Foul or Out?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by JEL

I would be happy with that if it weren't a "he said, she said" statement.

If there were something in print either in the form of a rules change, clarification, or simply a case play we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Until there is a clarification, it is apparent we will have two theories.

The original post was fully credible, more specific than my paraphrase, but I would not quote it w/o permission.

I agree that "If there were something in print either in the form of a rules change, clarification, or simply a case play we wouldn't even be having this discussion", however the post I mentioned is "print" enough for me.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by JEL

I'm just surprised nobody has mentioned beer yet!

You just did, and since you mentioned it, I had a nice Magic Hat #9 last night. I also scored on buying up the remaining stocks of Sierra Nevada Summerfest from a local purveyor for the same price as a sixer of Shiner. (And in Texas, that is cheap.)

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MigoP

I'm not trying to be insulting but opinions not backed up by rule are open to interpretations. Why wouldn't you cite rules to back your case. We should just take peoples opinions as fact when we have a rule book.
What 2 things are different? Rules please.

You may not be trying, but you're succeeding. Just stop saying "read the rules". I wasn't asking you not to post rules... just to stop telling people to read them. That's insulting.

That said - you are using rules from 2 different sections of the book - both of which apply in completely different situations than the OP, and insisting that while EVERYONE but you acknowledges that the OP is not specifically defined in the rule book (or case plays), YOU somehow know for fact that it is. There are people on this board who are in the room when rules are written and discussed. They have both authority and integrity when they post. You don't, especially when you continue to post irrelevant rules, insult people, and then talk baseball.

[MigoP]

I notice a lot of people who think reading the rules is insulting. How else do you back a call without the book. I see a lot of opinions and theories used as valid explanations. I see no rule book fact to confirm these opinions. I also see no rule book facts cited by these folks to counter rules I cited, just opinion. One gentleman even says , I know its not in the book but someones word is good enough for me. Even when I tell you where to find the published ruling. It's in the book but I'm going with what someone said. Wow. If you find it insulting to actually read the rules and cite rules to confirm a call then I can see why you're having a problem. Once again you say I used 2 different rules that apply to different situations. I"ll ask again what rules are we talking about. Can you cite them and the differences? I really don't think your opinion will carry much weight without fact. The subject has never changed. No one has given any credible evidence to counter clearly published rules I cited. I'd like to see them so that if I'm missing something in the book I can correct my mistakes and get better. It's a Rules book not an Opinion book.

[scottk_61]

Originally Posted by MigoP

I notice a lot of people who think reading the rules is insulting. How else do you back a call without the book. I see a lot of opinions and theories used as valid explanations. I see no rule book fact to confirm these opinions. I also see no rule book facts cited by these folks to counter rules I cited, just opinion. One gentleman even says , I know its not in the book but someones word is good enough for me. Even when I tell you where to find the published ruling. It's in the book but I'm going with what someone said. Wow. If you find it insulting to actually read the rules and cite rules to confirm a call then I can see why you're having a problem. Once again you say I used 2 different rules that apply to different situations. I"ll ask again what rules are we talking about. Can you cite them and the differences? I really don't think your opinion will carry much weight without fact. The subject has never changed. No one has given any credible evidence to counter clearly published rules I cited. I'd like to see them so that if I'm missing something in the book I can correct my mistakes and get better. It's a Rules book not an Opinion book.

I have followed this thread quietly, as I had little to offer and didn't want to seem to be "piling on."
However, your arrogance is more than starting to try my willingness to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Many of the rulings that one gets, are not so clear as you are demanding.
One good thing that I see in you is that you seem to have a desire to be able to back up a decision by written rule, good.
Point for you.
One really bad thing, is that you are trying to confuse the issue by misapplying the rule book, trying to stitch together two different rules to support your preconceived notions.
Point against you
That leaves you open to an overturn on appeal for misapplying the rules.

I don't think I have missed anything in the thread.
No one has told you to blindly accept their rule interpretation. They have told you the best information that they had.
Some rule interps do indeed change over time.
That is why there is a casebook, but even then not all situations can be clearly covered in print.

