Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 3      Prev   1   2   3   Next
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,044
Reply with quote  #31 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadDogsDad
No it is like say any members of a group must be 18 when you meant to say all members of a group.
OK. Whatever floats your boat.


ChinMusic

Registered:
Posts: 541
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadDogsDad
We are talking about the first line right? if the heel is part of the foot and the heel is in the box, then any part of that foot is in the box. Based on what is written, there is not a syllable that says you have to have the whole foot inside the box.



3LT is choosing to use the second sentence and ignore the first.  CLEARLY.
Stephen

Registered:
Posts: 2,028
Reply with quote  #33 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadDogsDad
We are talking about the first line right? if the heel is part of the foot and the heel is in the box, then any part of that foot is in the box. Based on what is written, there is not a syllable that says you have to have the whole foot inside the box.


It is saying that any part of either foot that is on the ground has to be in the box.  It is very poorly worded, but that is it.
Kurosawa

Registered:
Posts: 2,598
Reply with quote  #34 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
And, if they are not ruling that replants are now legal, they better start calling that crap


Except, as written, the rule can be interpreted as meaning a replant is not illegal as long as an obvious re-push isn't also gained. That it allows the pitcher to re-set the pivot (or fulcrum) of the pitch and add torque/spin, is ignored. A "leap" is apparently not the same as a "hop", since the latter clearly isn't being called.
CajunAmos

Registered:
Posts: 994
Reply with quote  #35 
If is definitely confusing. Plenty of slappers currently have a front foot in the air outside the box but not having touched the ground. Out or not? What about non slappers who have a front leg kick and who's front foot is in the air when the ball makes contact with the bat but lands outside the box after. Out of not? If out on one but not on the other, what would be the difference in the two?
ChinMusic

Registered:
Posts: 541
Reply with quote  #36 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunAmos
If is definitely confusing. Plenty of slappers currently have a front foot in the air outside the box but not having touched the ground. Out or not? What about non slappers who have a front leg kick and who's front foot is in the air when the ball makes contact with the bat but lands outside the box after. Out of not? If out on one but not on the other, what would be the difference in the two?


Does anyone really have one foot OFF the ground AT CONTACT?
Kurosawa

Registered:
Posts: 2,598
Reply with quote  #37 
Looks OFF to me:

[3-800x800] 
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,044
Reply with quote  #38 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurosawa


Except, as written, the rule can be interpreted as meaning a replant is not illegal as long as an obvious re-push isn't also gained. That it allows the pitcher to re-set the pivot (or fulcrum) of the pitch and add torque/spin, is ignored. A "leap" is apparently not the same as a "hop", since the latter clearly isn't being called.
No. If rear-leg cleats are perpendicular to the dirt and then are the only point of contact with the ground, it is -- incontrovertibly -- a replant. ALL of the weight of the pitcher is at the point of contact.
Kurosawa

Registered:
Posts: 2,598
Reply with quote  #39 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
No. If rear-leg cleats are perpendicular to the dirt and then are the only point of contact with the ground, it is -- incontrovertibly -- a replant. ALL of the weight of the pitcher is at the point of contact.


 
Quote:
10.4.5 Leaping is not allowed. The pitcher may not become airborne on the initial drive from the pitcher’s plate. The pivot foot must slide/drag on the ground.


The umps are ignoring hopping, so strike the red rule above.

 
 
Quote:
10.4.6 Crow hopping is not allowed. The pitcher may not replant, gain a second starting point and push off her pivot foot. Once having lost contact with the pitcher’s plate, the pivot foot may trail on the ground but may not bear weight again until the pitch is released.


The blue rule can be read to mean: The pitcher may replant, gaining a second starting point, as long as she does not then push off her pivot foot. This is exactly how the rule was enforced (or not enforced) in the WCWS. The only way to eliminate this as a plausible reading would be to change "and" to "or".

In the green rule, if the pivot foot is not dragged on the ground, the rule need not apply. The rule can thus be read to mean: If the pivot foot is trailed on the ground, it may not bear weight again. This is exactly how the rule was enforced (or not enforced) in the WCWS. Because Barnhill was not trailing her pivot foot on the ground, but hopping, the green rule did not apply to her. The only way to eliminate this as a plausible reading (given that hopping is okay) would be to eliminate "may trail on the ground but".

Undoubtedly these interpretations were spelled out in ESPN's secret addendum to the rules...


3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,044
Reply with quote  #40 
That goulash of syllables there is difficult. You are making zero sense.

Trailing cleats perpendicular to dirt and back knee bent toward the outfield, cleats being shoved into the ground as the only point of contact with earth... replant. It is bearing ALL the pitcher's weight.

Easiest thing in the world to see and call

And, the green words pertain to ALL of those pitchers who replant.

