NFHS Rules Presentation

[MidAmUmp]

I want to start by saying I don't umpire HS baseball and I'm not even HS certified in Missouri. However, I run our local association and assign our games, and well...you know........

 

Anyway, I was scanning through the powerpoint and noticed one of the slides says "Even though this batter has one foot completely outside the batter’s box, he has one foot still in. Therefore, when the batted ball rebounds and hits him, it shall be called a foul ball."

 

They have a "PlayPic" showing the batter hitting the ball, driving the ball down, and the ball bouncing back up hitting the batter with his front foot out of the box.

 

Doesn't this completely contradict calling a batter out if he hits a ball with a foot completely outside the batter's box?

 

In my 21 years of umpiring I don't recall a batter hitting a ball with his front foot in the air. So in this situation why wouldn't we call the batter out instead of calling it a foul ball?

 

And if this has already been discussed in another topic, I'm sorry, I don't really pay attention to what goes on concerning Fed. rules discussions, but I know I'm going to be asked about this.

[Jimurray]

I want to start by saying I don't umpire HS baseball and I'm not even HS certified in Missouri. However, I run our local association and assign our games, and well...you know........

 

Anyway, I was scanning through the powerpoint and noticed one of the slides says "Even though this batter has one foot completely outside the batter’s box, he has one foot still in. Therefore, when the batted ball rebounds and hits him, it shall be called a foul ball."

 

They have a "PlayPic" showing the batter hitting the ball, driving the ball down, and the ball bouncing back up hitting the batter with his front foot out of the box.

 

Doesn't this completely contradict calling a batter out if he hits a ball with a foot completely outside the batter's box?

 

In my 21 years of umpiring I don't recall a batter hitting a ball with his front foot in the air. So in this situation why wouldn't we call the batter out instead of calling it a foul ball?

 

And if this has already been discussed in another topic, I'm sorry, I don't really pay attention to what goes on concerning Fed. rules discussions, but I know I'm going to be asked about this.

It might depend on where his foot was when he hit the ball and then when where his foot was when he was hit by the ball.

This statement is now correct in FED if one foot is still in the box: "Therefore, when the batted ball rebounds and hits him, it shall be called a foul ball."

The caseplay that still exists would have the BR out if one foot was out of the box and the ball hit him.

It might be that the PP writer could not show the batter hitting the ball legally and then being hit as his foot was touching out of the box while one foot was still in.

BTW, what does NCAA consider being inthe box for being hit by your batted ball entail? I haven't figured it out. MLB/OBR is both feet in the box. FED is (this year, one foot in).

As far as hitting the ball itself, everyone agrees that if a foot is on the ground completely out of the box when the ball was hit it's an illegally batted ball. Maybe the PP did not make that clear.

And, I have to ask, regarding the illegally batted ball, if you are worried about the rule and it's enforcement, what do you advise in your clinics to concentrate on? The foot or the pitch?

[Richvee]

The "play pic" is misleading, or more precise, backwards, if you ask me. You're probably never going to see a RHB swing at a ball with his left foot in the air and then get hit with the batted ball with the left foot on the ground and the rear foot still in the box as pictured in the play pic.

 

What I could see happening, is a RHB bunting, or swinging legally...both feet on the ground, in the box. Now, he starts out of the box, right foot first. Right foot's on the ground, outside the box, while left foot is still in the box and the ball bounces up and hits the BR. FED says this is a foul ball.   

[Richvee]

That said, if both feet are on the ground, let's say RHB, right foot out of the box, left foot still in the box, as in batter taking the 1st step towards 1st base, how long are both feet actually on the ground at the same time?? wouldn't the left foot come up off the ground the moment the right foot hits the ground? 

 

As far as I can see, if I've got a batter who's taken the first step towards 1st and then gets hit by the batted ball, I'm pretty certain his trail foot is off the ground, not in the box, and he is out. 

[clawdad]

The way it was presented to us at our interpretation meeting was that the picture is supposed to represent a batter who takes a stride on his swing and contacts the ball while stride foot is in the air.  The stride foot then comes down outside the box and the ball hits the batter.

 

The illegally batted ball rule is still in effect.  It seems like a case of FED saying they are "clarifying" things and just making them more difficult with poor diagrams & explanations.

