|
The PU told the catcher and coach he didn't consider the batter out of the box. That's the PU's judgment no different than his ball/strike call. He also told them there's no rule prohibiting the batter from leaning over the plate. The PU is correct in that there is no rule prohibiting that.
The problem here isn't whether or not the foot is in the box or whether the line is part of the box. Rather, the problem is whether or not the umpire considers him as in the box since no line exists. If the batter is touching the plate with his foot, like the catcher claims, then the defense needs to get the umpire to admit that fact. If he doesn't admit it, then it's purely judgment. If he says the batter is touching the plate and that there's no rule against it, then the coach needs to protest. He didn't protest.
Still, the PU could have simply drawn the inside line to the box (6" off the plate), told the batter not to set up outside that line, and kept everyone happy. The batter can still "lean across the plate" if he wants to, but if he's hit in the zone the PU should have the gonads to keep him the box.
This PU caused his own headaches that could have easily been avoided.
The coach let him off easy by not pressing the issue on the rule interpretation and using his protest tool to assure the rule was adhered to as best it could be under the conditions.
All in all, it sounds like either you didn't get the full details, or else the PU is a total horse's a$$.
Just my opinion,
Freix
|