Foul or Out?
 

NFHS but will apply to all I'm certain.

Had question asked last night about FED 7-4-13.

If a batter hits the ball, then steps out of the box with one foot only and then is hit by batted ball do you have a foul, or an out?

There have been two answers given to the asker, and I have also received two from a few umpires.

What is your ruling?

One of my UIC told me if one foot is out and the other foot is touching in the box it is foul. if one foot is out and the other foot in the air, out. Dave

A player is in the box until they aren't. Foul.

Can you point to the rules reference for that?
________
Side Effects Of Zoloft

This situation has been discussed on this and other boards before. I don't believe anyone has ever been able to get a verified rules reference specific to this situation; so everyone answers based on what they have been told, or how they think it should be ruled.

I would reference every other game situation I can think of for equivalent rulings. If a batter contacts the ground with one foot completely out of the batter's box and contacts the ball with the bat, the batter is "out of the batter's box". If a batter-runner contacts the ground with one foot completely out of the running lane, the batter-runner is out of the running lane. If a pitcher contacts the ground with one foot completely out of the pitching circle, the pitcher is out of the circle with regard to the lookback rule. If a fielder steps with one foot completely into dead ball territory, the fielder is in dead ball territory.

Conversely, I cannot think of any situation where a player steps completely into an area with one foot where that player does not establish position in that new area. There may be one, but it isn't coming to me right now.

My conclusion is that stepping with one foot completely out of the batter's box is out of the batter's box; no matter what rule you reference. JMO.

Foul ball

Where was the ball when it hit the batter/batter-runner? If it was over foul territory, I don't care where the runner's foot was.

I agree with Irish!!!
 

If the ball was over foul territory when it hit the batter/runner then its foul. If its over fair territory then I have an out.

That of course is true, but assume it was fair.

My conclusion is that stepping with one foot completely out of the batter's box is out of the batter's box; no matter what rule you reference.

I think that's the correct reading of the rule. In the real world, however, it's more "ball hits batter" is foul, and "batter hits ball" is an out.

For example, if a bunt hits the plate and bounces straight up, and then the BR runs into the ball or her first step toward 1B, that's virtually always called foul. Of course, it's usually hard to tell exactly where the foot was when the ball hit the BR, so a call of foul usually gets no argument.

But if the bunt rolls in front of the plate and the BR steps on it with her foot completely out of the box, that's an out.

Confusion also arises when the ball bounces up and hits the bat or the BR over fair territory, but the batter's feet are both in the box. Foul ball.

Since part of the batter's box is in fair territory, I disagree with you. Dave

what if it hits tem inside the batters box, in fair ground.

Rule 7.4. Art 8. NFHS.

Sorry, wrong rule reference. That rule is talking about making contact with the ball the first time. The OP is asking about making contact with the ball a second time. Dave

This rule tells you if you make contact with 1 foot out of box, your out of box. If one foot is out of box and runner is hit by fair batted ball, runner is out because he was hit by batted ball before it passed a fielder. The rule cited is to make it clear when a batter is out of box. If her foot is in fair and makes contact with ball, OUT.

This is a question that's been debated numerous times on this, and other forums (and, I suspect, in clinics, classrooms and on the field).

And I've heard a lot of different good, well-thought out explanations that make sense. One problem is that some of those explanations don't jibe with some of the other ones. The bigger problem is that the precise definition of a batter-runner being "out of the box" on this play isn't presented in the rule book or interpretive literature. That leaves this call up to the interpretation of the individual umpire calling the play and that leads to an unevenly enforced rule and...confusion!

Some theories I've seen:

- If the B/R has one foot on the ground entirely out of the box, then she is out of the box.

- The B/R needs to have both feet out of the box before she is considered to be out of the box.

- If the batted ball hits the B/R over the area of the batter's box, it doesn't matter where her feet are. Consider that as being hit while in the box.

- The umpire should give the benefit of the doubt to the B/R. So long as the contact is made on the B/R's initial step from the box, and the contact is not judged to be intentional, rule this a foul ball.

All good theories that can be backed-up by various rules, interpretations, sound logic or even leaps in logic. But they obviously can't all be correct.

