Ariz-Wash out of box
 

The PU just called an Arizona batter out for having a foot out of the box when she bunted the ball. The announcer looked at the replay and explained that though the batter's foot was not on the ground out of the box when she made contact, "the rule says that she can't break the plane of the batter's box."

She has a rule book different from mine.

Call of the Day
 

They called it in the Tenn game too. I don't have my college rule book handy but I didn't think that's the way the rule read either.

Definitely not the rule in NF. In NF the foot must be on the ground.

NCAA book:

Section 17. An illegally batted ball occurs when the batter contacts the pitch and:

a. Either one of both of the batter's feet are in contact with the ground entirely outside the lines of the batter's box.

b. Any part of the batter's foot is touching home plate, even though she may be touching the lines of the batter's box.

c. etc.

The Arizona coach complained about the call, but not nearly as much as I would have.

Amazing! Announcers who don't know the rules! Sounded good, though, didn't it: "break the plane"?

Then there was the pop-fly in front of 3B that wasn't deep enough to advance the runners? Huh? :confused:

I saw that one also and kept thinking her foot touched after contact with the ball, no call, but the timing was tight. Even if the camera had a better angle, you have to be sure to make the call.
Didn't hear any "break the plane" comment, maybe a rule book between games. ;)

Yeah, I caught that, too... with a R on 2B, fly ball to F5 in front of 3B... and that "wasn't deep enough to advance the runner".

Whisky Tango Foxtrot? Over?:confused:

I didn't see the game but is it possible that the announcer meant that if a fly ball were caught deep in the outfield instead of in front of 3B the runner(s) might have had time to tag up and advance? Or am I giving him/her too much credit?

Hell, I don't think Visa would give her that much credit.

Last I knew there were no allegations that NCAA was using NFHS rules.

My wife is amused when I scream at the announcers. She told me, "You know they can't hear you, don't you?"

If she makes up just a couple more rules, Beth Mowins is going to move into Tim McCarver territory. :mad:

Maybe the announcer is, say, 160 years old. Back in the beginning, it WAS a line and not a box for the batter. Batter's box has been around longer than Christy Matthewson's mother.

These announcers disgust me. They need to put people in the booth that know the GAME, not just a play-by-play person who is a female and a player whose specialty is one particular positon and whose knowledge of the game is no more general than 90% of the people on this board.

Funny thing--I umpired a few local women's softball games back in CNY that Beth played. I guess, once again proving that just because people play the game that they do not know much about the rules.

Does it then logically follow that since you umpired a few games you know all there is to know on how to PLAY the game?

Umpires know more about how the game should be played than the talking heads know the rules. There's no doubt about that.

Is it more likely an umpire will evolve into a player or a player evolve into an umpire?

The key word is evolve. Players only know the game THEY play and barely the rules that apply to them let alone the rest of the game.

I once watching a Mets-Reds game. The Mets pulled Jesse Orosco from the mound and placed him in right field for one batter and then returned him to the pitching position for the remainder of the game. Now, what umpire in this world doesn't know that is a legal move? I certainly hope no one raised their hand as this is softball/baseball 101.

Yet, here is a TV camera focused on the coaching staff in the Reds dugout tearing through a rule book (not the pocket sized, but the big one), trying to gain evidence to support Rose who is arguing with the umpire that it cannot be done.

Okay, here are people getting paid an obscene amount of money to know this stuff and among the entire staff of game veterans, not a one knew what was going on.

These announcers may know the players and what they are supposed to do, but haven't a clue on the rules of the game.

Among the entire staff of game veterans, not a one knew what was going on.

I'll say it again: the former MLB guys I know are about as familiar with the rules as the average fan, and we know what level that is. I suspect we'd find that many even believe in some of the "myths" we list from time to time.

If you asked them technicalities about interference/obstruction or whether a certain missed base would be considered a force out on appeal or even where to place runners on some of the plays we discuss on this board, they'd have no clue. Of course, many of them haven't even given such things a thought. They concentrated on what they had to learn to play the game, and they know the obvious safe/out, fair/foul, ball/strike and very little else.

I know a former relief pitcher who knows almost nothing about the rules (and freely admits it). Why would he know how to rule on deliberate interference to prevent a double play? His job was to get a couple of batters out late in the game.

So?

We are paid to know the rules and interpret them.

In our legal system Judges have the same challenge.

News reporters hardly ever know the law like judges do and it never stops reporters from writing stories full of errors about the law.

And those errors are far more dangerous than sportswriters not knowing the rules of a game.