WCWS Softball

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Perhaps I, and others, I believe are misunderstanding your prior point or position. You were the one I understood to be saying that a foot clearly and fully in front of the plate, but with the heel up so it wasn't actually in contact with the plate, could not be ruled out of the box because the entire foot was not in contact with the ground; just the part that was actually in contact with the ground.

If that isn't your position, and this latest from you seems to say something different, than I (and probably CecilOne) no longer wonder where you are getting this from.

If the entire foot is clearly out of the box, and any part of it is clearly in contact with the ground at the time of contact, this is call that needs to be made. If any part of that is remotely doubtful because you are tracking the ball somewhere else, this is a call that to NEVER be guessed.

That's what I'm saying; do we agree on that?

I will clarify.

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I will clarify.

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.

Question. If the interpretation supports a heel over the line is considered as part of the foot being in the box, would not the same logic apply to the batter who places the toes/ball of her foot on the outside line of the box with the raised heel extending over an area outside of the box, which is not permitted prior to the pitch?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Question. If the interpretation supports a heel over the line is considered as part of the foot being in the box, would not the same logic apply to the batter who places the toes/ball of her foot on the outside line of the box with the raised heel extending over an area outside of the box, which is not permitted prior to the pitch?

No. Because the wording is opposite. On the rule about contacting the pitched ball, you're out of the foot is COMPLETELY outside... on the rule about batting the foot must be COMPLETELY inside. On the example we're talking about on the first, the foot is partially outside, but not completely outside ... so not an out. On the example you just brought up, the foot is partially inside but not completely inside ... so not legal.

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

No. Because the wording is opposite. On the rule about contacting the pitched ball, you're out of the foot is COMPLETELY outside... on the rule about batting the foot must be COMPLETELY inside. On the example we're talking about on the first, the foot is partially outside, but not completely outside ... so not an out. On the example you just brought up, the foot is partially inside but not completely inside ... so not legal.

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.

Then I do not understand your argument. My argument is that if you are arguing "air space" over a given boundary as being acceptable for one, it needs to be acceptable for the other

[Rich]

I know that the two sports are very different, but I had an amusing thing happen in a baseball game this week.

The visiting team wanted to be in the front of the box. Of course there were no lines (I'm not sure if they were there at the beginning of the game -- probably so, cause I would've noticed that otherwise). The lines tend to disappear quickly in baseball and with the absence of slap hitters and very few drag bunts, it's really not a big deal.

From the opening pitch, some dad in the stands started in about this. I was amazed that someone outside the fence would care so much about this. Frankly, it's unusual that right handed hitters in baseball want to get closer to the pitcher unless he's a junk-baller, which this pitcher was not.

Anyhow, it took 5 innings before the assistant coach politely asked me about the box. I politely replied that the box extends 3 feet from the midpoint of the plate and IMHO the batters were in the front of the box, not in front of it. Knowing the conversation wasn't going to go anywhere, he smiled and said, "It's no big deal," and we moved on. I think he was provoked into asking about it by the dad. I'll talk with assistants if it's cordial and it never was anything but.

The guy behind the fence kept it up the entire game. Once a batter started to say something to him and I quickly pounced on that and told him that I heard the guy for 4 innings already and I haven't said anything, so neither will you. He said, "Sorry, sir," and we moved on.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Then I do not understand your argument. My argument is that if you are arguing "air space" over a given boundary as being acceptable for one, it needs to be acceptable for the other

It's not about acceptable or not acceptable. It's about completely in or completely out... in either example, the foot on the line is neither completely in or completely out - it's partially in and partially out.

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?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

It's not about acceptable or not acceptable. It's about completely in or completely out... in either example, the foot on the line is neither completely in or completely out - it's partially in and partially out.

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?

Because I'm not talking about the part of the foot that is on the ground.

BTW, did you see the Florida batter drop a bunt last night with here back foot was way outside the box?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I will clarify.

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.

That's the kind of ridiculousness for which I would nod cooperatively, acknowledging the official interpretation, and then ignore.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I will clarify.

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.

Perhaps he/she simply misunderstood.