Going off on a bit of a tangent here...In 2010 the Official Baseball Rules finally- after a hundred years!- saw fit to better define this play. They crafted a rule change that says a batter hit by his own fair batted ball while not in his "legal position" is out. They go on to explain that, for the purpose of this rule, his "legal position" is both feet entirely within the batter's box. (Their previous rules didn't define this, but umpires were instructed to rule as in my fourth example above- give the B/R the benefit of the doubt and call it foul).

This isn't to suggest that the softball world should by default accept the OBR ruling, or that their way is the right way, or the only way to handle this. But I offer this example to show that even a stodgy institution resistant to change can recognize that this play needs to be better defined and can adopt some sort of rule to define it. It would be nice to see some of the softball organizations recognize the same need and incorporate a clear definition into their rules.

"In 2010 the Official Baseball Rules finally- after a hundred years!- saw fit to better define this play."

Yes, OBR's definition of foul (unlike ASA's) still doesn't include the ball hitting the batter in the box (but the J/R and other references do). The OBR book, as you note, covers it elsewhere (Section 6) and added clarification this year. Evans presents a couple of pages of notes (some dating to 1942) on the ball hitting the batter in the box in fair territory. (The 1942 notes say that on the first step out of the box, all benefit of doubt goes to the batter.)

BretMan & Greymule,

Who cares about the OBR?

In NFHS it is clearly defined in rule 7.4 Art. 8. A batter is out if either foot is entirely out of the box and she hits it foul or fair. NFHS has defined it and instituted it into the rule book. ASA deviates from High School in too many ways. NFHS,OBR, both define it. Get with it asa. 6.03 OBR. The batters legal position shall be with BOTH feet within the batters box. Pretty clear there. 6.06 a OBR. A batter is out for illegal action when he hits ball with one or both feet out of box. 7.08f OBR. Runner is out when hit by fair ball before passing fielder. NFHS 8.6 art 11. Runner is out if struck with a fair untouched batted ball before it passes a fielder. Seems the only book to differ is asa.

Irishmafia, everyone who is not limited to calling 1 league needs to understand the differences so they can make the right call based on the league their calling. Don't pigeonhole all in 1 league because you choose to stay limited.

Me and Greymule? C'mon, Mike. I know you're probably just being flippant for flippancy's sake. :)

I tried to make it clear that I only mentioned OBR as an example of how one sport that is strikingly similar to softball and has a strikingly similar rule for this strikingly similar play might recognize that one element of this rule could be better defined for the sake of all game participants. Why can't we draw an analogy from a sport that shares many identical rules with softball, that softball was based upon from its inception and from which softball copied many of its original rules verbatim?

If the softball rules were more explicit on what constitutes a batter being in or out of the box on this play, then we wouldn't be having this discusion. But they don't, and considering how many times I've seen this question raised, that lack of a definition does seem to cause some confusion.

So let me rephrase this: I wish that the softball rules would publish a definte interpretation of when a batter is either in or out of the batter's box when struck by his own fair batted ball. And they should come up with a definition that is totally independent of what any other similar sport might or might not think about it! :D

By the way...I really don't like the rule that OBR came up with! It describes a batter being in the box after hitting the ball as the same position he is required to be in prior to the pitch (both feet entirely inside the box). Why not make it the same as the batter's legal position when contacting the pitch with the bat (foot may be extended beyond the lines as long as it's touching the lines and not entirely outside the box).

It seems counter-intuitive to say that the batter's position is legally in the box when hitting the ball, but if the ball then hits he's out of the box in that exact same position!

Well, it is if you consider a batter hitting a pitch and a batter being hit by that same batted ball after it left the bat as being one and the same event covered by the exact same rule.

To me, they're not and assuming they are requires that "leap in logic" I refered to in my first post.

If you read the actual OBR rule, you'll see that they now define a batter being hit by his own batted ball DIFFERENTLY than a batter hitting a pitch, with respect to a being in or out of the batter's box.

That kind of shoots down your logic that both separate events are treated in the exact same manner.

