Penalty reads "for failure of the batter to be ready within 20 seconds after the ball has been returned to the pitcher, the umpire shall call a strike. If the batter leaves the batter's box, delays the game, and none of the above exceptions apply, the plate umpire shall charge a strike to the batter".

Should I read this as "if he leaves box AND delays the game? Another words, he can leave box as long as he doesn't delay the game?

Situation: 3-1 count, pitch is a strike, but my timing is deliberate, he begins his advancement to first thinking the pitch was a ball. Once he hears it was a strike, he is already out of the box.

Solution a) he left box, additional strike batter out.

Solution b) tell batter to return to box, 3-2 count.

What do your great minds think!! I personally would do b, but am I miss applying the rule?

In your situation I'd tell the batter that it was a ball & to get back in the box, count 3-2.

In other situations I simply tell them to stay in the box. If things get out of hand then I'll pentalize the batter but that hasn't happened very often.

When all else fails, use common sense. The purpose of this penalty is to avoid delays caused by the batter. It would be ludicrous to penalize him for just happening to be out of the box, when this had no effect on the game (and was not his fault anyway).

<i> Originally posted by smoump </i>

<b> Penalty reads "for failure of the batter to be ready within 20 seconds after the ball has been returned to the pitcher, the umpire shall call a strike. If the batter leaves the batter's box, delays the game, and none of the above exceptions apply, the plate umpire shall charge a strike to the batter".

Should I read this as "if he leaves box AND delays the game? Another words, he can leave box as long as he doesn't delay the game?

Situation: 3-1 count, pitch is a strike, but my timing is deliberate, he begins his advancement to first thinking the pitch was a ball. Once he hears it was a strike, he is already out of the box.

Solution a) he left box, additional strike batter out.

Solution b) tell batter to return to box, 3-2 count.

What do your great minds think!! I personally would do b, but am I miss applying the rule? </b>

The Purpose of the rule is to speed up the game and not allow the batters to do their Jeter like nuances. If you go back a few years, the rule was real stringent and in the situation you brought up we would charge a strike to the batter.

However, the FED realized that the rule needed to be amended and get back to the real purpose which is to speed up the game.

IMO it's a simple rule. If you judge that B1 is delaying the game by being out of the box and none of the exceptions mentioned in the rule are prevalent, call a strike, if not leave it alone.

Also, do some preventative umpiring, meaning if you see batter's completely out of the box taking signs from their coaches, instruct them right then and there that it will not be tolerated. Keep one foot in the box, get your sign and let's play ball.

Pete Booth

Pete, there was NEVER a time where we rung up a strike on a batter for thinking he had been given ball four and taking a step or two toward first base before we said, "STRIKE!". Never ever. Why would you say that? That's something I would expect from any one of 2 current or 4 previous posters.

7.3.1F is the relevant case. I seem to recall that it was changed a few years ago -- iirc, the ruling used to be that B1 was charged an additional strike. It generally wasn't called, though (unless B1 had previously done something to po the pu).

My original question centered around the and/or of the rule. I have never issued a strike for this. I am comfortable with a deliberate strike and if this timing is too slow for an impatient batter, so be it.

7-3-1 does say "The batter must keep at least one foot in the batter's box throughout the time at bat".

But common sense dictates that we do not call this a strike. However, Pete is correct in saying that years ago (96 ish) when I coached, this was a strict rule. Anytime they stepped out, it was a strike (assuming not meeting one of the exceptions). For umpires that were not working or understanding the rule then, may not be aware now of its existence.

Well back in the mid 90's, we were told to enforce the rule because everyone out there was playing the "Nomar Garciapara" game. Batters were stepping out and just being ridiculous.

In your situation, the batter assumed ball 4. He doesn't get punished for that. He is punished when you call "strike" and he stops jogging and looks like a fool!

