OldRaider22

From NFHS: 1-1-4 - At the time of the pitch, all fielders shall be on fair ground except the catcher who shall be in the catcher's box. A fielder is in fair ground when at least one foot is touching fair ground. Penalty: Illegal Pitch Also, you are mistaken about the catcher. On any pitch the catcher, 6-1-1 "shall have both feet in the catcher's box at the time of the pitch." Meaning simply that he cannot leave the catchers box until the pitcher commits to the plate by beginning his motion. However, most of the time you only see this on IBB since it would be silly for the catcher to be standing outside of the box before the pitcher came to the plate. That's probably what he was trying to tell you. And for the record, I'm not a fan of the Umpires R Us either.

If I'm not mistaken this was an issue in last year's state finals?? Anyone else remembering this?

:thumb: I'll add this...... 8 guys have to be in between the lines in order to play. The fielder may have one foot in foul and still be considered as in play. If the fielder has 2 feet in foul then no pitch can occur. Umpire should warn the fielder to get back in play, and then resume play. I too have experienced the bad end of this call, and have done my homework as well. The only "fielder's balk", if you want to call it that, is when the catcher leaves the catchers box area before the time of the pitch.

Along these lines.......saw this last year at one of my son's games. Runners on 1st and 2nd. Line drive back up the box. Hits the rubber and goes into the 1B dugout. What do you have?

Interestingly enough, I have seen this as well, also in Cincinnati! However in my scenario I think blue got it right. I see this fairly often......whoever does the lines and bags for the field had placed the bag with the line splitting the bag down the middle. Ball hit down 3B line, hits outside of bag, blue calls it a foul ball. Home team manager loses it, and blue replies, if you'd set up the field correctly we wouldn't have this problem. :lol:

:thumb:

I understand that it is about fairness. What I am trying to get across is that I think that the vast majority of the umpires out there try to be "fair". I think a lot of us lose sight of the fact that these aren't major league umpires, and they shouldn't be treated as such. As far as the strike zone goes, even the guys in MLB have distinctive strike zones. And they get evaluated by a computer! :scared: Now its not as bad as Eric Gregg's zone to Maddux where he gets 2 balls off the outside corner back in the late 80's early 90's, but there is still quite a bit of variance among the individual umpires. IMO umpires are as much a part of the game as bunting, pitching, and hitting. They are there to administer the rules and interpret them (hopefully correctly, but hey they're learning too). One man's ball may be another man's strike. However, I do agree that the game shouldn't be about the umpires, the best usually aren't even noticed.

If more umpires were sanctioned, we simply wouldn't have any umpires to officiate the games. The single largest problem facing the KHSAA is membership, there simply aren't that many people that want to umpire anymore. I do want to point out something to everyone. Having umpired before, I can tell you that this is a hobby for 95% of the men in blue. This is not their job, they don't spend their entire day studying the rules, practicing their strike zone, etc, etc. Usually it is something they do because they enjoy the game and like being around it. Now that being said many of them DO spend quite a bit of time studying the rules (maybe even at their real job ). But it isn't a life or death proposition for them, and it shouldn't be for you(the fan) either.

This is definately the exception and not the norm, my son's team plays a very competitive 70-80 game schedule. These kids are essentially "high school age", and IMO their team/games are played at a higher level than the vast majority of H.S. games. I think the team they were playing in this particular instance was in a little over their heads. I guess my point is that there are a few "unspoken rules" in baseball, one of those being that in a blowout situation, the zone will expand. I was once told by an umpire, "It's just like physics, as the umpire gets warmer things tend to expand" :lol: . I've heard a similar comment about the called ball on dropped strike as the umpire said, "I've never seen a strike that was rolling around on the ground." :lol: IMO the rules of baseball are somewhat subjective in nature, and lend themselves to the "judgement" of the umpire.

It has been entertaining to read this discussion. I'll throw out a situation for you and let you be the judge. My son, who is 13, had a game this weekend. They were to play a team from somewhere in Indiana twice. In the first game my son's team won 10-0 in 5 innings. The second game the score was 17-0 in at the completion of 2 innings! A couple things I thought were done right at that point. First, the scoreboard operator turned off the scoreboard. Second, the umpire widened the zone, especially on strikes 1 and 2. Never anything crazy, but wider nonetheless. I guess my question to you K3 is that do you think that the umpire should NEVER widen the zone? Even in the above situation? FYI the final score of the second game was in the 30's, with station to station baseball after 10 runs.

Problem is that because we haven't had much rain the ground is very, very hard. As a result all you get is runoff instead of it really soaking in. I'm sure they did their best to get it ready....... What would you rather have: A game of this magnitude that possibly could be decided because of sloppy field conditions OR wait and play another day> I'm sure both teams welcome the rest anyhow, wasn't/isn't HHS very close to the game limit as well?

I miss old Crosley field. I miss the smell of pine tar, and how it just got all over everything (not that you really cared, it kind of looked cool). I miss parents who could sit and enjoy a game without feeling the urge to criticize someone at the game. I miss casual fans and parents who would fill out a scorecard through the course of the game. I miss coaches who know the rules. I miss kids who played from sun up to sun down, whether they had a game or not, and loved every minute of it. And no college scholarships were involved....

This is the correct ruling......regardless of any other attempts that may be made to field the baseball. On a side note, it doesn't have to be a ball through the legs of a fielder or a "routine" play. Reasonable effort is fairly ambiguous and is left open to umpire discretion. Ball is not dead when it hits runner, unless intentionally kicked.