Since you like to reference OBR, have you ever seen a OBR casebook? I hardly think you have as not many of us have.
Never the less, even there in the "holy grail" there are things that pop up that are not covered in print.
Been there, done that.

If you want to be a good umpire, which I am willing to allow that it seems that this is what you truly want..........
You are going to have to learn to recognize who has been around long enough to know what they are talking about,
And,
Who speaks with authority.

I am a member of the National Indicator Fraternity, ASA-USA Elite, and ISF. So, I have been around, attended more camps, schools and evaluations than I care to try and count. I have also worked more than 3 dozen Nationals.
Saying that, I don't set myself as an authority. You see, I have booted some calls that in afterthought were no brainers.
BUT, I listened to those who had gone before me. I learned and hopefully I have never made the same mistake again.

I agree with Irish, not because I know him but rather because I know who he is and how hard he has worked to advance us as umpires.
ASA couldn't afford to pay him for the work he has done, all on his own dime.
Mike is well known and respected by those people who write the rule book. I, personally, have heard the National Staff refer to what Mike has written and said. I had the opportunity to sit in on the rules writing committee a couple of times and learned a lot.

Similarly, I know Steve and have had the opportunity to work a Nat with him. I learned from him and realize that he has a grasp on the game and umpiring that I sought to incorporate into who I have been as an umpire.

Many others on this board have been "there"
I have had the opportunity to work games with some of these people, and to see that I really wasn't as good as I thought I was when I saw them work.

I am not telling you to be quiet, nor am I telling you to quit asking questions.
I am telling you that you need to learn to listen or you will be worthless as an umpire.

Arrogance hits all of us at one time or another, been there done that.
Remember, you may be the best dammmmm umpire in your league or area, but there is a lot of area out there to look at.
Do you understand the idea of a big fish in a small pond? Because in reality we are all little fish in a big pond.
We have to listen and learn in order to become a worthwhile umpire.
I love a good rule arguement, nothing is more fun than drilling it down.
But eventually, you have to learn who is the person or persons that you really need to trust.

The man who taught me the basics of umpiring when I was starting out told me one thing that gets me through situations where you find yourself.

Know the rule, that means the intent of rule. Why was it written and what is it trying to do.
If you know why it was written, you will understand how to apply the rules even when it doesn't seem clear.

Good luck to you.
It is time for you to let this go for now, step back and re-evaluate what you are doing and why.
Have you learned? Or are you more isolated than when you started out?

Remember, you have to be able to trust your partners out there, (us) just like you have to be able to trust your equipment.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MigoP

I notice a lot of people who think reading the rules is insulting.

Do you read English? That's NOT what I said. I have said, more than once, that your continual plea for the person you're disagreeing with to "read the rules" is insulting. We've ALL read the rules Probably way more times than you, based on your posts.

YOU are insulting... not reading the rules. Read the posts.

[argodad]

Originally Posted by MigoP

I notice a lot of people who think reading the rules is insulting.

No, reading the rules is something we do religiously. Being TOLD to read the rules is insulting.

Migo, are you an a$$ in real life, or do you just play one here on the forum?

[MigoP]