Rule 7-3-1 is one of those rules that as an umpire, you have to really feel that B1 is intentionally delaying the game. In other words, you have the rule in your back pocket - it is your choice to use the rule.

My take (and don't take this literally)on the rule:

If the batter steps out and one of the six exceptions DOES apply: The bater has 20 seconds to return to the bax.

If the batter steps out and one of the six exceptions DOES NOT apply: The batter cannot delay (umpire judgment -- and 20 seconds is a long time).


My take on the enforcement: It's a tool to be used if the batter is abusing the requirement. It's not a strict "see it / call it" rule. Because the batters know you have the tool, you rarely need to use it.

<i> Originally posted by mcrowder </i>

<b> Pete, there was NEVER a time where we rung up a strike on a batter for thinking he had been given ball four and taking a step or two toward first base before we said, "STRIKE!". Never ever. Why would you say that? </b>

McRowder: Perhaps your state did not adopt all FED rulings and you need to do research before responding.

There was a FED case play on EXACTLY the aforementioned issue. It didin't matter what the batter thought. B1 has to give the umpire a chance to make the call and in the <b> OLD</b> rule, if he left the box because he thought it was ball 4 (that was not one of the exceptions) the umpire COULD call a strike in accordance with the way the OLD rule was written.

I am NOT saying I would call it but simply pointed out that until FED changed it's stance and issued an addendum to the rule by stating that "AND the batter Delays the Game (That language was absent in the old rule)" an umpire was within his/her rights to call a strike in the aforementioned scenario. That's one of the reasons why FED changed it's ruling.

Before making statements as you did, PLEASE research the topic.

Pete Booth

Never ever had to call a penalty stike because I first used common sense, along with some preventive umpiring.

Can't say what I would have done if that didn't work, because it always did.

I have never called a 20 second penalty strike. I can't count how many times I have said "stay in the box" or "get in the box" to batters. And then we occassionly have the 3B coach who hollers at the batter who is already in the box to "step out of the box", and I generally follow this with "you better step out with only one foot".

Usually, after an inning or two the batters and coaches learn I am not going to let them wander around.

My advice is keep them in the box and you will not have to worry about penalty strikes.

I could never really quite understand how simply having one foot in the batter's box speeds things up. If the batter is not ready, for whatever reason, whether ONE or TWO feet are out of the batter's box, the game cannot commence.

I never badger batters about having one foot in the batter's box when taking their signs because I could never understand what difference it makes. We're all going to have to wait until the coach is done giving the signs, one way or the other.

On the other hand, I *will* mention it to the batter if he's one of these guys that likes to go through a lengthy, out of the batter's box ritual, after every pitch. But if it's just a matter of getting the signs from the coach, I could really care less where his feet are.

The delay stems from the signs ... not the feet location. Making him keep a foot in the batter's box while taking his signs isn't going to have any substantial effect on the progress of the game. But insisting that it be done in a specific way *will* have the effect of making the umpire appear as a nitpicking nag.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[/B][/QUOTE]
I could never really quite understand how simply having one foot in the batter's box speeds things up. If the batter is not ready, for whatever reason, whether ONE or TWO feet are out of the batter's box, the game cannot commence.[/B][/QUOTE]If both feet are out the batter is more likely to take 2 or 3 practice swings, fiddle with his batting gloves, etc. and the game will last 15 minutes more than it should.

I could never really quite understand how simply having one foot in the batter's box speeds things up. If the batter is not ready, for whatever reason, whether ONE or TWO feet are out of the batter's box, the game cannot commence.[/B][/QUOTE]If both feet are out the batter is more likely to take 2 or 3 practice swings, fiddle with his batting gloves, etc. and the game will last 15 minutes more than it should. [/B][/QUOTE]

Like I said, if he goes through some kind of delaying ritual, then I *will* comment on the matter. BUT - if all a batter is really doing is just taking a practice swing or two and getting his signals, I don't consider that delaying the game. I won't mention it. In my experience, the latter case describes a vast majority of the players.

