Batter out of box

[Tim C]

I don't know how to answer you.

I don't look down at the plate during an at bat.

I don't care where the batter stands before the pitch . . . that reference has no value too me.

In the real world I have worked decades of baseball and never considered calling this situation. I am not good enough of an umpire to properly track a pitch, read everything that happens at the moment of impact betwix bat and ball AND also look down to see a batter's foot.

Not being a reptile with individually functioning eyes I can only do so much at a time.

I cannot answer your question of a hypothetical situation as my games happen in the real world.

I am not trying to be difficult I am simply answering your question.

In a four man crew with crowder, fronheiser, benham and Tee it is impossible to say never, but it would appear to be a cold day in he11 before any of us would call the batter out.

But that is only four of us and none of us were trained in San Diego.

Regards,

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Tim C

But that is only four of us and none of us were trained in San Diego.

How very sad for you.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Garth, this is not a "hypothetical question." This actually happens once in a blue moon. I wanted an answer to the question, "If you did see it, would you call it?" I didn't want an answer to "If you didn't see it?"

Steve, this is, indeed, a hypothetical question. First hint: use of the word "if." Second hint: it is a conditional or contingent statement. The questioned is based on the condition or contingency of "If you did see it..."

This reminds me of a student I had a few years ago. During a debate, he said, "I don't answer hypothetical questions." I then asked, "Do you mean that if I were to ask you a hypothetical question, you wouldn't answer?"

He replied, "That's right, I wouldn't", completely ignorant of the fact that he just did.

[RPatrino]

I have only been asked to call a batter out for contacting the ball while outside the batter's box twice.

Once, as PU, defensive coach poops his pants on a bunt attempt, screaming "he's out of the box, blue!!". I turn to him, take off my mask, and giving him my best, " you are a dumba** look", I remark, "Coach, the lines are gone, would you like to redraw them for me?" His answer, " Would you call it if I did?", I retorted, "NO".

Second time, as BU in A. Fouled off bunt attempt, partner comes to me for "help". "Was he out of the box?" " I respond, "yes, he went". 1st base coach nearly falls down laughing. Partner responds, "NO, was he out of the batter's box?" I respond, " Probably not" as I turn and trot back to A.

After the game I emphasize to my partner that I am about 105 feet away from that play, and there is NO WAY I could make a call.

[Carbide Keyman]

Originally Posted by LLPA13UmpDan

Well what brought this up is, I was the plate umpire for a major division softball game last sunday,

......that Young Dan was not "instructed" to take his post to the softball forum, post haste.

Our hardliners must like the kid.





Doug

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by PWL

Just scatter shooting while if any of the fantastic four have been able to call a batter out for being out of the batters box and being hit with a fair batted ball. Hopefully their concentration on the pitch isn't so great they would miss this call, too..........

That play isn't simultaneous with the pitch. It doesn't require concentrating on two different things at the same time. One simply continues to follow the ball. I would have thought you knew that.

Or did you take your shooting lessons from Dick Cheney?

[spots101]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I am not good enough of an umpire to properly track a pitch, read everything that happens at the moment of impact betwix bat and ball AND also look down to see a batter's foot.

Wow, and with your "Columnist" title and your 3801 games and your 1,500+ posts I'm really kinda disappointed in you.

Originally Posted by Tim C

A "better" example for you to ask would have been:

Right handed hitter, and the hit-and-run play is on. F1 pitches out so that the ball is in the left handed batter's box - - -

Batter reaches Waaay across and pokes the ball into right field.

What would you call?

Again, when tracking a pitch I would have no idea if the batter's foot was actually on the ground outside the batter's box -- I do not call what I do not see therefore I would ignore it.

38 years, 3801 games and I have never considered calling this "violation."

What would you call? Hmmm. Well, if the batter reaches over and is able to hit the ball without any "violation" then we have a fair ball, if hit to the left of the foul line. It is humanly possible for the batter to do this and have both feet in proper position. This play was on Sportscenter not too long ago. One doesn't have to be a lizard to be able to look down right after impact from the bat hitting the ball and notice if the batter is out of the box. Notice I didn't say at the moment of impact but rather after impact. The batter's momentum will not allow him to instantly correct his "violation".

Maybe you should change "Strikes & Outs" to "Picks & Chooses".

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by spots101

One doesn't have to be a lizard to be able to look down right after impact from the bat hitting the ball and notice if the batter is out of the box. Notice I didn't say at the moment of impact but rather after impact. The batter's momentum will not allow him to instantly correct his "violation".

No, but his momentum will allow it to appear he was in violation when he really wasn't.

The rule doesn't say the foot needs to be on the ground "right after impact." Just because it might be on the ground after impact doesn't mean it was on the ground AT impact.

[3appleshigh]

I called this wed night, Batter turns to bunt early, Blocks my view early, then I pick up the ball again the pitch is a good foot outside, batter reaches over and bunts the ball fair, His foot even the print was still there directly behing the point of the plate. With my periferal vision I can see if he moves his leg in a mannor to lift the leg prior to impact (maybe the better vision of the HSM helps - but wait there is no advantage for that) it is a tie game and an attempted SAC. Slower runner on base so the player had to try to hit the ball or the runner is DOA on the play. I Called him out and returned the runner. It was obvious blatent and was a direct violation in an attempt to gain an advantage. I'm soory some of you wouldn't have the nuts to make the right call.