Take the time to read 7.4 Art.a. NFHS. If you do you no longer have to ask why softball doesn't define it clearly. It's their rule published. 1 foot out, hit the ball, you're out. As to being hit with a fair ball before passing a fielder, all books say the same, you're out. Now if she's still in box and gets hit,foul ball. Pretty simple if you read the NFHS rule

I don't need to "take the time to read 7-4-8" because I already know what it says. It is refering to a batter hitting the ball with a foot outside the batter's box. I know that a batter is out for doing that and that's not what I'm debating. That rule doesn't mention anything about the batted ball hitting the batter. And neither does the case play. Why would I want to waste my time reading a rule that has absolutely nothing to do with a batter-runner being hit by his own fair batted ball?

You're applying the requirements of that rule or case play to a completely different situation, covered by completely different rules. That requires a "leap in logic".

Then you tried to back up your "leap in logic" by saying that OBR also calls it the way you're stating. Maybe you should try reading their rule, because that isn't what it says at all. So, the example you offered as "proof" of your position actually disproves your point.

While you're digging through rule books, take a look at the two rules that really do apply to this play (in NFHS): 7-2-1(f) and 8-2-6. Can you tell us where in either of those rules there is a definition that explains when a batter or batter-runner is considered to be either in or out of the batter's box?

I remember specifically being given this same statement (almost verbatim) at the Advanced School by Merle and Henry.
Of coursed that was a few years back but I don't imagine ASA has changed anything that would make this incorrect.

Cool. So two highly respected ASA umpires and clinicians have offered a concrete guideline for calling this play. Of course, the fact that they needed to define it themselves does kind of illustrate the fact that a definition is lacking in the rule book.

So if that's the way they want it called, why can't they include that in the rule book or umpire manual for the benefit of the other 30,000 ASA umpires that weren't fortunate enough to attend this one clinic!

I don't have time to search for the sources, but I remember this as only one foot has to be out in ASA, PONY, NCAA and some others; but both feet have to be out in NFHS and USSSA. Of course, this only applies if the ball is fair.

I don't think it is that difficult to understand ASA's take on in/out of the box. To me, the demands of rule is clear, and as stated earlier, you are in the box until you are out of it.

Touching the ground outside of the line of the batter's box, visible or perceived, is out of the box. For a legal pitch to be thrown, the entire foot must be inside the lines. To legally hit the ball, a foot must not be completely outside of the lines. And since the foot must be on the ground to be out of the box, a foot off the ground is......well, just a foot off the ground. The rules also state that a batter may not leave the box then re-enter it and hit the ball. Does that mean if the batter jumps straight up in the air and then lands in the box they (thats for you, Tom) have left the box? Of course, not. Why? Because the batter's foot/feet did not touch completely outside of the lines.

Since the discussion is hitting the ball, this is the application to which the umpire (in ASA) should refer.

Bret. You answered your own question in your last post. Rule 7.4 Art.a. NFHS. defines what is considered out of the batters box. Your first question answered. The next 2 rules you want us to read 7-2-1f. 8-2-6 define what the penalty's are for being out of box. It doesn't matter if the batter or runner is hit with their own or someone elses batted ball. If it doesn't pass an infielder your out. If it's your own batted ball and you have 1 foot outside the box when contacted by fair batted ball, your out.
The OBR rules I cited 6.03. 6.06a. Say exactly what I said they say. Everyone with a book feel free to read for yourselves. Which kind of implies you didn't take the time to read them. There is no leap in logic, as both books say the same thing. The only leap in logic is not reading the rules as written. They both have rules defining out of the box, and both have rules defining being hit with a batted ball. The only question is if it's your own batted ball, were your feet still in box or has 1 foot left box. Both feet in box,hits you,foul. 1 foot completely out of box and it hits you, out.
You don't have to attend a clinic for this one as they have incorporated these rules in the book already. Read, read and re-read,the answers usually there.

Please stop driving this rallying cry of yours in every thread. THIS is the softball forum. We discuss softball rules here. The baseball forum is "over there" - they (and sometimes we) discusss baseball rules there. You're right that many umpires cross over - but saying we "should" discuss baseball rules here is like saying they should note the baseball rules in the softball rulebook.

I agree that with one foot completely out of the box, the OP should be an out, for much the same reasons that Steve has already stated.

I'm beginnng to wonder if the "P" stands for Piano. ;)

Ugh - thanks for that punch in the gut.

