Batter out of box

[Rich]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I'm sorry. I don't understand. The batter squares around before the pitcher is finished winding up, he hasn't released the ball, and the batter has his foot all over the plate, way outside the box, and you don't see it? Or is it that you just don't choose to see it?

My strike zone's east and west borders are determined by their approximate location in relation to the outer edges of the 17 inch whitened 5-sided slab of rubber known as home plate. Part of my vision sees this plate on every pitch, and if there is a person standing on it, I'm going to see it.

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?"

It's not where his foot is when it's pitched. Are you looking at his foot the second the ball is batted. If so, how the heck are you tracking the pitch all the way to F2's glove?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Gentlemen,

I am certainly not looking to "pick a fight" with anyone over this, I'm just trying to understand.

In 12 years of coaching youth baseball (what I'm sure many of you would dismiss as "kiddie ball") I have seen two instances (that I'm aware of) of a batter hitting the ball with one foot on the ground and completely out of the box. In one case, the batter was called out & in the other no call was made. In both cases, it was blatantly obvious that the batter had batted the ball with his foot out of the box.

Earlier this year, one of our umpires (just finished his Freshman year of college - in his fifth year of umpiring) asked me about a situation he had had in a game where he called a CI & the defensive coach argued that the batter had his back foot out of the box at the time the bat hit the catcher's mitt. He stuck with his call & I advised him that he had been correct in doing so.

As I understand it, those on the "I've never seen it" side of the question are suggesting that a PU, if his mechanics and timing are proper, would not be able to see it if it were to happen. This actually makes some sense to me.

Over the weekend, I watched a tournament that featured some fairly high quality baseball and some consistently high quality umpiring. One thing I noticed was how "locked in" the PUs were when calling balls and strikes. They literally did not move a muscle until noticeably after the ball was in the catcher's mitt, past him, or the batter had hit the ball. So, it is not inconceivable to me that a good PU would be so focused on calling the pitch that the location of the batter's feet at the instant of contact would typically be a mystery to him.

However, I'm having a little trouble understanding how the BU in a 2-man crew would be so tightly focused on the ball, from 100' away, that he would not notice if a batter had one or both feet clearly out of the box at the instant of bat-ball contact. Though Garth implied that the BU had other things to be narrowly focused on, I'm a little unclear on HOW one could be so narrowly focused - especially in situations such as an IBB, a pitch-out, or a LH batter attempting a drag bunt. In which admittedly highly unusual case, I would think it should be seen and should be called. If it had never happened, there wouldn't be a rule - in professional baseball. And amateur baseball. At all levels.

Perhaps one of the learned umpires would be so kind as to explain it in a way explicit and simple enough for a poor dumb coach to understand.

Finally, though I've only ever seen one of them actually work a game, I find the notion that Messrs. Christenson, Hensley, Benham, Fronheiser & Crowder would, either individually or collectively, lack the intestinal fortitude to make a call because they were concerned about the COACH's reaction to the call beyond laughably absurd. So, it must be something else.

JM

(Edited to give credit where credit is due.)

It would be difficult to be 100% sure on something like this, but the shorter answer is....

It's just not a call given to the base umpire. Simple as that. We wouldn't call it because it simply isn't ours to call.

[SanDiegoSteve]

No, Rich, and that's not what I'm getting at. If the batter is standing on the plate when he hits the ball, and his feet are nowhere near the batter's box then he's out of the box. I'm not saying to go out of the way to see it, only when it is blatant and obvious.

Nobody I know goes out of their way to look for something like this, but if an elephant lands on you, you know it.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

It would be difficult to be 100% sure on something like this, but the shorter answer is....

It's just not a call given to the base umpire. Simple as that. We wouldn't call it because it simply isn't ours to call.

Rich,

Thanks for indulging me. I need to think about your response for a while.

JM

[TussAgee11]

Boy, this thread got big quick.

JM, as Rich said, its just not the base-umps call. Its right at the PU's lap, and he needs to call it.

Steve- I'm with you. There is no possibly way if you are the PU not to see such a blatant violation. And even if you didn't, as soon as the ball was contacted, I may take a peek down at the batter's foot. Sure, I didn't see it when the ball was contacted, but I know it hasn't moved!

Imagine these scenarios:

1) Runner rounding 3rd, you are watching him. Coach grabs the kid to help him get back to third. As BU or PU, I may have never seen contact between the player and coach, but I sure as hell know that it happened. Would you all ignore that too, just because you didn't directly see it?