I don't think I've ever felt the need to invoke this provision.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

<i> Originally posted by David Emerling </i>


<i> I never badger batters about having one foot in the batter's box when taking their signs because I could never understand what difference it makes. We're all going to have to wait until the coach is done giving the signs, one way or the other. </i>

David we do not HAVE to wait until the coach is done giving the signs. That's the point of the rule. As far as one foot in the box it DOES speed up the game. The player simply turns, gets the sign and is ready to hit. If he is COMPLETELY out of the box, it will take longer.

We should not have to wait 1 or 2 minutes in between pitches and IMO, an umpire is NOT nit-picken should he/she enfore the rule.


<i> On the other hand, I *will* mention it to the batter if he's one of these guys that likes to go through a lengthy, out of the batter's box ritual, after every pitch. But if it's just a matter of getting the signs from the coach, I could really care less where his feet are. </i>

David, talk is "cheap" and the fact is if you "mention" it and nothing happens then what. Also, the rule applys to BOTH teams. IMO it's being a good Official to do some preventative umpiring in inning one so that the game has a "flow" to it.

Why! Suppose the game is tight and the threat of rain/darkness is imminent, by not following the rule IN THE BEGINNING you have allowed one team to take an unfair advnatge over another not intened by the rules.

The problem is with umpires who do not enforce the rule in inning one and now all of a sudden start enforcing it in inning 5-7. IMO, it's the same as a PU who in the late innings starts to "shrink" / widen his/her zone and a pitch that was a strike/ball in innings one through 4 is now the opposite.

You can give all the warnings, talks you want but until you ACTUALLY penalize the team will they get it. I raised 4 kids and i could talk to them until I was "blue in the face" it's only when I ACTED ie; grounded them or took the keys away, then they "got it"

As mentioned, Do some Preventative Umpiring and let both temas KNOW that we are here to play baseball and not a reading assignment on what the coaches signs are.

By the way I do not know if it will come to fruition, but there is talk that MLB might adopt the FED ruling about B1 keeping one foot in the box so that guys like Nomar and Jeter do not delay the game.

Keep the Game moving

Pete Booth

I understand your point - and it's a good one.

I don't believe I'm ignoring any rule. An umpire should penalize a batter for being out of the batter's box *IF* such action delays the game.

After receiving the sign from the 3rd base coach, if the batter promptly prepares to hit, whether by bringing his other foot into the batter's box, or, by entering the batter's box from being completely out of the batter's box - makes no difference to me. We're talking fractions of seconds and it is overly officious to badger the batters on issues that are of no substance.

Again, this is just my opinion. I would not criticize an umpire for handling it your way. Perhaps it's a matter of style than substance. It's not my style.

And I've observed it is also NOT the style of MOST umpires. At least in my area, no umpires are very strict on this matter and our games move right along.

I would only enforce this rule <b>IF</b> the action delayed the game. And, I believe, that <b>is</b> the rulebook criteria. It's one of those, no harm, no foul type of things ... in my opinion.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[/B][/QUOTE]
I don't believe I'm ignoring any rule. An umpire should penalize a batter for being out of the batter's box *IF* such action delays the game.

I would only enforce this rule <b>IF</b> the action delayed the game. And, I believe, that <b>is</b> the rulebook criteria. It's one of those, no harm, no foul type of things ... in my opinion.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN [/B][/QUOTE]Read 7-3-1. It says the batter must keep at least one foot in the batter's box throughout the time at bat, and then lists exceptions. Now how many times has the batter stepped out of the box when one of these exceptions did not apply and you called a strike, by rule you could.

I don't believe I'm ignoring any rule. An umpire should penalize a batter for being out of the batter's box *IF* such action delays the game.