[JaxRolo]

Most umpires are more likely to call a foul ball than an out on this.

 

After all if you are tracking the ball properly with your eyes. It will be hard to see where the foot is anyway.

[Majordave]

I saw the slide last night at Kansas High School Rules Meeting. Presenter, from KSHSAA HQ, apologized for apparent inaccuracy of the slide and spoke to what it was "trying" to portray and that it was already a rule. The change was merely an attempt to clarify the situation for new umpires. (And, in my opinion, those OOO's who take things too literally or try to take over games and make it about them. We all know at least one. Unless, of course, we are "That Guy").

[noumpere]

I saw the slide last night at Kansas High School Rules Meeting. Presenter, from KSHSAA HQ, apologized for apparent inaccuracy of the slide and spoke to what it was "trying" to portray and that it was already a rule.

 

What is it trying to portray?

[Rich Ives]

It's not confusing at all. You are confusing two different situations.

 

1) HITTING A PITCH with one foot out of the box is an out.

 

2) GETTING HIT BY A BATTED BALL with one foot out of the box is a foul ball (in FED).

[Pops]

That said, if both feet are on the ground, let's say RHB, right foot out of the box, left foot still in the box, as in batter taking the 1st step towards 1st base, how long are both feet actually on the ground at the same time?? wouldn't the left foot come up off the ground the moment the right foot hits the ground? 

 

As far as I can see, if I've got a batter who's taken the first step towards 1st and then gets hit by the batted ball, I'm pretty certain his trail foot is off the ground, not in the box, and he is out. 

When is the second foot considered out of the box? Is it when it comes up off the ground or is it when it lands outside the box? I've never heard this one discussed anywhere.

[noumpere]

 

That said, if both feet are on the ground, let's say RHB, right foot out of the box, left foot still in the box, as in batter taking the 1st step towards 1st base, how long are both feet actually on the ground at the same time?? wouldn't the left foot come up off the ground the moment the right foot hits the ground? 

 

As far as I can see, if I've got a batter who's taken the first step towards 1st and then gets hit by the batted ball, I'm pretty certain his trail foot is off the ground, not in the box, and he is out. 

When is the second foot considered out of the box? Is it when it comes up off the ground or is it when it lands outside the box? I've never heard this one discussed anywhere.

 

There is a specific case play where the ball is legally batted, the batter steps with one foot outside the box, the other foot is still on the ground in the box, and the ball bounces up and hits the batter.  Ruling:  Batter is out.

 

Some think the "new slide" contradicts that case play. 

 

If so, it won't be the first time FED changes something and doesn't get all the references to the "old rule" changed. 

 

If not, as MajorDave implies above, then FED needs to clarify what is meant by the "new slide."

[Majordave]

Trying to portray what Jason/MidAmUmp mentions in OP.

The words discuss new rule about batted ball hitting batter with one foot in the box being foul. Pic (mechanigram drawing) has RHB with lead foot on the ground out of/in front of front line of batters box. There is a line-Arrow drawn to portray ball bouncing from bat to batter's foot or leg. Slightly misleading. Tough thing to portray in single two-dimensional drawing. A multi-box cartoon or comic book style series depicting frame by frame of event would have been easier to follow.

[Jimurray]

That said, if both feet are on the ground, let's say RHB, right foot out of the box, left foot still in the box, as in batter taking the 1st step towards 1st base, how long are both feet actually on the ground at the same time?? wouldn't the left foot come up off the ground the moment the right foot hits the ground? 

 

As far as I can see, if I've got a batter who's taken the first step towards 1st and then gets hit by the batted ball, I'm pretty certain his trail foot is off the ground, not in the box, and he is out.

When is the second foot considered out of the box? Is it when it comes up off the ground or is it when it lands outside the box? I've never heard this one discussed anywhere.

There is a specific case play where the ball is legally batted, the batter steps with one foot outside the box, the other foot is still on the ground in the box, and the ball bounces up and hits the batter.  Ruling:  Batter is out.

 

Some think the "new slide" contradicts that case play. 

 

If so, it won't be the first time FED changes something and doesn't get all the references to the "old rule" changed. 

 

If not, as MajorDave implies above, then FED needs to clarify what is meant by the "new slide."