I AM saying that in coaching, as in life, you get what you pay for. Let me put it to you this way, say you start imposing all these threats and restrictions on coaches. What then? Many of your smaller schools already have trouble getting coaches for all of their sports. What your telling me is that you would tell the guy who cuts your lawn for free that he needs to wear a uniform when he does it? Or that he needs to watch his language? See what I'm saying? Coaches everywhere are increasingly put under the microscope, scrutinized by parents, media, etc. At what point do we begin to lose quality individuals as coaches? IMHO its a very slippery slop when you begin to take a moral stance as a public school.

:thumb: I kind of hinted at this earlier. Coaches coach. They teach the game.....and MAYBE some life lessons along the way. But last I checked nowhere in a coaching contract does it say educate the athlete on proper morals and etiquitte. And it shouldn't (in fact that may get you in hot water some places :lol: ). There is a big difference between a coach, whose primary job function is to prepare his/her athletes as best he can for competition, and a teacher, whose primary job function is to, as K3 put it "educate, develop knowledge retention, develop understandings, and increase intelligence. I'll even take it a step further. Baseball coaches literally make cents on the hour. And yet we are going to place them on this moral pedestal? I'm with you LBBC, I personally don't think it is necessary, but at the same time at some level I do see that it does have a place in the world of athletic competition.

See, I think it is all about context. I don't think you can paint this with that broad of a brush. For example, a local high school coach insulted a player by saying something to the effect of "maybe he'd play better if he wasn't running around with his girlfriend" (obviously a little more risque than that). I'd take more offense to that as a parent than I would a coach saying that my son was playing like --.

Unfortunately, I'd say that I'd find it more acceptable for my son rather than my daughter. I shouldn't but I do think I would. For me it is all in context, how and what is said. I'm a bit torn on this as I see both sides. I've seen a coach degrade and belittle a player nearly to tears. I've also witnessed the same player come back and thank the coach for a kick in the rear. I guess it comes down to how you define the role of a "coach"? Is that person there to coach the sport or is he/she there to coach the child? For the (literal)pennies a day that most coaches earn we sure do ask them to wear a lot of hats. On the other side, these are kids playing a kids game. They are impressionable and will mimic the actions of those they percieve to be "role models". They have enough bad representations out there in the world, coaches shouldn't add one more to that. Ultimately, it is up to the PARENT to teach their child right from wrong.

Reading all of this made me think of a few cliche sayings: "Judge not lest ye be judged first" "People who live in glass houses shouldn't cast stones" I'm not condoning the act, simply saying that I don't agree with the result. I often chuckle that we as a society find this type of behavior morally reprehensible yet the large majority are "sinners" themselves. Myself, as an educator, have found that instead of discouraging the negative behavior(cussing) I challenge them to come up with more creative adjectives. Surely our vocabularies extend well beyond four letter words.......

What about the kid from Highlands, Allen I think is the name??? From what I've seen he's had a terrific year at the plate AND on the mound. Not to take anything away from any of the other guys mentioned of course....I'd take 'em all.

Honestly, now that I think about it I may agree. Still, we're separating bad from worst at best IMO. The dirt infield really needs to become a thing of the past in NKY.

I'd agree with that sentiment. In comparison to fields in the Lexington, Louisville, or Ohio area......NKY fields are by far the worst. I personally don't care for the field at Meiken. Aside from St. Henry, here are some of the fields that are "decent" IMO........Scott, NCC, and well.......that's about it. In the "not decent but not bad category" Ryle Boone Co. CovCath Brossart Holmes/Holy Cross Simon Kenton Villa Bellevue(improving at least) Dixie Beechwood Just plain bad Lloyd Dayton Ludlow Conner I'm sure I forgot a few, but those are just off the top of my head.

Just riling you up a bit with the "cheer for BHS" comment. I always root for NKY in these games. As far as the lightning, I think your dead wrong. See the above post, but to summarize the rules and guidelines are: Any sign of lightning = players leave field(and that includes not seeing lightning but hearing thunder)

I agree and will add this: First, if I can say without a doubt that I would not want to be responsible for that lawsuit should something happen. I am not a weather man, and have no authority as such, and would want my kid off the field. Better safe than sorry. I'll guaruantee you that 3pt and myself would be some of the first in line to file that lawsuit had they continued to play and something happend. Second, according to an NCAA umpire who went through a 3 hour "lightning" education class; Players are to be removed from the field at ANY sight of lightning. In fact, to fully protect themselves as umpires they are supposed to clear the field at any sign of thunder as well. I know for years I've seen the men in blue look the other way(especially back in my playing days), but it seems the emphasis has shifted away from that.

I've only seen most of the stuff described in the FED book. I'd have to do a bit more research as OBR and MLB rules..... Either way, I think in my mind it would be a case by case situation and not a "blanket" statement.

There is no such thing as paranoid when lightining is involved. These are kids and that umpire is liable should someone be struck by lightining. God forbid you have to witness someone being struck by lightning as I have, but I think you'd change your tune. I don't think any of us would be willing to put our names at the top of that lawsuit in order to get the kids back on the field. Regardless, the "lightning rule" is just like any other rule. It is what it is, and we can't ask the men in blue to arbitrarily enforce it. And for the record I thought the same thing as you 3pt, that the runners leg was clearly on the plate. In fact, I honestly didn't think it was that close. And I by no means am a Beechwood fan (in fact, most days I'd just assume see them lose )