It ISN'T called because the umps in the SEC have been instructed to ignore the rule book and not call it. It is absolutely against those written rules.
Tomahawk

Registered:
Posts: 25
Reply with quote  #41 
The new language (feet inside box and on ground) could really put a big hurt on offensive production.  (sorry, couldn't help myself)

Image result for frank thomas hitting
jtat32

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #42 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunAmos
What about non slappers who have a front leg kick and who's front foot is in the air when the ball makes contact with the bat but lands outside the box after.


Can't say I've ever seen that happen at any level in either softball or baseball.  It would certainly be an ugly swing if it did.

Rear foot, all the time - as the pic above demonstrates.
MadDogsDad

Registered:
Posts: 2,178
Reply with quote  #43 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtat32


Can't say I've ever seen that happen at any level in either softball or baseball.  It would certainly be an ugly swing if it did.

Rear foot, all the time - as the pic above demonstrates.


In the pic above the foot that was initially the front foot is off the ground.

__________________
And if I don't like what you say then...

your kid sucks.
outofzone

Registered:
Posts: 809
Reply with quote  #44 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadDogsDad
In the pic above the foot that was initially the front foot is off the ground.


How can the right foot on a right handed batter..above....ever be the front foot? That doesn't make sense.
MadDogsDad

Registered:
Posts: 2,178
Reply with quote  #45 
Quote:
Originally Posted by outofzone


How can the right foot on a right handed batter..above....ever be the front foot? That doesn't make sense.


Sorry I thought it was in reference to the slapper, I missed the non in front of slapper.

__________________
And if I don't like what you say then...

your kid sucks.
outofzone

Registered:
Posts: 809
Reply with quote  #46 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
That goulash of syllables there is difficult. You are making zero sense.

Trailing cleats perpendicular to dirt and back knee bent toward the outfield, cleats being shoved into the ground as the only point of contact with earth... replant. It is bearing ALL the pitcher's weight.

Easiest thing in the world to see and call

And, the green words pertain to ALL of those pitchers who replant.

It ISN'T called because the umps in the SEC have been instructed to ignore the rule book and not call it. It is absolutely against those written rules.


This above pretty much sums it up.

Barnhill is the 2017 poster girl for illegal, and rightfully so. The rules as written and, when interpreted to her mechanics, means she is illegal as soon as she leaves the rubber.

Whether you're a fan or not, hater or love the kid, objectively speaking she is allowed to do something no other pitcher in the NCAA is permitted to do.


Still_JAD

Registered:
Posts: 319
Reply with quote  #47 
Does the committee have any plans to revisit the wording of illegal pitches?  They either need to find umpires who will enforce the rules or change them.  After the success of Kelly Barnhill this season I bet there are 100s of 10U and 12U pitchers asking their pitching coaches to teach them to replant like Kelly...get ready, a storm is coming!
Kurosawa

Registered:
Posts: 2,598
Reply with quote  #48 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
That goulash of syllables there is difficult. You are making zero sense.


My point is that the written rules only matter if they are being enforced. Otherwise, assume the opposite.

If the rule against leaping isn't enforced, even as an infrequent deterrent, the rule against crowhopping, if going by the letter, is turned into a hopeless logic pretzel.

The printed rule book is not the real rule book, which is now the closely held property of ESPN/SEC (they are now one and the same). Does this corrupt the game? Absolutely it does.
outofzone

Registered:
Posts: 809
Reply with quote  #49 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurosawa


My point is that the written rules only matter if they are being enforced. Otherwise, assume the opposite.

If the rule against leaping isn't enforced, even as an infrequent deterrent, the rule against crowhopping, if going by the letter, is turned into a hopeless logic pretzel.

The printed rule book is not the real rule book, which is now the closely held property of ESPN/SEC (they are now one and the same). Does this corrupt the game? Absolutely it does.


Big time.

Kurosawa

Registered:
Posts: 2,598
Reply with quote  #50 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadDogsDad
In the pic above the foot that was initially the front foot is off the ground.


ChinMusic asked: "Does anyone really have one foot OFF the ground AT CONTACT?"

Didn't specify which one. The answer is obviously "yes", on either count.
ChinMusic

Registered:
Posts: 541
Reply with quote  #51 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurosawa


ChinMusic asked: "Does anyone really have one foot OFF the ground AT CONTACT?"

Didn't specify which one. The answer is obviously "yes", on either count.


When I asked the question I was thinking more in terms of a traditional hitter relative to Amos' comment about a leg kick. Isn't the front toe back down by ball/bat contact???
HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 548
Reply with quote  #52 
<< No instant replay? There is some Title IX inequity for you. Corrupt CLOWNS! >> (3LT)

<< And nothing about Illegal Pitches either >> (outofzone)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I completely agree with both of you.
Instant replay should definitely have been discussed - and then implemented.
No talk at all about illegal pitches...??
You have got to be kidding!!!!

Add to those two... that the HBP BS has not been addressed. 

