HumblePie

Little League has its own batter's box dimensions. I don't call LL, but I've spoken to dozens who do, and too many "coaches" and admins think there is no difference between LL and every other brand of big boy baseball. These are the same coaches and admins who don't know that fast pitch girls' softball has a longer box on the front end.

And I'm not doubting you, Velho, but to all ... make sure if you are accusing, you are measuring from the white edge of the plate (not the black) to the edge of the batter's box line ... should be precisely 6". I, too, have seen batter's boxes as close to 3" from the white edge in a Varsity game. The young coach's retort was, "It can't be wrong ... we use a template to draw our lines." So sad ...

Precisely! Among other brands, I do high school, and my Assignor has always told us that we "must go by the lines." Hogwash. Even Varsity High School fields are mismarked, especially batter's boxes, and we are not to be held hostage to them.

So ... I'm posing some questions because there is very little consensus of how terms are used such as: ... Strike Zone ... Corner ... River ... White line ... Paint I call a lot of travel ball at a high level (PBR) and unless we are calling the top of the top level, we call strikes for pitches that are up to but not touching the white lines (batter's boxes). For those counting at home, that is a precise width of 29". River (6") + plate (17") + River (6"). If you call just the plate, just the WHITE, and you call a strike for anything "painting" the white, that's a width of about 23" outside to outside of the ball. If you use the black, add 2 inches. When a batter asks, "Blue, was that the corner?" I am saying YES if the outside of the ball was painting the batter's box. When a batter asks if that painted the zone, I only say yes if it painted the plate. I would appreciate any discussions on the true width of zones you call. Even for Varsity HS, I would guess my zone is 27" wide from outside to outside of the ball. This came from a widely shared video produced by FED.

So ... I'm posing some questions because there is very little consensus of how terms are used such as: ... Strike Zone ... Corner ... River ... White line ... Paint I call a lot of travel ball at a high level (PBR) and unless we are calling the top of the top level, we call strikes for pitches that are up to but not touching the white lines (batter's boxes). For those counting at home, that is a precise width of 29". River (6") + plate (17") + River (6"). If you call just the plate, just the WHITE, and you call a strike for anything "painting" the white, that's a width of about 23" outside to outside of the ball. If you use the black, add 2 inches. When a batter asks, "Blue, was that the corner?" I am saying YES if the outside of the ball was painting the batter's box. When a batter asks if that painted the zone, I only say yes if it painted the plate. I would appreciate any discussions on the true width of zones you call. Even for Varsity HS, I would guess my zone is 27" wide from outside to outside of the ball. This came from a widely shared video produced by FED.

OK. So ... 1. R3 picks up a batted ball rolling 12" foul down 3B line. Judgment is likely a foul ball? 2. R3 picks up a batted ball rolling 2" foul down 3B line and spinning. Judgment is likely a call of Interference? 3. BR accidentally (umpire judgment) kicks a bunted ball rolling down 1B line ... still spinning ... about 2" foul. Foul ball? Lack of intent makes close proximity to the foul line irrelevant??

Batter-runner bunts down 1st base line. Batter-runner's foot contacts ball (unintentionally) about 3" foul, but it was spinning and moving toward the line. Is there any language in any rules set that says, "The batted ball has to have NO CHANCE of going fair for the ball to simply be ruled a foul ball"???

Is it in the Case Book?

MadMax, There is no infraction for a "fake catch" in FED. YES ... it can cause just as much damage as a fake tag, but that rule does not exist. There is no case play that would imply that a "fake catch" is to be treated like a fake tag.

I'm quite aware of the NFHS rule on the fake tag. Is there ANY fake tag rule or interp in MLB or NCAA when the fielder doesn't push, pull, impede, block, or fall on the runner? I'm talking about simply tagging and holding the empty glove on the runner. Bobby Witt's play Saturday would tell me no ... that it's legal in MLB ... and I looked for the words FAKE and OBSTRUCTION in both rule sets and find nothing that would make it illegal. It's one of those rules in FED that I think is overkill. If it CAUSES the runner to slide when he would not have slid, I can see why they want it to be illegal, but simply holding an empty glove on a runner to make him think you have the ball is brilliant.

FED game, R1 and R2. 2 outs. Pitcher takes the mound in the set position with the ball in his glove, then reaches in and pulls it out with his pitching hand before taking his signs. I can't find anything concrete in the NFHS RULES or CASE BOOKS to balk this. Anyone?

The OP clearly describes a petty but retaliatory (intentional) act after a fake tag during a dead ball. If he ends up on the ground, I don't think you HTBT. 😎

Greatest example of "incidental contact" in MLB history??? 🌹🌹🌹

I believe the NFHS definition of Malicious Contact still uses the phrase, "if the contact is malicious or intentional" ..... I don't think you can have malice without intent, which makes the above phrase very poorly worded, which unfortunately, is common in the FED book ... an ironic fact being that the committees are all made up of supposed educators. ma·li·cious /məˈliSHəs/ adjective characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm. If you agree with the Oxford definition, then we can have intentional contact, which is not malicious. And sticking with the example California gives, a runner who tries to slap away the ball but inadvertently slaps the fielder who jukes him, should always be guilty of interference, but not likely guilty of malicious contact, if he did no real harm and intended no harm. And a defender who overzealously tags a runner and knocks him down, but clearly didn't intend to hurt him, did not necessarily show malice. I have long lobbied for a "middle ground" infraction called Reckless Contact. I would penalize it in exactly the same way as malicious contact without the ejection - but issue a team warning, just like with a fake tag. A very real example of why I hate the FED definition is, anytime a runner coming home sees that he's going to collide or slide, and he chooses not to slide, but raises his hands to defend himself from the collision, you have a large percentage of officials who interpret the raising of the hands to be a malicious act. If he doesn't lower the shoulder and hit the catcher like a linebacker, he's not trying to harm, he's trying to minimize the damage to himself. If his act of raising his hands in any way affects an ensuing play, then we have tools ... It's Interference. No need to kick the kid out of the game and the next two games for what I still would describe as incidental contact.

Is it a ground rule double? Book rule double? Automatic double? This is largely semantics, but there is a reason I'm asking.