The rules define what's considered being "out of the box" prior to receiving the pitch. They also define being "out of the box" when the pitch is contacted with the bat. Those are two separate and distinct scenarios, covered by two different rules, each that have their own different requirements.

For a batted ball hitting the batter-runner, that is a third scenario, a completely different game action. Is it inconceivable that a scenario completely different than the other two might have a different definition for being "out of the box"?

We have here three different scenarios where the umpire has to rule that the "batter is out of the box" (let's call them "A", "B" and "C", respectively). We know that the definition in "A" is not the same as in "B". "C" is not specifically defined in the rule that applies to this play.

If we just assume that "C" is the same as "B"...there is your "leap in logic".

True- if you've already made the leap in logic of applying the definition from the rule covering one specific game action to this completely different game action.

I didn't read them? Right. I must have the OBR rule book memorized to the point that I can quote the exact rule number of the exact rule that applies here without looking in the book. I'm good, but I'm not that good...

But, no, the OBR does not say "exactly what you said they say." It doesn't say that being "in the box" for a batter being hit by his own batted ball is defined exactly the same as when a batter contacts the pitch with the bat. It defines it as the same foot position when a batter is in the box prior to the pitch. I believe that there is a flaw in how their rule is written, but that is how it is written.

Might be a worthy topic for discussion...on the baseball forum.

I think that if the rule book did have a clear definition of being "out of the box" on this play, then this question wouldn't pop up time and again and you wouldn't have so many different answers and interpretations being given here by so many different, knowledgable, qualified umpires.

The fact that it's being debated here is evidence that the printed rule is unclear.

And that is really my point. I'm not saying that "one foot out of the box" wouldn't be a good standard to apply, or that you're nuts for thinking it should apply. I'm saying that as the rules are currently written, an umpire is forced to assume that the requirements of one rule, covering one situation, apply uniformly to a different situation covered in a different rule. That just seems to me like a bad way to come up with a ruling. Why not add wording to the rule that better defines it and eliminates the need for that leap in logic?

The 1st rule defines where the batters feet need to be in the box on contact or she's out. 7.4. art.a. NFHS.
Rule 7.3 art 1.penalty NFHS. A batter can have 1 foot out of the box prior to delivery of pitch. She does so at the risk of having a strike called while being out of position. If the pitch is a strike when she has 1 foot out it shall be called a strike or ball accordingly. 7.3 art 1. effects 2. NFHS. She does not have to stay in box during or prior to pitch but must accept ball or srike call.
Rule 7.2 art 1 f. NFHS. A strike is called if a batted ball contacts the batter in the batters box.(foul ball).
Rule 8.6 art.11. NFHS. The runner is out when struck with a fair untouched batted ball while not in contact with a base and before it passes an infielder. Since the previous rule defines hit by batted ball in box as foul, the latter rule defines hit by batted ball out of box,(out). Theses are NFHS rules not OBR.
For you folks who need it in just softball rules I believe this should cover it. All NFHS rulings. I would like to hear some of you please cite me Softball rules NFHS that are contrary to these. They are very clear.

One of our other members once posted that a member of the NFHS softball rule committee said:

"For purpose of this rule only, being out of the box is defined as having both feet on the ground outside of the box."

This was never contradicted or reversed by that (now former) member of the Committee or by anyone in authority at NFHS, so it's my basis.

I don't have that book here... but I don't remember this worded so ridiculously. So ... if the pitch is a strike,... it shall be called a strike or ball. What? And then a rule that says the batter must accept the strike or ball call? What?

7.3 art 1 penalty. Read the rule and it will answer your question.
What someone says and whats in the book are 2 different things. I'll stay with the book until NFHS changes it. If she steps out of box pitch is to be called strike. She has no choice.
I misspoke when I said ball or strike,its a strike.

2 things...

What you say is in the book and what's in the book are also 2 different things.

AND

Please stop telling people to read the rule. Saying that is insulting and implies no one here has read the rules, and I assure you, 99% have (including specifically those you continue to insult in this manner).

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.

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.

How did this thread get from a BR hit with a fair batted ball to whether or not a strike shall be called if the batter has a foot out of the batter's box?

