Catcher "In Position" at time of pitch

[BigSimonia]

Rule 1-1-4 requires a catcher to be "in the catcher's box" at the time of the pitch.  Does this mean both feet?  I'm assuming it does  - but you know what they say about that.  I had this come up over the weekend when the catcher would set up with one foot clearly outside the box.  I told him he had to have both feet in the box prior to the pitch. But in looking for FED rule support, Rule 1-1-4 was all I could find.  And the Rule clearly says that a fielder can be in fair territory with only one foot in fair territory - so can a catcher be "in the catcher's box" with only one foot in the box?  Is there rule/case support for a "both feet in the box" interpretation?

 

OBR 4.03 makes it a little clearer since there the catcher must "station himself directly back of the plate", but then it goes on to say in regards to an intentional base on balls that the catcher has to have both feet within the lines of the catcher's box until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand.  If the catcher ALWAYS has to have both feet inside the box at the time of pitch, why make it a special rule in regards to an intentional walk? 

 

Not a biggie, but it did come up, so I'm asking my betters for some help

[grayhawk]

I really don't know the answer, but why pick that booger?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ricka56]

This ^^^^^^    And if you are watching F1, why would you go looking at where F2's feet are.

[Jimurray]

Rule 1-1-4 requires a catcher to be "in the catcher's box" at the time of the pitch.  Does this mean both feet?  I'm assuming it does  - but you know what they say about that.  I had this come up over the weekend when the catcher would set up with one foot clearly outside the box.  I told him he had to have both feet in the box prior to the pitch. But in looking for FED rule support, Rule 1-1-4 was all I could find.  And the Rule clearly says that a fielder can be in fair territory with only one foot in fair territory - so can a catcher be "in the catcher's box" with only one foot in the box?  Is there rule/case support for a "both feet in the box" interpretation?

 

OBR 4.03 makes it a little clearer since there the catcher must "station himself directly back of the plate", but then it goes on to say in regards to an intentional base on balls that the catcher has to have both feet within the lines of the catcher's box until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand.  If the catcher ALWAYS has to have both feet inside the box at the time of pitch, why make it a special rule in regards to an intentional walk? 

 

Not a biggie, but it did come up, so I'm asking my betters for some help

 

You shouldn't be looking to enforce this rule very strictly in FED or OBR. Take some advice from the Wendelstedt School:

 

Wendelstedt: "This rule should only be enforced when the catcher is attempting to take advantage of the rule by leaving the box to prevent runners from being able to steal while the pitcher gives an intentional walk. Umpires have many other things to look for in this situation, than to completely focus on the catcher's feet.

This rule should only be enforced where the intent of the catcher is to gain an advantage..."

 

Perhaps this Historical Reference from the Wendelstedt Umpire Manual will help to understand how to (rarely) enforce this rule:

 

"This rule was put into place in order to still allow runners a chance to steal during an intentional walk. Until its inception, some catchers would move clear up the first or third base lines to take pitches. This additional distance would not only prevent runners from being able to get a jump, but would also guarantee that no batter would be able to reach out and take a pitch the "other way.""

 

In FED the TOP restriction actually allows the catcher to leave the box before the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. In OBR, while the rules says leaves the hand, common practice is TOP. 

[BigSimonia]

I really don't know the answer, but why pick that booger?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, it was a little disconcerting to see him about 4 feet to the right of the catchers box (his left foot just on the inside of the box).  It looked and "felt" funny, so I thought I'd ask.  If you all think its OK and not a problem, I'm good

[BigSimonia]

This ^^^^^^    And if you are watching F1, why would you go looking at where F2's feet are.

When I'm in the slot, it was kinda hard not to notice the catcher about four feet to the right of the center of the plate.  I noticed his backside and discovered that his feet were right below. (sheesh)

[Jimurray]

This ^^^^^^    And if you are watching F1, why would you go looking at where F2's feet are.

When I'm in the slot, it was kinda hard not to notice the catcher about four feet to the right of the center of the plate.  I noticed his backside and discovered that his feet were right below. (sheesh)

If you were in the slot more than likely the the pitcher had already initiated TOP so the catcher was good if you want to be strictly legal about it. But why was he set up out there.

[ricka56]

 

This ^^^^^^    And if you are watching F1, why would you go looking at where F2's feet are.

When I'm in the slot, it was kinda hard not to notice the catcher about four feet to the right of the center of the plate.  I noticed his backside and discovered that his feet were right below. (sheesh)

 

Notice, maybe...care, no (unless there was monkey business going on).

 

Once had a HS F2 in summerball (OBR) go way out on a IBB (he had no idea how to do it correctly). Offensive coach wanted a balk. fortunately there were no lines drawn at all. When OHC said that F2 was illegally out of the box, I asked, what box.