![]() |
|
|
|||
Quote:
First ... this came to me purportedly from Dee... but 2nd hand - so I cannot personally verify this was actually Dee's words. Second - the PLATE never entered into this. If they are touching the plate, they are out - no dispute there. Third - this had to do with a foot like the OP. Toes out of the box and on the ground; heel not out of the box, but also not on the ground. The (supposed?) interp was that this foot is not "ENTIRELY on the ground, COMPLETELY out of the box"... which are the words in the rulebook. (It was also noted that a foot with toes on the ground, heel up that was NOT over the box in any way was to be considered completely out of the box.) I know that is not definitive, given that I cannot personally say this came directly to ME from Dee. I have had no reason to doubt this other person's veracity in the past, but want to make it clear I did not personally email the question to Dee, and did not personally see the response. But I hope this, at least, clarifies what, specifically, I was told. And the post you replied to was intended to scoff at the ability of even the very best umpire on the planet to be able to A) track the pitch; B) see the foot in the position we're talking about at the moment of contact; and C) notice that the toe was down but the heel was up. A&B are exceedingly difficult by themselves and we don't guess outs... Adding C to the mix makes it (IMHO) ridiculous to think the PU could see it. From PU's viewpoint all he can really hope to see is that the heel blocks part of the line - so his assumption is going to be that it's touching the line. Especially in peripheral vision.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
|
|||
Quote:
The logic of these two is actually congruent (and not opposite) with the (supposed) ruling from Dee. It SUPPORTS the argument I'm making - it doesn't conflict with it.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
|
|||
Quote:
In the contacting the ball case, to be called out, the foot has to be completely out. It's not. It's partially in, partially out. No out. In the case you brought up, to be legal you must be completely in. It's not. It's partially in, partially out. Not legal. You do not question the fact that these rules differ in cases where the foot is completely on the ground ... why would you question it in cases where the foot is not completely on the ground?
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
BTW, did you see the Florida batter drop a bunt last night with here back foot was way outside the box?
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Tom |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Kill the Clones. Let God sort them out. No one likes an OOJ (Over-officious jerk). Realistic officiating does the sport good. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Wcws | bkbjones | Softball | 6 | Fri May 30, 2014 10:39pm |
WCWS Umpires | Andy | Softball | 10 | Sat Jun 02, 2012 08:37pm |
wcws ump | ronald | Softball | 14 | Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:00am |
WCWS last night | coachfanmom | Softball | 7 | Fri Jun 03, 2005 01:21pm |
WCWS: mechanics? | LMan | Softball | 10 | Tue Jun 01, 2004 02:51pm |