Am I an azz because I ask someone to tell me where the rules differences are people keep talking about? Or is it because they're aren't any. This could be cleared up quickly if someone would cite rules with their opinions. Lots of opinions but no facts.
Who you know or how long has no bearing on the rules. Maybe that's why the WCWS had such issues with illegal pitches this year. Umpires wouldn't call the illegal pitch so NCAA had to draw a chute to emphasize to umps they want the rules called, not opinions. They wanted consistency. They wanted the rule called because it's a rule. Seems all the umps had different opinions on the illegal pitch rule. I think the chute(which is embarassing for umpires) was telling umpires to call the rule to level the playing field. Pitchers knew different umpires opinions on the rule and many used it to their advantage. I can't blame them if umps let them do it in spite of the rule. It's unfortunate that the NCAA had to step in and make umps enforce a rule, but I think they made their point. Lots of pitcher's were affected by this, in the world series no less, because opinions were being called and not the rule.
If you choose to see me as an azz or arrogant that's your choice, but please don't try to intimidate me with opinions. Intimidate me with rules.
You all say I'm wrong on this and it is possible I am. Until you can show me different in the rules, then your opinionating. But the NCAA seems to have told umps call the rules as in the book not what you think.
As far as what's in print, you'll find in the NCAA, NFHS books it is clearly in print.
The original post had a girl hit the ball fair somewhere in front of plate. The question was if she has one foot out of box and contacts batted ball is it foul or fair. NFHS says 1 foot out of box is out of box, not both feet but just 1. If that foot is completely out of box and made contact with ground out of box, and she runs into the live ball she's out.
If anyone decides to show us a rule to the contrary I'd look at it and reconsider my call. If all you have are opinions and who you know you're not helping anyone learn.
The college umps went on what all their partners were calling and got slapped down, at the expense of the pitchers.
I'm not asking you to read the rules because I think you don't. I'm asking you to cite those rules in your opinions.
Trust but verify.

[argodad]

Originally Posted by MigoP

Am I an azz because I ask someone to tell me where the rules differences are people keep talking about? Or is it because they're aren't any. This could be cleared up quickly if someone would cite rules with their opinions. Lots of opinions but no facts.
Who you know or how long has no bearing on the rules. Maybe that's why the WCWS had such issues with illegal pitches this year. Umpires wouldn't call the illegal pitch so NCAA had to draw a chute to emphasize to umps they want the rules called, not opinions. They wanted consistency. They wanted the rule called because it's a rule. Seems all the umps had different opinions on the illegal pitch rule. I think the chute(which is embarassing for umpires) was telling umpires to call the rule to level the playing field. Pitchers knew different umpires opinions on the rule and many used it to their advantage. I can't blame them if umps let them do it in spite of the rule. It's unfortunate that the NCAA had to step in and make umps enforce a rule, but I think they made their point. Lots of pitcher's were affected by this, in the world series no less, because opinions were being called and not the rule.
If you choose to see me as an azz or arrogant that's your choice, but please don't try to intimidate me with opinions. Intimidate me with rules.
You all say I'm wrong on this and it is possible I am. Until you can show me different in the rules, then your opinionating. But the NCAA seems to have told umps call the rules as in the book not what you think.
As far as what's in print, you'll find in the NCAA, NFHS books it is clearly in print.
The original post had a girl hit the ball fair somewhere in front of plate. The question was if she has one foot out of box and contacts batted ball is it foul or fair. NFHS says 1 foot out of box is out of box, not both feet but just 1. If that foot is completely out of box and made contact with ground out of box, and she runs into the live ball she's out.
If anyone decides to show us a rule to the contrary I'd look at it and reconsider my call. If all you have are opinions and who you know you're not helping anyone learn.
The college umps went on what all their partners were calling and got slapped down, at the expense of the pitchers.
I'm not asking you to read the rules because I think you don't. I'm asking you to cite those rules in your opinions.
Trust but verify.

Not only an azz, but an incredibly wordy one. I'm done.

[MigoP]

Once again, no facts. I'd be done too.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MigoP

The question was if she has one foot out of box and contacts batted ball is it foul or fair. NFHS says 1 foot out of box is out of box, not both feet but just 1. If that foot is completely out of box and made contact with ground out of box, and she runs into the live ball she's out.
If anyone decides to show us a rule to the contrary I'd look at it and reconsider my call.

First, regarding reading... you were not asking people to CITE the rules. We all ask each other to show us the specific wording of a particular rule from time to time. You, however, were telling people to READ the rules - strongly implying that you didn't think they had. I assure you that we have, which is why you were being an 'azz' when you told us to read them.

Regarding your "rule" above. You tell us to cite rules, but then you go and mis-paraphrase one to make your point. The rule does NOT NOT NOT say what you said above.