That's three strikes - you myopic rules committee..!!

Wake the F up... and address the more meaningful matters. 
HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 548
Reply with quote  #53 
<< Can someone please please please explain this to me.  I always thought that as long as part of the foot was touching chalk, you were okay. The way this reads, if your toe is over the chalk you are out.  Am I wrong in my interpretation? >> (redbirddone)

No, you are not wrong in your interpretation. 
They are talking about changing it from what you said it used to be - to this new rule.
Any part of a foot out of the box (when the bat contacts the ball) and the batter is out.

I am fine with this change.

<< And how is it going to be enforced when the batter's box lines are pretty much gone by the 2nd or 3rd inning. >> (redbirddone)

They will need to re-chalk it every so often.
HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 548
Reply with quote  #54 
<< It makes no sense as written.  The first two sentences contradict themselves. >> (PH2)

No, they don't. 

"The committee proposed requiring hitters to have any part of both feet touching the ground inside the lines of the batter’s box when bat-ball contact is made."

Sentence one is saying: A batter MUST HAVE any part (of both feet) that are touching the ground - inside the lines of the batter's box... when bat-ball contact is made.

This clearly means that All of each foot MUST BE inside the lines of the batter's box - when bat-ball contact is made.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"A hitter who makes contact with a pitch with any part of her foot touching the ground outside the lines of the batter’s box will be declared out."

The second sentence - just clarifies what happens - if a batter does not keep ALL of each of her two feet - inside the lines of the batter's box - when bat-ball contact is made. The batter will be declared out.

If ANY part of her foot is touching the ground - OUTSIDE the lines of the batter's box - when bat-ball contact is made - she will be declared OUT.

==================================

The two sentences do NOT contradict anything. 
They support each other.

It seems very clear - to me.

HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 548
Reply with quote  #55 
<< The first and second sentences are DEFINITELY contradictory.  If a player's foot is on the line with heel inside the lines and toes outside the line what is the call? >> (ChinMusic)

ChinMusic - They are not contradictory. It is not that hard to understand. 
ALL of each foot MUST be entirely inside the lines of the batter's box - when bat-ball contact is made.

If ANY part of a foot is outside of the lines of the batter's box - when bat-ball contact is made - the batter is OUT.

So... in the situation you listed above (part of a foot is outside the lines of the batter's - when bat-ball contact is made) the toe is outside. The batter is OUT.
HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 548
Reply with quote  #56 
<< So answer my question.  Batter is standing with one foot on the line.  Heel is inside the line, toes are outside. Base hit.  What's the call? >> (ChinMusic)

Batter IS OUT!

Because "toes are outside" - the lines of the batter's box - when bat-ball contact is made. 

It really is quite clear - to me.
HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 548
Reply with quote  #57 
<< There is a part of a foot not inside the box. Clearly an out in that rule rewrite. 
Clearly >> (3LT)

Exactly!
HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 548
Reply with quote  #58 
<< 3LT is choosing to use the second sentence and ignore the first.  CLEARLY. >> (ChinMusic)

No... he is not.

Both sentences support each other. 

There is no contradiction.
HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 548
Reply with quote  #59 
<< If is definitely confusing. Plenty of slappers currently have a front foot in the air outside the box but not having touched the ground. Out or not? >> (CajunAmous)

CA - The proposed new rule clearly states that some part of a foot has to be on the ground - outside the lines of the batter's box - at the bat-ball contact. 

So... the batter would be OK in your scenario. A foot off the ground is OK.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

<< What about non slappers who have a front leg kick and who's front foot is in the air when the ball makes contact with the bat but lands outside the box after. Out of not? >> (CA)

A non-slapper with a front leg kick... ALWAYS has that front foot land down on the ground by the point of bat-ball contact. Absolutely no one - is making bat-ball contact with their front leg kick - leg in the air. 

And - whatever they do after bat-ball contact does not matter. It is all about where the foot is at bat-ball contact. 

To try and answer your scenario...
A batter with a front leg kick - who's front foot lands partially outside the lines of the batter's box - at the point of bat-ball contact... would be OUT!
And that would be true if their foot landed partially outside the lines of the batter's box - to the front of the box, or to the left of the box, or to the right of the box. 

I guess they could even be called out for being partially outside the lines of the box - to the back of the box... if they started out too far back. 
HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 548
Reply with quote  #60 
<< 10.4.5 Leaping is not allowed. The pitcher may not become airborne on the initial drive from the pitcher’s plate. The pivot foot must slide/drag on the ground. >>

<< The umps are ignoring hopping, so strike the red rule above. >> (Kurosawa)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Kurosawa - The umpires are ignoring every part of that rule listed above (not just the red portion). 
Barnhill is leaping.
Barnhill does become airborne on the initial drive from the pitcher's plate. 

Pretty much on EVERY pitch she delivers. 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.