Yup, we understand nothing about the game of baseball. We're idiots.

Thank goodness that I don't have to work with such learned people as yourself.

Hehehe
 

I will let 3appleshigh body of work speak for itself.

Again, it is impossible to follow a pitch and watch the foot. Even in Canada that's a fact.

Regards,

That is a straw man argument and you know it.

Joe

Tee,

Has anybody ever called you a straw man before?

Oh, it would have to be the world's largest straw!:D

Excuse me Steve:
 

I am 6' and 190#s . . . as straws go, that would be about average.

I think.

Regards,

How many times a game does a batter hit the ball with his front foot in the air?

Thanks for being the grammer police.

correction: Grammar Police

Now that is just plain funny!!!:D

An English teacher no doubt!

On running bunt attempts, and attempts on outside pitches, more often than not.

HellifIknow - I'm not looking at their feet. Didn't I already cover that?!?!?! :)

Still larger than any straw I've ever seen!

Originally Posted by mcrowder
And you're SURE the foot is grounded at the moment the pitch hits the bat?

Then would did you ask this question earlier?

did I misread something ? ..........................
 

Doug

The MLB explanation
 

In the Phils/Cards game on ESPN right now, everyone is focused on Chase Utley's bid to get a base hit in his 34th straight game. The camera focused on his back foot, which was set up completely out of the back of the batter's box.

Whoever the ex-rat is who's doing the color commentary explained what would happen if the catcher complained about the batter's back foot being behind the back line of the box.

If the catcher complained to the umpire, Adam Dowdy, about it, Dowdy would enforce the rule and make Utley get in the box. Otherwise, it is ignored.

The commentator went on to say that the next time that complaining catcher came up to bat, he would get plunked by the pitcher.

That's how they take care of that stuff in the bigs. In the lower level, this is supposedly not taught. This is one big reason you don't see it called in big people baseball, because nobody wants to get pegged in the ribs by a major league fastball (or any fastball).

Edited to correct umpire's name.

So what gives? Stupid rule no one likes?

Pretty much.

And of course, the rat said the umpire was Adam Dowdy, when after a closer inspection, is in reality Ted Barrett. Dowdy is filling in for the ailing Rick Reed at 1st, with Diaz at 3rd, and Tschida at 2nd.

Moral: Never take a rat's word for it! (esteemed members excepted :) )

I must admit I got bored and skipped the last 4-5 pages of this thread. But I can't understand how anyone could miss a foot planted on the plate at the time contact is made.

I have no doubt I can track a pitch and see a foot on the plate at the same time, they are both right there in front of me. It is not impossible. It is easy.

Well yeah, of course it is easy. Not only is it easy to see, it is impossible not to see.

No, not really.

" A straw man argument is a rhetorical technique based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent."

Wow. I'm lurking from the softball board, as I often do, and I must admit that this thread is very interesting to me. This is a more common occurrence in softball than it is in baseball, I believe.

I of course yield to those who have expert clinic/training/working experience in baseball - I just wanted to add my own two cents into the mix on this subject:

I would suggest that - at least in softball - it is not something that is looked at simultaneously with the pitch passing through/not through the strike zone and/or striking the bat - but that it is something that is seen in the approximately 1/4 second immediately following the bat striking the ball - and that it is also, often peripherally detectable whether or not there is a chance the batter will do such a thing (based on a number of variables). This happens often in slow pitch softball (it is a common pitching strategy to make a batter with 2 strikes or an anxious batter to either reach to a pitch that is well outside or step out and away with the front foot to ably contact a pitch that is well inside), and occassionally in fast pitch softball (slap hitters). If it's obvious, it's usually fairly easy to see, at least for me. And if it's both obvious and agregious, I call it.

I realize there are multiple variables between the two/three games that make calling pitches and seeing this violation different - i.e. you want to see a bullet ripped down the line for fair/foul ruling, line drives caught or trapped, shots that hit runners for runner interference, etc. But I would also submit that the bases, and therefore defensive players and offensive baserunners are also further away from the batter (and the ball coming off his/her bat) in baseball.

I would also submit that I've previously worked two years of LL baseball (mostly 14 year-olds) - again - I do not claim to have much knowledge of baseball still, and did actually make this call on a RH batter who squared and bunted - with his right foot completed on and across the plate. I called dead ball, etc., explained why he was out (he was confused - and not a very good bunter - or player in general) and as it was the 3rd out, heard his coach further explain to him what he should try to do differently next time as he was leading him back into the dugout - he had seen it too.

So anyway, my shortened thought is: Glance immediately after the bat hits the ball - not at the same time. Just a thought. I look forward to your responses.

As always, a pleasure to read the baseball board.

29 years of umpiring, 4000+ games, and I have called it, probably once or twice per year; yet I have never had an ejection. I call it when it's so obvious that the guy in center field can see it. Example of an argument: "Now how the hell could you have seen that, Randy?!?" My reply: "Bill, when your batter runs up to bunt the ball and is halfway to the pitcher's mound when he makes contact with the ball, it's rather easy to call."

End of discussion.

I knew I was deprived. I have never seen a player do that. And you say it happens twice a year in your games?
Wow.

1. So you know where the batter's foot was after contact with the ball. We should change the rule to read "the batter is out when his bat makes contat with a pitched ball if his foot is completely out of the batter's box within a second or so after said contact."

2. After a batter hits a pitched ball, I have more important things to do than take my eye off the ball, namely, keeping my eye on the ball, especially on a bunt attempt.