I would only enforce this rule <b>IF</b> the action delayed the game. And, I believe, that <b>is</b> the rulebook criteria. It's one of those, no harm, no foul type of things ... in my opinion.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN [/B][/QUOTE]Read 7-3-1. It says the batter must keep at least one foot in the batter's box throughout the time at bat, and then lists exceptions. Now how many times has the batter stepped out of the box when one of these exceptions did not apply and you called a strike, by rule you could. [/B][/QUOTE]

You're right - by rule you could call a strike. It's probably a regional thing. We just don't get all anal about it here.

We kind of treat it like the OBR version of how the base coaches <i>have</i> to remain within the confines of the coach's box. It's a rule. You could badger them about it. Or, you can let it go unless somebody complains -or- it starts to become a problem. Other than that, we just let it go.

I have to tell you - our games move right along and there just doesn't seem to be any need. If the batters start getting ridiculous, WE WOULD INVOKE IT. But I don't recall ever having to do that.

Let's remember <i>why</i> FED changed the appeal rule. Even <i>they</i> acknowledged that many of the umpires were reluctant to call it. This is how change comes about. Bad rules are eventually ferreted out. I think calling strikes on batters for simply having both feet out of the batter's box is one such rule (<i>without even delaying the game!</i>). And I know I'm not alone. If I started calling that in the Memphis area, I would rapidly become the bearded lady at the circus - an oddity. To me, this rule is nothing more than a question on a written exam.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Mar 11th, 2006 at 07:32 PM]

There is a difference between batter stepping out of the box and coach stepping out of the box. One carrys a defined penalty by rule, the other does not. The stepping out of the batter's box penalty is one that is routinely ignored by everybody I know. I have never seen it called. However, everybody I know is going to tell the batter to keep one foot in the box if he steps out when one of the exceptions does not apply. The original poster wanted to know how to handle this situation. Unless he wants to be an OOO he will keep batters in the box also, and save the penalty for an extremely rare situation.

The comparison with the coaching box was just an analogy. Of course there's a difference. The <i>point</i> was not that the rules are the same, rather, that many people <i>treat</i> them the same; i.e. don't sweat it unless it becomes an issue.

I think telling the batters to keep a foot in the batter's box without assessing them a strike is fine and workable. It just sounds like a lot of unnecessary work (and badgering) for something that probably isn't affecting the game one iota. In other words, you're "fixing" something that's not broke.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

We disagree. If you don't keep them in the box, the game will last longer than necessary. You apparently think long games are ok.

Quick DRAW
 

Allow the batter time to pick up the bat and get his head on straight. Afterall, he just perceived/experienced the most common of all optical illusions, BALL FOUR. The deliberate strike call usually straightens out any confusion.

You misunderstand me, so I'll clarify. There was a time when we were to call this rule strictly... but not in the sitch provided here. No clinic I ever attended nor spoke at ever told an umpire to call a player out in THIS scenario. Stepping out for no reason is a completely different situation, one to which I was not referring.

Interesting how you immediately assume something adverse about my experience from this though...

The only reason I mentioned experience is that you seemed to think I was not around 7 years ago when the rule was more strict. But I was. And at no time did I ever see, do, or hear of Peter's assertion that we should call a strike on a batter who thought he'd received ball 4.

If it matters...

Baseball OBR since 1985.
Baseball FED since 1992.
Softball ASA since 1990 (except 2003) / UIC since 2001.
Softball FED since 2000.
Softball NCAA Fill-In since 2003.
Never worked U-trip, although I keep current on the rules just in case.
Football NCAA since 2002.

<i> Originally posted by mcrowder </i>

<b> The only reason I mentioned experience is that you seemed to think I was not around 7 years ago when the rule was more strict. But I was. And at no time did I ever see, do, or hear of Peter's assertion that we should call a strike on a batter who thought he'd received ball 4.

If it matters...

Baseball FED since 1992. </b>

If you were doing FED games since 1992 then how can you say </i> "And at no time did I ever see, do, or hear of Peter's assertion that we should call a strike on a batter who thought he'd received ball 4. </i>

Not to beat a dead horse, but it's one thing to not enforce a rule and one thing to say You never saw or heard of it.