Also had one in HS this season where a kid almost straddled the plate and bunted. When it is rediculously obvious YOU MUST CALL IT. Maybe your lucky and never had one this bad, but I have had 2 this year, probably have seen 1 a seson or every other, but it does happen. And it is not as difficult as you want to make it out.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by GarthB

At the moment contact is made between ball and bat, the only moment that counts for being out of the batter's box, your full focus is, or should be, solely on the pitch. Saying that you can tell, peripherally, at the exact same time, that the foot is both out of the box and grounded is either incorrect or an indication that you are not performing your primary duty at that time to your fullest potential.

To add to Garth's advice, in other words, maybe it's one of the reasons you were calling strikes on balls that hit the plate in that other thread.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by PWL

Scatter shooting is hypothetical term. I would have thought you knew that.

No, it's not. And, yes, I knew that it wasn't.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Oh come on now. You guys are a crack up. You can't honestly say that if you see the batter step across the plate before the pitch comes, and he doesn't move from that spot, that he isn't out of the box when he hits the ball. Common sense tells you that he is out of the box. He didn't just magically appear outside of the box after the hit, nor did he jump into the air at the moment of impact either. He's standing there, blocking your view of the pitch, for cryin' out loud. How can you not see that he's out of the box?

You guys are just in love with being right all the time. It also seems like you would love to avoid any controversy at all costs, as this play would interupt the flow of your game.

The four man crew Tee was describing earlier would be a hoot to watch, I'm sure.

And Dave,

LLUmp13 was working a 7 year old child softball game, just what kind of good, tight zone was he supposed to have? He probably would have been there 4 or 5 hours if he didn't expand his zone. Everybody has to start somewhere, so give him a break.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Oh come on now. You guys are a crack up. You can't honestly say that if you see the batter step across the plate before the pitch comes, and he doesn't move from that spot, that he isn't out of the box when he hits the ball. Common sense tells you that he is out of the box. He didn't just magically appear outside of the box after the hit, nor did he jump into the air at the moment of impact either. He's standing there, blocking your view of the pitch, for cryin' out loud. How can you not see that he's out of the box?

You guys are just in love with being right all the time. It also seems like you would love to avoid any controversy at all costs, as this play would interupt the flow of your game.

The four man crew Tee was describing earlier would be a hoot to watch, I'm sure.

And Dave,

LLUmp13 was working a 7 year old child softball game, just what kind of good, tight zone was he supposed to have? He probably would have been there 4 or 5 hours if he didn't expand his zone. Everybody has to start somewhere, so give him a break.

1. We are all the product of our experiences. Mine have obviously been different than yours.

2. You have graduated from the simple hypothetical to the third world hypothetical....congratulations. I have no answer for third world hypotheticals as I am lacking in that experience. I am amazed that after all the posts I'ver read about the wonderful calibre of ball you work and the MLB players you've had in your previous games and all the MLB umpires you've worked with that you still have games in which the players are this ignorant. I have not been so fortunate.

3. Widening one's zone should not include pitches that strike the plate, at any level of play.

4. A hoot indeed. At least three of the four have worked D-1 and various levels of pro-ball. (I am not up to date on Crowder's background) They each use CCA mechanics and have a similar understanding of the game. It might come to pass, and if it does, you are free to sit in the stands and watch.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by PWL

To be totally honest, I should be the one giving him the the shooting lessons. I am very adept at knocking a dove out the air at about forty yards using a 4-10 gauge shotgun. I typically use a single or double barrel 4-10 to hunt with as they are considered an "experts" gun. I don't get quite the competition with a 20 gauge. Perhaps my keen hunting eye allows me the ability to track the ball better than most and to see things that other mere mortals cannot.

Scatter shooting is hypothetical term. I would have thought you knew that.

It's not "4-10," it's ".410." 4-10 is the dyslexic version of the answer you give Dick Cheney when he asks you if you're all right after he just sprayed you. "10-4 good buddy."

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by GarthB

1. We are all the product of our experiences. Mine have obviously been different than yours.

2. You have graduated from the simple hypothetical to the third world hypothetical....congratulations. I have no answer for third world hypotheticals as I am lacking in that experience. I am amazed that after all the posts I'ver read about the wonderful calibre of ball you work and the MLB players you've had in your previous games and all the MLB umpires you've worked with that you still have games in which the players are this ignorant. I have not been so fortunate.

3. Widening one's zone should not include pitches that strike the plate, at any level of play.

4. A hoot indeed. At least three of the four have worked D-1 and various levels of pro-ball. (I am not up to date on Crowder's background) They each use CCA mechanics and have a similar understanding of the game. It might come to pass, and if it does, you are free to sit in the stands and watch.

1. I don't care what level of ball you happened to have worked. Perhaps they were desparate for umpires. I'm sure I could work any level you've ever worked. Quit using that tired old "you're not good enough" crap with me. You really don't know, and shouldn't believe anyone who would say differently. Why do you feel the need to criticize me, or make fun of me for having worked with MLB umpires (true) and many current and former MLB players (also true). It is frankly very unchristianlike, and you claim to be a Christian. How does insulting my experience improve your argument on this subject?

2. I have worked some very high caliber ball, and some pretty good games at that. I have also worked lesser games in which a player has hit the ball while obviously outside of the box. So blatant, that not to call it would be a disservice to the game.

3. I use the mechanics that were taught to me by pro school grads and MiLB umpires, and I have a pretty darn good understanding of the game. I didn't umpire as a hobby, I did it 6 or 7 days a week, nearly year round, for many years. You get a pretty good feel for it after that amount of work is put in, not to mention playing the game my whole life.

4. A real life, non-hypothetical batter was completely and blatantly out of the box when his bat contacted the ball, and I called this batter out. Many other posters would agree with me that I made the right call. You would choose to ignore it. That is your right, I guess.