the last week I directed the home catcher to wipe out the catcher's box lines - they were baseball lines.

I find the rule to be an annoyance, nothing more.

[3afan]

Originally Posted by VanStanza

...a batter can certainly dig a better footing hole in order to hit. It is usually the back line. However, you certainly will not let a batter remove a front line or either of the sides of a batter's box. A batter can place their foot on a line of the batter's box, as long as it is completely within the outer edge of the lines.

I thought that as long as the foot was touching any part of the line (and not touching the plate) then she was in the box

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by 3afan

I thought that as long as the foot was touching any part of the line (and not touching the plate) then she was in the box

Right, except "not outside the box" instead of "not touching the plate".

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by VanStanza

...a batter can certainly dig a better footing hole in order to hit. It is usually the back line. However, you certainly will not let a batter remove a front line or either of the sides of a batter's box. A batter can place their foot on a line of the batter's box, as long as it is completely within the outer edge of the lines.

What back line?

And what's the penalty when I remove it?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by 3afan

I thought that as long as the foot was touching any part of the line (and not touching the plate) then she was in the box

I think you are confusing and combining two separate rules and requirements.

For a batter to be in the box to start a pitch, the both feet must be entirely within the box (meaning, no part may be outside the lines ASA 7.3-A). In ASA, failure to comply within 10 seconds is ruled a strike (ASA 7.3-B and EFFECT).

When hitting the ball, to be ruled out of the box, the batter's offending foot must be entirely out of the box (meaning no part is inside or touching the lines ASA 7.6-D).

Also, see Definitions (Rule 1) at "Illegally Batted Ball".

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

What back line?

And what's the penalty when I remove it?

In NCAA softball, the penalty is you will redlined from the teams in that game, and dropped by your conference coordinator. That is a major no-no in NCAA; in their interpretation (and, it was their rule first), the lines are there for a reason, and NO ONE should be removing them.

Aside from ruling a ball or strike in NCAA, we are directed to stop the game and have the lines redrawn if completely removed intentionally.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

In NCAA softball, the penalty is you will redlined from the teams in that game, and dropped by your conference coordinator. That is a major no-no in NCAA; in their interpretation (and, it was their rule first), the lines are there for a reason, and NO ONE should be removing them.

Aside from ruling a ball or strike in NCAA, we are directed to stop the game and have the lines redrawn if completely removed intentionally.

Isn't it amazing that an organization with is so coach-oriented have picky little rules like this, but want certain "illegal" acts to be ignored?