The new interp does contradict the caseplay:

"8.4.1 SITUATION B:

B1 squares to bunt and hits the pitch. The batted ball bounces off the plate and hits B1's (a) leg or, (b) bat a second time while B1 is holding the bat in the batter's box (no foot is entirely outside of the batter's box).

RULING: In (a), it is a foul ball. In (b), the ball is foul unless, in the umpire's judgment, the ball was contacted intentionally, in which case the ball would be dead and B1 declared out."

FED added "f" and "g" to 2-16-1 this year. Our Texas rules guys say that FED has told them that the caseplay will go away and as long as one foot is touching in the box it will be a foul ball if the batter or his bat is hit by the batted ball

[maven]

That case play is not apposite: in the slide, the batter has a foot outside the box; in the case play, "no foot is entirely outside of the batter's box."

[Jimurray]

That case play is not apposite: in the slide, the batter has a foot outside the box; in the case play, "no foot is entirely outside of the batter's box."

In the slide isn't a foot touching the ground outside the box? So one foot would be entirely outside the box and the batter would be out per the caseplay. And why would Texas say that FED said that the caseplay will be removed?

[MidAmUmp]

It's not confusing at all. You are confusing two different situations.

 

1) HITTING A PITCH with one foot out of the box is an out.

 

2) GETTING HIT BY A BATTED BALL with one foot out of the box is a foul ball (in FED).

 

To paraphrase Bob Uecker, "Dynamite drop-in Monte. That umpire message board has really paid off."

 

I think we all know the difference between the two rules and we all appreciate you pointing out the differences. However, the illustration provided by NFHS appears to show a batter making contact with a baseball with his front foot completely outside the batter's box.

 

More than anything, I agree with @Majordave - to provide a little more clarification for those people who are just getting into umpiring and might not be as familiar with the rules & interpretations, they should have provided 2-3 pics for the entire play: The batter legally hitting the ball. The batter taking a step out of the box. And the batter being hit by the rebounding ball with 1 foot in and 1 foot out of the box.

 

Again, it's not very likely that a batter would hit a ball with his front foot in the air. It might happen, but I can guarantee the ball isn't going very far.

[maven]

 

That case play is not apposite: in the slide, the batter has a foot outside the box; in the case play, "no foot is entirely outside of the batter's box."

In the slide isn't a foot touching the ground outside the box? So one foot would be entirely outside the box and the batter would be out per the caseplay. And why would Texas say that FED said that the caseplay will be removed?

 

 

Yes, in the slide a foot is outside the box. And no, the case play does not address that situation: it explicitly rules on what happens when both feet are inside the box. It offers no guidance on the play from the slide.

[noumpere]

 

 

That case play is not apposite: in the slide, the batter has a foot outside the box; in the case play, "no foot is entirely outside of the batter's box."

In the slide isn't a foot touching the ground outside the box? So one foot would be entirely outside the box and the batter would be out per the caseplay. And why would Texas say that FED said that the caseplay will be removed?

 

 

Yes, in the slide a foot is outside the box. And no, the case play does not address that situation: it explicitly rules on what happens when both feet are inside the box. It offers no guidance on the play from the slide.

 

We have always known that a better who is hit by a batted ball while still inside the batter's box is not out, while a batter who is hit by a batted ball while outside the batter's box is out.

 

The question has been how to define "inside" and "outside" (it could be the part that's hit is beyond the vertical plane, it could be one foot on the ground, it could be two feet on the ground, etc.)

 

The case play has helped us by defining "in the batter's box" as "no foot is entirely outside the box."  So, it follows that "outside the box" is "at least one foot entirely outside the box."  Under the case, then, being hit while "one foot is entirely outside the box" would be an out.

 

The slide has the batter being hit while "one foot is entirely outside the box" (as I understand it), yet has a ruling of "foul ball."  I have no problem with that ruling, but it *is* a change.

 

Now, the definition of "inside" is "at least one foot on the ground inside the box".

[goody14]

That case play is not apposite: in the slide, the batter has a foot outside the box; in the case play, "no foot is entirely outside of the batter's box."

If that is FED's intention, then it is written in a confusing manner.

