Hitter out of the batter's box - new NCAA rule?

[radness]

NCAA should go back to their old rule rather than trying to bandage their self-inflicted wound.

Right there
Raise the hand and just say oops.

 

[CoachJD]

NCAA should go back to their old rule rather than trying to bandage their self-inflicted wound.

ETA:
The old rule is consistent with most (all?) other organizations.
The old rule is consistent with what it means to be on the line: dead ball territory, pitcher's circle, pitching lane, batted ball hits batter in or out of the box, etc.

Correct.

Though I will say I am OK with the penalty being a delayed dead ball and then a strike/defense takes result of play and not an automatic out. I can understand the argument that the penalty for being out of the box (however you define it) was too harsh.

 

[slowcelica]

In concept how is this different then a right handed batter, hitting the ball while out of the box. Shouldn’t the rules match?

 

[The Man In Blue]

Correct.

Though I will say I am OK with the penalty being a delayed dead ball and then a strike/defense takes result of play and not an automatic out. I can understand the argument that the penalty for being out of the box (however you define it) was too harsh.

How was it too harsh? I disagree on this as much as I disagree with no longer awarding runners a base on an illegal pitch. The penalty is "harsh" to discourage you from doing it. Why is that so difficult to understand? It isn't a personal affront on your player. This isn't rocket science. Break the rule, suffer the consequence. If we don't want the rule, eliminate the batter's box and be done with it. Let the batter stand anywhere they want.

Sorry ... only the second week of school and they've already got me close to the edge.

 

[Gtrips07]

It's called we're too afraid to make pitchers pitch legally so we will throw a bone to the offense. I agree with Rad, strike one and two and I'm cheating as much as I can, strike three I'll be legal.



Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

 

[CoachJD]

How was it too harsh? I disagree on this as much as I disagree with no longer awarding runners a base on an illegal pitch. The penalty is "harsh" to discourage you from doing it. Why is that so difficult to understand? It isn't a personal affront on your player. This isn't rocket science. Break the rule, suffer the consequence. If we don't want the rule, eliminate the batter's box and be done with it. Let the batter stand anywhere they want.

Sorry ... only the second week of school and they've already got me close to the edge.

We can disagree on this one. There are rules, and there are penalties for breaking the rules. There are degrees of penalties based on how serious the infraction is/how much of an advantage breaking the rule can give the offender.

An automatic out is a pretty serious penalty for an infraction that I don't necessarily think warrants it. I think a strike is more appropriate (I also think it was good to change the illegal pitch penalty to no longer award the free base).

I also don't feel too strongly about the penalty on this one. What determines the infraction is a much bigger deal, and we agree the NCAA is wrong about that.

 

[mmeece]

For whatever reason I find this so tough to see as an umpire unless it is blatant (like stepping on the plate);

I struggle with the timing between making sure I have ball/strike and seeing the foot/bat contact. I generally concentrate on ball/strike on the first pitch to a batter, looking to see if there is the possibility of bad footwork and then work from there. Either way, I won't miss a ball/strike call - that is the priority.

This rule isn't going to help; I see it as rewarding bad technique as well as being extremely difficult to enforce consistently. Also, it will take a year or two to get into all the other rule books (or not) so that adds to the already long list of things people will complain about.

I'm glad to see an established umpire say this. I've tried to pay attention to this (even though the rule sets I call would require the foot to be entirely outside the box to be called out) and the ONLY time I see it is if the slapper is badly fooled by a changeup and out of the front of the box.

 

[black17]

Whole foot out is impossible to see 9 out of 10 times. You can't look THRU a person to see if the other side of them is on the line or not. Toe out is easy to see 9 out of 10 times. If an ump doesnt have the capacity to call it consistently, just don't call it at all. I'm ok with that.

Can we also change the rules for leaving the base early? I teach my kids to leave early EVERY TIME and force the ump to call it. 99 out of 100 times they don't, but when they do, I make a huge deal out of it, demand we 'call it consistently', and berate umpires for 'changing the outcome of games'.

Don't push the rules to the very last fraction of a millimeter, problem solved.

The existing rule is perfectly fine. ALL games in ANY sport are played to the whims of the officials. Figuring it out is part of the game. Lets all just shut up and play! That new proposed rule is not only unneeded, its dumb.

