20 sec rule FED 7-3-1

[smoump]

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?

[Justme]

Originally posted by smoump
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.

[mcrowder]

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).

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by smoump

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?

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

[mcrowder]

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by mcrowder
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).

[smoump]

Originally posted by mcrowder
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.

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.

[ozzy6900]

Originally posted by smoump
SNIPPED
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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by smoump

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.

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.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by mcrowder

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?

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 OLD 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

[jicecone]

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.

[DG]

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.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by PeteBooth
Originally posted by smoump

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?

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

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

[DG]

[/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.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by DG

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