 

"B1 squares to bunt and hits the pitch. The batted ball bounces off the plate and hits B1's (a) leg or, (b) bat a second time while B1 is holding the bat in the batter's box (no foot is entirely outside of the batter's box)."

 

In my opinion, when you put the phase in parenthesis you are using it to define the statement immediately before the parenthesis or what being in the batter's box means.

 

Writing in this style would lead to some of the worst SAT reading comprehension questions ever like....

Question 1: Read this statement - "Clara got to vote today (she is 26)".

How old do you have to be to vote?

a) At least 26

b) The minimum number in some subset of whole numbers of which 26 is a member

c) Any age up to recently deceased in Chicago

d) All of the above

[JaxRolo]

 

That case play is not apposite: in the slide, the batter has a foot outside the box; in the case play, "no foot is entirely outside of the batter's box."

If that is FED's intention, then it is written in a confusing manner.

 

"B1 squares to bunt and hits the pitch. The batted ball bounces off the plate and hits B1's (a) leg or, (b) bat a second time while B1 is holding the bat in the batter's box (no foot is entirely outside of the batter's box)."

 

In my opinion, when you put the phase in parenthesis you are using it to define the statement immediately before the parenthesis or what being in the batter's box means.

 

Writing in this style would lead to some of the worst SAT reading comprehension questions ever like....

Question 1: Read this statement - "Clara got to vote today (she is 26)".

How old do you have to be to vote?

a) At least 26

b) The minimum number in some subset of whole numbers of which 26 is a member

c) Any age up to recently deceased in Chicago

d) All of the above

 

 

[ricka56]

Why hasn't the PU kicked out the front part of the batter's box before the game started. I ain't getting an out in either case (batting with one foot out or hit on the bounce). I only care about the back of the box.

[catsbackr]

A lot of other things to pay attention to or keep track of on a pitch than exactly where the batter's feet are at the precise moment he contacts the ball.  Kill it, reset.

[Sayhey]

I missed this question today as I did the test with a fellow umpire on the phone in San Diego. We both missed it. The Feds are bureaucrats that probably never played or umpired baseball. They must justify their paycheck by screwing around with the rules. I.E. There is no need for"follow through interference". backswing interference has served us well for many years. In this scenario it sounded like a drag bunt. I answered that the batter was out because he was hit by a fair batted ball while out of the batter's box. The test question describes a batter hitting a pitch legally and then being struck by the ball with his front foot completely out of the batter's box and on the ground.

That's out of the box. I rule dead ball and out. I have interference. I believe I got this wrong but the Feds won't give me the wrong answers, just a score. 86. I thought I got 100. The questions are worded in an awkward way.

[Sayhey]

Ricka56- I was in row 1 in Detroit last summer and the Tiger lead off hitter dropped down a drag bunt that popped up in front of him and hit him in the chest. He had one foot in the box and one foot completely out of the box on the ground as he ran toward 1st base. U.I.C. Ruled time; batter interference; batter out. The U.I.C. Had not kicked the chalk out of the front of the batter's box. I believe the mlb plate umpire used the chalk as a tool and reference point.

[Jimurray]

I missed this question today as I did the test with a fellow umpire on the phone in San Diego. We both missed it. The Feds are bureaucrats that probably never played or umpired baseball. They must justify their paycheck by screwing around with the rules. I.E. There is no need for"follow through interference". backswing interference has served us well for many years. In this scenario it sounded like a drag bunt. I answered that the batter was out because he was hit by a fair batted ball while out of the batter's box. The test question describes a batter hitting a pitch legally and then being struck by the ball with his front foot completely out of the batter's box and on the ground.

That's out of the box. I rule dead ball and out. I have interference. I believe I got this wrong but the Feds won't give me the wrong answers, just a score. 86. I thought I got 100. The questions are worded in an awkward way.

FED changed this year in spite of keeping the case play that defines being out of the batters box. Peruse the threads. Regarding the Detroit call/OBR that changed a few or one or a couple of years ago, both feet have to be in the box. Your welcome to kick the chalk out of any side of the box that gives you rule interp problems. But you should understand what the rule is that you are trying to circumspect.

And yes the FED test, whether local or national will have some problematic questions. Did you pass or fail or is the grade important otherwise?