 

[marriard]

Whole foot out is impossible to see 9 out of 10 times. You can't look THRU a person to see if the other side of them is on the line or not. Toe out is easy to see 9 out of 10 times. If an ump doesnt have the capacity to call it consistently, just don't call it at all. I'm ok with that.

Then why have a rule at all? And I disagree either way. The whole foot out of the box tends to be blatant and I can normally tell it is going to happen because the batter tends to have terrible technique; small part over the line, not so easy especially with a line that is often not even visible.

Can we also change the rules for leaving the base early? I teach my kids to leave early EVERY TIME and force the ump to call it. 99 out of 100 times they don't, but when they do, I make a huge deal out of it, demand we 'call it consistently', and berate umpires for 'changing the outcome of games'.

I am going to say that feels like a real d**k move. You know you are doing it and then get all pretend upset when you get called on it?

In 3-man I call runners leaving early way more regularly because my position gives me a straight view of the runner and the pitcher so I can see both the release of the pitch and the runners feet easily. In 2-man, not so much.

From 'B' (i..e between 1st and 2nd); I can't easily see the pitch release AND the runner's feet at the same time - eyes simply don't work that way. It is just so much harder to be certain when you are relying on peripheral vision; so it does have to be more blatant. One of the $50 calls (i.e. if you paid for another ump, there would be someone there to call it). It is not that I don't want to call it, but I have to be certain and it is just not my #1 priority.

Don't push the rules to the very last fraction of a millimeter, problem solved.

The existing rule is perfectly fine. ALL games in ANY sport are played to the whims of the officials. Figuring it out is part of the game. Lets all just shut up and play! That new proposed rule is not only unneeded, its dumb.

The rule isn't fine because there is no way to call it consistently. And if you can't do that - then why have a rule at all?
They may be getting it wrong in how they are changing it, but I do appreciate that they are trying (which they have been avoiding for years on illegal pitches)

My Solution: Make the batter set up in the batters box before the pitch and then let them do whatever they want with their feet once the pitcher starts as long as they don't cross the edge of the plate at contact (extended both behind and in front of the plate). Probably needs some work

 

[black17]

Then why have a rule at all? And I disagree either way. The whole foot out of the box tends to be blatant and I can normally tell it is going to happen because the batter tends to have terrible technique; small part over the line, not so easy especially with a line that is often not even visible.



I am going to that feels like a real d**k move. You know you are doing it and then get all pretend upset when you get called on it?

In 3-man I call runners leaving early way more regularly because my position gives me a straight view of the runner and the pitcher so I can see both the release of the pitch and the runners feet easily. In 2-man, not so much.

From 'B' (i..e between 1st and 2nd); I can't easily see the pitch release AND the runner's feet at the same time - eyes simply don't work that way. It is just so much harder to be certain when you are relying on peripheral vision; so it does have to be more blatant. One of the $50 calls (i.e. if you paid for another ump, there would be someone there to call it). It is not that I don't want to call it, but I have to be certain and it is just not my #1 priority.



The rule isn't fine because there is no way to call it consistently. And if you can't do that - then why have a rule at all?
They may be getting it wrong in how they are changing it, but I do appreciate that they are trying (which they have been avoiding for years on illegal pitches)

My Solution: Make the batter set up in the batters box before the pitch and then let them do whatever they want with their feet once the pitcher starts as long as they don't cross the edge of the plate at contact (extended both behind and in front of the plate). Probably needs some work

Whoa, my sarcastic example about leaving early worked way better than I thought it would.

And for the sake of clarification, the comment about leaving early was sarcasm. I am applying the same arguments I hear about slappers out of the box to another part of the game, and you gave me the exact response I hoped I would get. Yep, leaving early is hard to see at time. Yep, its inconsistent. Yep, it can change the outcome of a game. And yet, that gets a pass. If we can live with inconsistent calls on leaving early, we can live with inconsistent calls on the foot placement.

Folks push it as far as they can go on any rule. "If you aint cheatin' you ain't tryin'" I think is how it goes. Its the umps DUTY to set where the line is. Most coaches getting bent out of shape is part of the grand play just like Broadway, or the WWE. They just want to push your line a little more one way or the other to get an advantage. Per the rules though, if you are out of the box, you are out of the box. If you live on the edge, eventually it gets sharp enough to cut you. Again, I'm okay with that. If you don't want inconsistent calls, don't push the rule to the smallest degree.

Oh and I bet you are a real fine umpire. I appreciate you and your opinion on the subject.