goody14

I guess it is what it is. So, a pitcher who has his feet in the set position has to come to a complete stop and then he can take another short step and pitch. Seems goofy to me, but I don't write 'em. Not being sarcastic or stirring the pot but how short is considered short - does he have to gain ground to consider it backwards? Thanks for reaching out to FED to clear this up.

You won't find it...but in this instance I believe that does not mean it is legal. This whole thing reminds me of when FED came out and defined when you could turn your shoulders on the mound: http://www.ihsaa.org/archive/b-baseball/05RulesChanges.htm Nowhere in the FED book will you find the phrase - "turning the shoulders while in the wind-up position is a balk". But you will find the wording that turning the shoulder while in the set position is legal. They want you to infer that the windup shoulder turn is illegal (and the quote in the link is FED coming out and stating this inference would be true). Since they define the steps you can take in the windup yet leave them out of the section on the set. I believe it is illegal to take an extra step in that position. That's my story.

I would have considered the case play you described as definitive until this powerpoint came out. It came straight from FED - so while not in the rules, that is pretty definitive.

Replace 'pl' with 'h' and you might be onto something...

Usually dress at the field out of necessity. My joke is I have spent more time pantless in vehicle backseats in my 30s compared to my teens - a statement both true and sad

Makes sense. I guess it is sort of third world anyways. I was never any good at physics, but it seems like it would be very hard for a batter to be hit by a batted ball with a foot completely on the ground outside the box and not be out. Either he a) already had a foot outside the box when he made contact making him out (unless he can strike the ball with his foot in the air and then get it on the ground in the short time the ball travels from ball to foot - all of this without lifting his back foot). Or b) he runs up on a bunt...in that scenario when the ball hits his front foot, his back foot is probably out of the box meaning he now has no foot in, and FED wants this to be an out. Just feels like they changed for change sake. On top of that, they did not update their case book. BRD says to call this like the case play posted above (8.4.1 B) and to call NCAA the same. With the change, this rule is now potentially different (I don't do college so I could be wrong) in all 3 codes which is super goofy. OBR = Both feet have to be in NCAA = No foot can be completely out FED = One foot has to be completely in

See 8.4.1B -- if either foot is entirely out of the batter's box, then the batter is out if hit by a fair batted ball. Blast from the past (I actually used the search functions).... I read 8.4.1. B the same way as the poster above. But, I saw a 2015 NFHS Rules Presentation (from the Facebook FED page) that now states differently. A batter who gets hit by his batted ball with one foot in and one foot out of the box is not out. It is a foul ball. 8.4.1B remains in the new book unchanged. This thread is from 2010, did this rule change before now? I am confused. I suppose both feet have to be out of the box to get this out. How can I get the 2015 NFHS Rules Presentation you have noted It was posted to Jax's FED Facebook Group.

See 8.4.1B -- if either foot is entirely out of the batter's box, then the batter is out if hit by a fair batted ball. Blast from the past (I actually used the search functions).... I read 8.4.1. B the same way as the poster above. But, I saw a 2015 NFHS Rules Presentation (from the Facebook FED page) that now states differently. A batter who gets hit by his batted ball with one foot in and one foot out of the box is not out. It is a foul ball. 8.4.1B remains in the new book unchanged. This thread is from 2010, did this rule change before now? I am confused. I suppose both feet have to be out of the box to get this out.

OBR - 1 run as this is a time play (PBUC 6.16) FED - 3 runs because FED is goofy (Case play 9.1.1 M)

Last year was the first year Indiana adopted it. People were really worried about it before the season but I had 0 problems with it all year. Most coaches either a) did not understand it and therefore did not use it or b) had extra players on the team whose sole purpose was to CR. Both cases make enforcement a breeze.

Last time I tried to bless anything, lightning followed. I let the pros handle it from now on.

I think the concept they are trying to convey is a BR missing 1st base and then being appealed - not the case of him never reaching it. That is way I am reading that.

As long as his removal was not the result of a conference occurring after the team already had three conferences.

They should do a show that follows students in umpire school. I am sure they could find enough type A personalities in that group to make it entertaining.

I am officially done with the losing portion and into maintenance mode. Down to 180 from 205 lbs. Waist from 38 to 34. Been tracking my stats via Fitbit and MyFitnessPal for 85 days (about 12 weeks). So averaged about 2 lbs down a week - slow and steady. I burn about 2,700 calories per day as long as I don't fall off the wagon into a Hardee's parking lot, I should be able to find good food options to keep my intake around that number.

The thread in the Professional Forum got me thinking about the FED rule on this. Imagine these situations: 1.) R1 stealing, batter swings and misses and his follow through hits F2. Simple enough - if F2 cannot throw out the R1 call batter out and return runner. 2.) R1 not stealing but the batter swings and misses at a ball in the dirt. R1 takes off once ball gets away. F2 goes after ball but gets whacked by the follow through (very similar to the AJ play the other night). I think this is BI as well. Batter out and runner returns 3.) No one is one base and batter's follow through hits F2. This is nothing. No play to be made so no interference (this was in the 2014 interpretations) 4.) R1 not stealing. Batter swings and misses and hits F2 on follow through. The contact knocks the ball loose which then causes R1 to try for second This is the tricky one for me. At the time of the "interference" there was no play to be made. The contact caused the potential for a play. I would kill the ball and return the runner. I don't know if the rules or interpretations back up this line of thinking. The 2015 case book does not contain a similar play (that I saw at first glance). What do you guys have in this situation?

Grabbing an out in FED on this, right?

Dead ball/live ball situations Base awards Also on sell the call - make your umps aware of when they should/can go for help. When I umpire small ball with teenage umpires, coaches always come out and ask then to "check with your partner". This happens on steals of second when I am the PU. Teach them not to go for help on these (and not to offer help if not their call).

So I guess it is like this play (which did not result in a DP)... I suppose if you take a guy out with a forearm in between bases, you can do it with a slide as well

Thanks for crunching the numbers and proving once again the eyes (or at least mine) can be unreliable. I find all of this stuff interesting. It is great to have the data to conduct these sorts of views.

Isn't this just a variation of the play that was on the college exam that was debated in the spring (I think that one had R3 scoring, R2 put out at home for out 3 and the BR pulling up lame with an injury before scoring)? IIRC, the (OBR) consensus was the run scored because the 3rd out was not on a the BR before he reached 1st base. Also, BR could not be appealed for a 4th out since it was not a missed base or leaving early situation. I think FED/NCAA allow the appeal. Older Thread: http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/55855-100-challenge/

Here is some fun with data visualization: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs/the-postseason-strike-zone-thus-far-vizualized/ I didn't count (and the article does not mention)...but it looks like there are more pitches in the zone called ball then the opposite.

I heard that...why would he teach them to do that. Is that really legal?

Very cool. Now they just need to make digital versions available and update Arbiter.

When did the new books come out? Can you pick up a copy yet?