NFHS does NOT say "1 foot out of box is out of box." NFHS says that if you hit a pitch while 1 foot is completely outside the batter's box, you are out. There is no hint or implication that this is meant to be applied to a live batted ball at all. The rule you mention is ENTIRELY about striking a pitched ball.

The problem with the rules as written and why this situation is not clear is that the rule says "if you are out of the box and are hit by a live ball you are guilty of interference", but then does not define "out of the box". The fact that the rules are unclear is not opinion, but fact. It is unclear and THAT is why you are hearing opinions regarding this situation.

While your opinion may be right (I don't think you are, but others do), the fact that the rule does not state that you are right makes your "interpretation" merely an opinion as well. You're referring to a rule that does NOT apply to the situation at hand and extrapolating that.... doing so is an OPINION.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

First, regarding reading... you were not asking people to CITE the rules. We all ask each other to show us the specific wording of a particular rule from time to time. You, however, were telling people to READ the rules - strongly implying that you didn't think they had. I assure you that we have, which is why you were being an 'azz' when you told us to read them.

Regarding your "rule" above. You tell us to cite rules, but then you go and mis-paraphrase one to make your point. The rule does NOT NOT NOT say what you said above.

NFHS does NOT say "1 foot out of box is out of box." NFHS says that if you hit a pitch while 1 foot is completely outside the batter's box, you are out. There is no hint or implication that this is meant to be applied to a live batted ball at all. The rule you mention is ENTIRELY about striking a pitched ball.

The problem with the rules as written and why this situation is not clear is that the rule says "if you are out of the box and are hit by a live ball you are guilty of interference", but then does not define "out of the box". The fact that the rules are unclear is not opinion, but fact. It is unclear and THAT is why you are hearing opinions regarding this situation.

While your opinion may be right (I don't think you are, but others do), the fact that the rule does not state that you are right makes your "interpretation" merely an opinion as well. You're referring to a rule that does NOT apply to the situation at hand and extrapolating that.... doing so is an OPINION.

You just saved me a lot of typing. Thanks. I was going to say pretty much the same thing.

[CecilOne]

Would you all please knock off the bickering and insults and concentrate on useful softball discussion?

This has always been a civilized forum with respect for each other and it needs to return to that.

We have beaten this issue to death now, so I hope the nastiness does not flow over into other topics.

[scottk_61]

Ok, it is official............
This guy is just a troll who wants to argue instead of learn.
I think it is time to put ignore on this guy.

Too bad actually, I had a bit of hope for him but he has shown his arroagance repeatedly with no effort to LEARN.

I hope nobody here has to work a game with him,
Can't you imagine the OO game he will call.

The stink you smell is the sh*t he is gonna stir just to prove that "he is in charge."

When you grow up, come back to the board.
When you attend a few training sessions, you might call a good game.

When you learn the purpose and intent of the rule, then I will listen to what you have to say.
Until then you are nothing more than a player that thinks he knows the rules and is more trouble than he is worth.

[MigoP]

Case book NFHS. 7.4.8 sit.a. Ruling. The batter is considered to be in the batter's box waiting for a pitch when no part of either foot is touching the ground outside the boundary lines forming the batter's box. Comment; When taking a stance in the box, both of the batter's feet shall be completely in the batter's box(not touching the ground outside the batter's box).
No opinion fact. Exact wording in case book.
I'm not bickering or intending to insult anyone. If we don't debate the issues fully we"ll never get to the bottom of correct calls.
Who wants to learn? I do. Please add some facts to help me learn. I will accept them with open arms. I have called state championships, nominated for umpire of the year last year, many interstate tournaments. I've already been booked for big tournaments in 3 states next year. I never have a problem because I defuse arguments immediately by telling the coaches where to look exactly in the book. That has given me the respect of coaches, players and my partners. We don't have arguments in my games that last longer than it takes to tell you where to find the rule in the book. I can do that very quickly thus no arguments and less doubt about any other calls I make in the game.