2) What about a pitcher who uses a spitball? Do you have to see him spit on the ball? Or is it good enough that when it comes in, and is inspected, that it has spit on it.

3) What about if a brand new baseball comes in low on a batter and you're not sure if it hit his shoe or not. Catcher picks up the ball and hands it to you, and there is a black mark on it from shoe polish. You didn't see it hit him, will you award first base?

As Umpires, we are within our right to take in all information regarding a play. I see the batter in/out of the box as one of these deals. If he is a righty batter, and after contact, I see his foot in the lefty's box, and I know it hasn't moved, he's out.

[UmpJM]

TussAgee11,

I might have a little problem with what Rich said; but, as I said, I need to think about it.

I know you didn't ask, but I'm going to say it anyway. I think there might be a little "advanced umpiring" education being offered here (for FREE, no less) and my impression is that you are missing it.

On the other hand, maybe I'm the one who is missing the point.

Just be careful about leaping into something over your head before you look. It can do serious damage to your credibility. If you care about that sort of thing.

JMO.

JM

[Rich]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

TussAgee11,

I might have a little problem with what Rich said; but, as I said, I need to think about it.

I know you didn't ask, but I'm going to say it anyway. I think there might be a little "advanced umpiring" education being offered here (for FREE, no less) and my impression is that you are missing it.

On the other hand, maybe I'm the one who is missing the point.

Just be careful about leaping into something over your head before you look. It can do serious damage to your credibility. If you care about that sort of thing.

JMO.

JM

Let's add a little more to my response, then, JM.

Batter bunts, seems to run into his bunt. I call "TIME" as the base umpire because I don't know if the plate umpire is going to rule that the batter is out of the box or not when the ball hit him. The plate umpire is going to do his best to determine this, but is very unlikely to (at least umpires I know who work higher level baseball) ask me. If there is uncertainty, the PU will rule the ball FOUL.

TussAgee11, there is no doubt that we use other pieces of information than what we see. We hear foul balls, we see batters immediately hop on a foot on foul balls off the body (of course we use this), we hear catcher's interference, etc. But worrying about where the feet are on a batted ball is just not a priority for those in this thread who say they aren't even trying to look at it. Calling the pitch is. I'd rather let the batter have a foot out than take my eyes off the pitch. Or worse, have Garth's situation where the umpire gets it wrong. Like I said earlier, please tell me the last time you've seen this called on TV. You mean those batters are ALWAYS in the box?

If we want to employ a little reductio ad absurdum, there is one situation I know where I would call this -- an intentional walk where the batter walks across the plate to hit the ball. Then again, I'm not tracking that pitch, am I?

Who, besides umpires, uses shoe polish in 2006? And I wouldn't call the coach's interference if I didn't see it -- last night I was working the plate on the state championship for Senior LL (big diamond) and we used 3 umpires. I saw what probably looked like coach's interference to someone not really watching third, but I had touch responsibility, so my eyes were there. The runner tripped over the bag, stumbled, and the coach agressively told the runner to return and, essentially, followed him back to the base. The stumble and the coach following made it look like the coach pushed him back towards third, but there was never contact. You would want to risk making a call like this if you hadn't actually seen the assistance?

[RonRef]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I didn't want to know about a hit-and-run play that the batter "reaches" for. I wouldn't see his footwork on this play either, nor would anyone else quite frankly. Nor would I care.

I asked specifically about a batter who doesn't know how to bunt properly, who squares around and his back foot is entirely on top of the plate, which is clearly visible in the umpire's peripheral vision. If you saw this, would you call it?

I agree with Steve, the couple of times I have called it was on bunts plays like he described. Why would you have to keep tracking a pitch that you know is about 2-3 feet outside? We need to call this infraction "if" we see it. It bothers me when I read that guys will flat out ignore it even if they see it. We won't catch them all that is for sure, but if it is obvious we need to get it! You say you can't do two things at the same instance, then how do you track the pitch and see if the batter checked his swing or if he offered at a bunt?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by RonRef

I agree with Steve, the couple of times I have called it was on bunts plays like he described. Why would you have to keep tracking a pitch that you know is about 2-3 feet outside? We need to call this infraction "if" we see it. It bothers me when I read that guys will flat out ignore it even if they see it. We won't catch them all that is for sure, but if it is obvious we need to get it! You say you can't do two things at the same instance, then how do you track the pitch and see if the batter checked his swing or if he offered at a bunt?