No smarta$$, it's called an exaggeration. His point, since you can't seem to get it is this. Even with some of you big wigs on this site saying you would never "see" this violation he is saying that some of them are too easy to "see". Can't teach an old dog new tricks I guess.

I've got a better question. Why don't we get rid of the violation altogether since some of you choose not to call it.

I don't believe anyone said they chose not to call it. I could be wrong, I didn't go back and read all the posts. But, what I believe is being said is that some don't see the foot at the time of contact, which is a prime requirement to enforce the rule.

I'm sorry. I'm not familiar enough with the poster to know when he is exaggerating. Thanks for pointing that out, no wonder I've never seen that happen.

Of course it is easy to call and see. No matter what Jocko Conlon and his disciples here say, it is impossible NOT to see sometimes.

For anyone with any amount of experience to say he has NEVER seen it makes the BS detector beep quite vociferously.

Joe

This thread is just becoming silly. Garth - if I'm off ignore and you see this - are you honestly saying that when tracking the pitch you are unable to see if the batter's foot is in the opposite batter's box when bunting?

It's like saying a LL ump can't tell when a runner leaves early because he can't possibly look at both at the same time.

What about a tag up. Sure, you can line it up, but you can't see both at the same time, your vision needs to adjust on the distances you are looking at. Do you choose to ignore runner's leaving early because "you can't tell?"

C'mon.

Well Garth if the rules require you to be aware of this problem, and you cannot see it, I guess YOU ARE NOT DOING YOUR JOB!

I think you should go out and get the HSM, the improved vision might help one as myopic as you.

If a batter's foot is still pivoting in the dirt from a swing (- the most common)and/or the foot is still planted and is now pushing off the dirt to start running to 1B (and I'm positive it wasn't in the air during the contact) and/or and/or coming up from the dirt to start running to first base (and I'm positive it wasn't in the air during the contact - and I can see the entire cleat-print under the shoe/where the shoe was - also pretty easy to see) - I'm suggesting that more often than not, depending what type of swing/swinger it is/was, it's usually pretty easy for me to detect whether or not they violated the rule - agregiously or not - when the bat made contact with the ball.

In my mind, it's somewhat similar to other events that happen on the field of play which occur when the ball is arriving at/around the strike zone that I'm responsible for seeing from time to time when I'm PU - especially when working in a one-person system - i.e. a runner not being in contact with a base when the ball is hit; contact between catcher and batter on pickoff/steal attempts; a batter offering/not offering on a pitch that is a ball. These things often do require I pay attention to 2 things at once, or at least very close to doing so.

I completely understand what you're saying - and I would also submit that, especially on things such as bunts and anything else where an immediate fair/foul ruling may be necessary, that I would obviously not take my eye at all off the ball.

That must be it. I'll run out and buy another Hockey Mask tomorrow. Then, I'll set it so tight that I'll begin to believe that taking my eye off the ball at time of contact is more important than watching the contact, or that where the foot is after contact must be where it was at contact.

Hey, Rich. You're a helmet fan. Why didn't you tell me that was all I needed?

I get it probably once or twice a year, and it's always on a bunt attempt. One can still track a pitch and see a batter's foot out of the box when it's as blatant as it has to be for me to call it.

Helmet masks are for cathers, not umpires.

Woooooooo! Here we go now! :D



buckles up for another 10 pages of "You suck!" No, YOU suck!"

When the pitch is coming in, i can see the batters feet out the corner of my eye; from the slot stance

Is that with a helmet on or just a regular mask?

I use both...from the hockey mask i cant see it as well as with the regular mask.

Let's see, "When the pitch is coming in..." translates to "when it really doesn't matter."

Tell me, when you track the pitch all the way to the bat making contact on the outside corner by moving only your eyes, what do you see?

(By the way, the slot is a location...heel to toe is a stance.)

Outside corner i usually dont see the batters feet. inside part of plate...I do see it. I follow the pitch from the time the pitcher has it, from the time it the catcher get it.

If the slot is a stance, what other stances could there be?

What matters, I'll say yet again, since it's not getting through to several here ... is not where the foot is when the pitch comes in, nor just after contact. What matters is where the foot is WHEN the ball is contacted - that exact moment.

Positive (non-blurry) peripheral vision is about 25-30 degrees from where one is looking - everything else is not clear, if you think it is, you're kidding yourself.

The angle on MOST pitches between the umpire and the ball vs the umpire and the feet is WAY more than 25-30 degrees (it's closer to 90 on anything above the waist, closer to 60 on even low pitches). Those using GD have slightly smaller angles than these, but still no where near 25-30 degrees unless the ball is a VERY low (out of the zone) pitch.

You CANNOT see these two events simultaneously - if you are looking at the feet, you aren't doing your job. I can't be any clearer than that.

If the catcher got it, we have no issue, right? :)

Seriously, if you're watching the pitch until it is hit, and then looking down to see feet - you've likely lost significant sight of where the ball is going. The natural thing is to watch where the ball is going, and except for this one minor thing that happens exceedingly rarely (foot being out of the box at the moment of contact), you're going to find you're much better off keeping an eye on where the ball is going than losing it to check foot placement and then trying to pick it up again.

But, do you wear them both at the same time? Now that I'd love to see!!!:D

LOL a can of gasoline is so easy to light!

What do you think!?!?! lol No...its not possible to wear both...unless one is wayyyy bigger then the other.