Foul or Out?

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by 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.

That has to do solely with the batter being ready to take a pitch. Nothing else. The umpire should not allow the pitcher to pitch prior to the above criteria being met. Again, it has nothing to do with the OP.

[scottk_61]

MigoP, I sent you two private messages.
Please read them.
Email me privately if you want but it is time to take this off the board as it has become more about personality than actual rules application.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by 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.

OK, either you're kidding, deluded, or a troll. You pick which.

If you, as an umpire, are going to take THIS case play and decide that a rule about what a player must do while waiting for a pitch has ANYTHING to do with the initial situation, I TRULY worry about what rules from one section you're going to extend to completely inappropriate situations on the field. Either you're just looking to stir things up, or you are a VERY scary umpire.

I can see it now. F1 fields a ball, starts to throw underhanded to first, recognizes that F3 is not ready, and her arm goes around twice. MIGO: "TIME!!!" Illegal pitch. The pitcher must not allow her arm to go around more than once when throwing the ball!"

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by 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.

ABSOLUTELY TRUE!!

But you want to know what else is absolutely true? IT ISN'T A CASE PLAY RULING ON RULE 8.2.6, which is the actual subject of this thread!! JEL referenced 7.4.13, which isn't the actual cite for the situation he posted, but it ALSO isn't answered by case play 7.4.8 sit A.

Read the rule(s) 7.4.8, 7.4.13, and 8.2.6; read the post, read the case book play you cited. Not an answer to THIS QUESTION!!

Do you get it now??

[MigoP]

This was an answer to crowders remark about the book not saying one foot is out. If you look at my earlier post today I specificaaly addressed the initial post with these rules . thanks for verifying my rule cites were correct to the original post. Maybe now you"ll get it.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by 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.

ditto

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MigoP

This was an answer to crowders remark about the book not saying one foot is out. If you look at my earlier post today I specificaaly addressed the initial post with these rules . thanks for verifying my rule cites were correct to the original post. Maybe now you"ll get it.

Maybe now WE will get it?!?!?!

I'm trying to be civil here... and recognize I'm on the edge of failing in that. Part of me wonders why I'm bothering.

But I have to ask ... there've been LOTS of posts by me and you... Exactly what did I say (and in what post#) for which you thought your rule quote about a batter having to be in the box before a pitch was a valid reply? I'm not finding what I may have said to lead you to respond with that rule at all.

PS - no one has "verified your rule cites were correct to the original post." Basically because not a single one of your "rule cites" apply to the OP. It would help a lot of us if you'd use the quotation functionality to show what exactly you're responding to, especially when a thread has as much going on as this one.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

ditto

I don't think you can ditto yourself.

[MigoP]

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.

This one.

[MD Longhorn]

Ah. So you quoted another rule that also doesn't say one foot out of box is out of box. It just says you can't pitch until she's IN the box with both feet. Thanks.

I'm done.

[MigoP]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think it's pretty clear. When taking a stance in the box both feet shall completely be in the batters box.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MigoP

I think it's pretty clear. When taking a stance in the box both feet shall completely be in the batters box.

So does everybody else. Now not that I believe you are seriously having difficulty with this, but let's suppose I do believe long enough to give you a chance to figure out what's going on. As a matter of trying to communicate, one thing that's often helpful is to attempt to restate the argument you're being given in your own words. Can you explain why everyone else is saying you're wrong?
________
MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES LOCATIONS IN SANTA CLARITA

[MigoP]

Originally Posted by youngump

So does everybody else. Now not that I believe you are seriously having difficulty with this, but let's suppose I do believe long enough to give you a chance to figure out what's going on. As a matter of trying to communicate, one thing that's often helpful is to attempt to restate the argument you're being given in your own words. Can you explain why everyone else is saying you're wrong?

No I can't which is confusing to me too. The original post was a fed question. If a batter hits the ball in fair ground somewhere in front of the plate and comes out of the box running to 1st with 1 foot out of box and has contact is it foul or fair. If 1 foot is out of box and on the ground and the runner contacts ball she is out. She has been hit by a batted ball before it passed a fielder. Out.
I think what the original question refered to is do both feet have to be out of box to be considered out of box. You've seen the rule cites from NFHS book I cited determining what constitute out of box. 1 foot out is out of box. I've asked repeatedly for a rule to the opposite but can't get one. I think they think I'm wrong because they say so. I prefer to go by published rules not opinions. Maybe you'd be better served to ask them what contradicts these rules in the NFHS book. Some wanted to say both feet need to be out, most just basically said take my word for it. If it wasn't in the book I'd understand NFHS hasn't made it clear enough to understand. When it's in the book, which has been established by rule cites, I can't tell you what their thinking.
I've argued my point with rule book and case book rulings. I can't explain why you'd make a call on an opinion or what someone told you.
If you could find something to contradict these rules it would help us all see where the mis interpretation is. I don't debate things so strongly when there is evidence to the contrary, but in this case I've seen none.

[ronald]

well buddy to take you own words and ruling you must understand that the language is absolutely clear that it only applies to that situation. you can not extrapolate it to any other situation. it is cut and dried. you are guilty of erroneous interpretation. there is a latin phrase for it. something along the lines of using arguments for issue A to prove issue B.

hope that clears up any confusion on your part (m guy)

[MD Longhorn]

I think it's pretty clear he's trolling us now.

Ignore on.