Because those things usually happen in my frame of vision as I'm tracking the pitch. But I will get blocked out from time to time even then and that's why we have the check swing appeal.

Philosophically speaking: I just don't see why a foot out of the box on a bunt (usually a sac bunt on a bad pitch) is something we should be jumping all over. The offense is giving away an out in the first place. Let them do it. But then again, I'm not seeing it. I don't look down at the feet when I'm working the plate.

[Tim C]

We have another subject that will separate umpires forever.

Add this to:

Does there need to be voluntary release of a gloved ball?

Can a fast ball really "rise"?

Can a pitch be called a strike that bounces before F2 catches it?

Entertainment value only . . .

Regards,

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

Maybe this is part of the answer to the dilemma. I don't think Tee has worked a game lower than HS varsity, for example (but I might be remembering incorrectly).

I have called this violation a couple of times in my career -- at the 13/14 Pony level, and at the Frosh HS level. Both were blatant violations.

As I've moved up, I've not made the call. Maybe the players are better than to commit a blatant violation. Maybe the play is faster so I can't see the violation. Maybe it's just not happened. Maybe the players and coaches don't whine for the obscure, no-advantage call (complaints about such calls as F-3 being in foul territory, not tagging the base runner when the ball is down in plenty of time, etc. also seem to diminish at the higher levels), so I'm not looking for it.

Does Evans say anything about the intent of the rule? Is it to restrict the batters feet on a ("normal") sacrifice bunt? Or is it to prevent moving way up or way back to hit a curve / Randy Johnson fastball? Or to prevent "not accepting" an intentional walk (and putting the ball in play when the defense probably isn't ready for it)? I think it's more likely to be the latter type of examples, but I don't know.

[UmpJM]

Rich,

You pretty much anticipated what was "bothering me" - thanks for clarifying.

I think I'm beginning to see the light.

For Bob J.,

This is what JEA says:

Customs and Usage: Umpires should be especially attentive when an intentional walk is being given, a batter is
bunting for a base hit, or a pitch-out is being thrown. These are the times a batter is most likely to step out of the
box to hit the ball.

JM

[David B]

Originally Posted by LLPA13UmpDan

No i dont let them. I just try to keep the game fair, and play by the rules. But I dont know how you guys stand behind the plate, but i can see the pitch and the batters feet too.

That sounds good in theory; however, in reality that is simply not possible. The only time I find myself looking at a batters feet is between pitches when a coach has been yelling "he's out of the box".

So between pitches I look at his feet and "he's in the box".

Another reality, especially if you stil do small ball, F2 blocks the umpire most of the time so you have enough problems just finding the ball much less looking at the pitch, looking down at a batters foot and then back for a pitch.

I was PU in a HS playoff game last season when a batter was called for being out of the box, but it was the BU who made the call.

Batter was trying to protect a runner by doing a drag bunt. I couldn't even see the pitch because batter was between myself and the pitcher etc. but once he laid the bunt down, BU called him out.

Probably a very good call, but there is no way I as PU could make that judgement.

Thanks
David

[RonRef]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

Who actually looks down at the feet when a batter is batting? Sorry, I'm tracking a pitch and that takes precedence over this idiocy.

How many times has a batter in the Major Leagues put his entire foot BEHIND the plate to bunt the ball. Even though the foot is clearly out of the box, how many times have you seen this called?

Problems find me on occasion. I sure don't go looking for them.....or to prove my masterful knowledge of the rule book.

It is not about finding or looking for problems, it is about enforcing the rules of the game. If they didn't want it called it wouldn't be in the rule book! (I am not saying to be a rule book Tommy) Last time I checked that is our job as sports officials to enforce the rules of the game and if we don't enforce this one when we see it we are putting the defense at a disadvantage. If you ignore it on a sac bunt you still are letting the offense put a runner on second with the penalty of an out. If you call it the defense gets the out and the runner is still on first. So that philosophy doesn't hold water.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Can a fast ball really "rise"?

Certainly, and it's been scientifically proven!

A pitcher applying vaseline or other similar substances will cause the ball to drop precipitively at about the 59' foot mark.

Similarly, a pitcher applying Viagra or other similar substances will cause the ball to rise. It's basic chemistry.

It's true, it's true.....