Foul or Out?

[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.

[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.