As I and Bob Jenkins pointed out, it's right in the FED case Book. If you have a copy of an old FED case book before the rule was changed, read the Case play on the situation being discussed.

BTW did you hear about accidental appeals in FED or you never heard or saw those either.

Pete Booth

I did not say I'd never heard of the rule. Good grief. I do remember that the rule was unusually strict immediately after it was put in. But I also remember this coming up in clinics when someone wanted to point out the absurdity of the rule as written, and being told (more than once) that the rule was not intended to be implemented in cases like the one discussed in the OP. Yes - the rule DOES include this case, but it was not the INTENT of this rule (according to my bosses at the time) to be used in this case. Kind of absurd to think that the rulesmakers would have wanted us to call an extra strike on the batter simply because we took a second longer than he thought we would in making our strike call. What's to prevent the OOO's in the house from simply delaying ALL of their 3-1 strikes until the batter started heading toward first base on what he thought was a BB - only to call STRIKE! and STRIKE THREE! for vacating.

Perhaps it was taught that way elsewhere. We were never told to be this absolute with the rule.

You don't know me. You don't know my level of knowledge. Those that have been around this site for a while would (probably!) attest to the fact that I generally know my rules and the appropriate interps for the various rulesets. There are those that might disagree with me on different subjects that come up for debate from time to time, but I don't think anyone here (except the 6 trolls) would say I don't know the rules in ANY of these rulesets.

My KNOWLEDGE of the rule in question is not really the question, is it? I've said I remember this rule being used in a strict manner.

My point was, however, that at no time (in my experience, at least - which may vary from yours in another part of the country) was I EVER told that that rule was supposed to be implemented in THAT (the initial post) case - and was in fact told exactly the opposite.

all umpires are learning. Some guys know more for a multitude of reasons, but we are all learning. We seek confirmation, advice, etc for one another. The site is designed for that purpose.

However, noone wants to be demeaned. "6 trolls" could possibly be demeaning. I have no idea if it is, but I could see how someone might think that it is.

You made a comment at the beginning of this thread that indicated that you felt some posters were not knowledgeable about this rule. This may be so. The need to point it out, however, is unclear.

Can we not be civil with one another, or is it a necessity to be condescending?

Just my two cents.

The troll question is just too easy, so I'll pass.

As far as 7-3-1 goes, I'm sure anybody who says that they have never seen it, means that they have never seen it enforced (right, mccrowder?).

I have been doing top-level HS Varsity ball since 1987, and not one single time have I ever called it, or seen it called by anybody. My Varsity 7-inning games average between 1:40 and 1:55 in length. If I think a batter is starting to stall or delay my post-game sandwich, I say, "hey, get in the box." I've never had one defy my order as of yet.

So, the bottom line is, a batter stepping out of the box to get his sign does in no way significantly delay the game. To say that two minutes transpire between pitches is ridiculous.

Re: Good Stuff, Good Stuff
 

Since you asked.

What is an Internet Troll?

An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true troll can not be changed by mere words.


Sound familiar?

Tim.

Well, my patience came to an end, so I dashed off a reply explaining how absurd most of the posts in this thread are.

I pasted it into WordPerfect to check the spelling (looking for typos, you understand: I <i>know</i> how to spell - grin), then did a quick word count: nearly 1100 words. Far too many for a message, just about right for a rebuttal article.

I'll post it tomorrow.

I didn't mean that I'd never seen it called (or called it myself). I meant that I'd never seen it called, heard of it called, or been told to call it IN THE SITCH ORIGINALLY PRESENTED. I have, in fact, called this rule (just not in this sitch) - albeit much more often 7 or more years ago. It was most often called early in the season with a new coach... some yahoo telling his batters to step out to get a sign. STRIKE! Didn't happen twice.