CIF High school rule

[bda600]

Situation: Batter steps into batters box, runs the end her bat along the chalk line of the opposite box (once) to "measure herself up" to the plate. The PU tells her not to erase the lines. Another batter later steps into the box, levels the dirt with her feet. Dirt of course goes over the chalk Line (what is left of it). The mount of dirt that went over the line was minimal. She did not scrap a foot worth onto the line. PU tells batter that she cannot erase the lines, calls time out and informs coach that if another batter touches the lines they will be charged with a strike. Niether batter was intentionally "erasing the lines." Both batters are experpienced travel players and do the same routine everytime. What is or is there a rule that prohibits the batters from touching or "erasing the lines"? Could a player be charged a strike?

Thanks

[Sam]

It really doesn't matter what rule the PU is invoking, the player had better not violate the PU's directive. The PU gets to call balls and strikes on any pitch they wish and there isn't a thing you can do about it. I would apologize to the PU and instruct my players to comply.

[Comp]

CA for the most part follows FED rules. There is a rule about purposely erasing the lines. I of course would have to see it, but from explanation would not call what the batters were doing as intentionally erasing the lines. I have seen batters that purposely wipe out the lines, and it is obvious when they do.

[GIMNEPIWO]

Yes, the batter may be charged a strike for intentionally removing the lines, it is rule 3-6-17 in NHFS ... It should also be noted that if the defense does it, the batter can be awarded a ball ...
And if the Umpire says they did it, they did it, because it's a judgement call ...

[Bretman]

Not "may" be charged with a strike..."shall" be charged with a strike. There's no "freebie" here- a strike should be called on the first violation.

This umpire apparently is misinterpreting the spirit and intent of rule (it needs to be an intentional act to be penalized) AND not applying the proper penalty prescribed in the rule book (by issuing a warning without accessing the penalty strike).

I wonder...if a runner is coming in to score and slides- across his precious chalk lines- would he charge the next batter with a strike?

[bda600]

Thanks. It of course was not intentional and I understand that it is a judgment call. All together both umpires were not the best. LOL.

[MTR]

Not "may" be charged with a strike..."shall" be charged with a strike. There's no "freebie" here- a strike should be called on the first violation.

This umpire apparently is misinterpreting the spirit and intent of rule (it needs to be an intentional act to be penalized) AND not applying the proper penalty prescribed in the rule book (by issuing a warning without accessing the penalty strike).

I wonder...if a runner is coming in to score and slides- across his precious chalk lines- would he charge the next batter with a strike?

It's a ludicrous, coach-driven rule that is completely unnecessary