I'm just surprised nobody has mentioned beer yet!

We're not even talking OBR and I'm confused!

A lot of people change the subject when losing the debate. :rolleyes:


Did I mention politicians and wives somewhere? ;)

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!"

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??

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.

ditto

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.

I don't think you can ditto yourself. :)

This one.

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.

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

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.

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)

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

Ignore on.

Is that a command to the rest of us, or merely a statement of action on your part? :D

Statement of action ... similar to Rant on or Rant off.

It may be words of wisdom to the rest of us, as well, though! :rolleyes:

Well, no it doesn't. I gave the man an answer and verifacation on how to make the call he had a question about. That's what this site is all about right? It seems you've interjected your OPINION with no fact. The intent was to address THAT situation, which it did. As with the others who disagree I'm open to hearing your factual, rule book verifiable, information on the matter if you can get past your OPINION. Speaking of adages, here's one. If you can't convince them with fact, baffle them with Bull.

Well, you've made progress in admitting you're confused. Now you just need to go further and realize that everyone else is not confused so you've got to make the extra effort to understand if you don't want to seem like a troll. [I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, though I agree with others that the evidence is pretty significant against you.] The rule states that a batter out of the box is out if she contacts a ball. The only question is what constitutes out of the box. You've cited a different rule which talks about how one has to be in the box to take a pitch and how one can be called out for hitting the ball if one foot is outside the box on the ground.
You extrapolate from that the definition of outside the box is to have one foot outside the box.
Others point out that the extrapolation you make isn't supported by rule or case book play. Many people enforce it that way and it's reasonable but it's not supported by rule. Others take different extrapolations.

No one is suggesting that what you are saying is contravened by rule. They are saying it isn't supported by rule. Since they don't contend there is such a rule, you asking for it makes you seem trollish or dumb. To recap the argument as it plays out to the disinterested third party:

You: This other rule defines being in the box and out of the box as it relates to batting.
Them: Yes, but this is a different rule that doesn't pick up that definition.
You: Show me a rule that says I'm wrong, here is the rule I mentioned. Why don't you all read the rules?
Them: Yes, that is a different rule and that doesn't apply to this rule.
You: Show me a rule that says I'm wrong, here is the rule I mentioned. Why don't you all read the rules? You obviously all hate the rule book.

And with that I will withdraw from the discussion. You can learn and change or I'll put you on ignore like everybody else already has.
________
Water Bongs

i now ignore mr illogical.

Time out, the rule or case book he cited specifically states that this applies to purposes of a batter being in the box for a pitch. This clearly limits what it can apply for. the authors of the rule book intend for these words to have an extremely limited extension. You can not logically infer, imply or get any other meaning from it.

i would say you are a guy who when presented with the following will make the incorrect deduction.

Teacher: I have a bag of candy.
Teacher: Some of the candy is hard. Note:t It is given that this is a true statement.
Teacher: Some of the candy is soft. Class, is this statement a true, false or not enough info statement
M guy: It is soft.
Teacher. Sorry, I have made no mention what the other some is. You can not make a valid determination.
Softball authors. They did the same exact thing with the batter in the box for pitching or whatever it is. We have made a some definition of what being in the box is. We have not told you what the other some or somes is or are.
Us. Does that make it clear and concise. Do you see the logic?
Holmes: Elementary my dear Watson.

He's a troll
 

I sent and exchanched a few private messages with MingoP.
He offered to prove to me that he was "who he says he was" and not a troll.:rolleyes:
When I told him that I would take him at his word and asked for the infor he offered;
His UIC, Assignor, State Director, etc
He got suddenly very quiet.:(

He bragged to me that he was "pre-booked" for a year. (Pre-booked being my word for his claim)

I offered to him my private email to carry the discussion with and he now won't reply at all.:(

If you guys want to see what he had to say which ended up being nothing much more than ineffective chest pounding, just let me know.

I am done with this guy.
He is a fraud, a wannabe.:eek:

WOW what a thread! Here's my take on it. Whatever you call just don't shout out... "HIT HER IN THE BOX".

Let's just let that saying drop. It has been brought up here so many times now already. There has to be a new saying out there. Dave