Batter out of box

[Tim C]

JR:

I do not believe I have ever used a "smiley face" before . . .

POTW,

Regards,

[RonRef]

Originally Posted by Tim C

JR:

I do not believe I have ever used a "smiley face" before . . .

POTW,

Regards,

Tim, maybe you should smile more?

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by RonRef

It bothers me when I read that guys will flat out ignore it even if they see it.

Nobody has said they will ignore it if they see it. They have said they are very sure they won't see it, because they are doing something far more important - calling the pitch.

[Tim C]

"It is not about finding or looking for problems, it is about enforcing the rules of the game."

And therein Ron lies part of the problem.

Baseball, more than other sports, is heavily influenced by not only "common sense and fair play" but by what Evans calls "common usage and tradition."

We call a game with established rules (I consider them "guidelines") that have been influenced by not only decades of play situations but defined information from several sources that impact individual rules codes (i.e. before the recent OBR release there were 237 common erros in the OBR, slowly they are being corrected).

I am not going to sit here and call people names or get over emotional about any baseball rule, "guideline" or play.

I have given my honest and unadulterated opinion about this "mechanic" (not the rule, note we are talking about physical abilities) and the fact will always remain that I have not called this violation nor can I picture a time that I would.

For me (again, my opinion) is that umpiring is not done for "fun" -- it is a serious commitment and a constant effort to umpire a perfect game.

Sorry we can never agree on the play in question . . . but I do ask that you understand that some people review umpiring is a slightly different light than you.

I can understand your position -- can you understand, or respect mine?

Regards,

[RonRef]

Originally Posted by Tim C

"It is not about finding or looking for problems, it is about enforcing the rules of the game."

And therein Ron lies part of the problem.

Baseball, more than other sports, is heavily influenced by not only "common sense and fair play" but by what Evans calls "common usage and tradition."

We call a game with established rules (I consider them "guidelines") that have been influenced by not only decades of play situations but defined information from several sources that impact individual rules codes (i.e. before the recent OBR release there were 237 common erros in the OBR, slowly they are being corrected).

I am not going to sit here and call people names or get over emotional about any baseball rule, "guideline" or play.

I have given my honest and unadulterated opinion about this "mechanic" (not the rule, note we are talking about physical abilities) and the fact will always remain that I have not called this violation nor can I picture a time that I would.

For me (again, my opinion) is that umpiring is not done for "fun" -- it is a serious commitment and a constant effort to umpire a perfect game.

Sorry we can never agree on the play in question . . . but I do ask that you understand that some people review umpiring is a slightly different light than you.

I can understand your position -- can you understand, or respect mine?

Regards,

I do respect your opinion, we can agree to disagree on this topic.

[3appleshigh]

to write it off as well it's a sac bunt, therefore they are giving the out anyway, shows a distinct lack of understanding of the stratagy and the Ideas behind the SAC. The offense GAINS something by having a SAC, they move a runner into Scoring position. In a tie or close game this is a much more importants and crucial play than an attempted Bunt single.

When it happens it is obvious. And easily called, easier than a check swing, and it happens right infront of your face, in your vision. It will only happen on a pitch out or one that got away. As I said before in my instance the ONLY way the kid could have reached the pitch (with out laying out for it) was to be WAY out of the box. He left his FOOT print in the dirt about 6 in behind the point of home plate Toes facing the pitcher. Unless he wears a size 55E shoe, he's out of the box.

[mcrowder]

And you're SURE the foot is grounded at the moment the pitch hits the bat?

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

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?

I can tell you the last time I saw it on TV. This year a Phillies batter was called out for contacting the ball while outside the box. His back foot was too far back, and the umpire got him on it.

Perhaps the reason we don't see it on TV much is because pro baseball players know better then to do it.

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

I can tell you the last time I saw it on TV. This year a Phillies batter was called out for contacting the ball while outside the box. His back foot was too far back, and the umpire got him on it.

Perhaps the reason we don't see it on TV much is because pro baseball players know better then to do it.

THAN, not THEN.

There a couple of these that simply drive me crazy.

then instead of than
your instead of you're

Your Pal,

Joe

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

your instead of you're

Your Pal,

Joe

- hope this helps.....

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

to write it off as well it's a sac bunt, therefore they are giving the out anyway, shows a distinct lack of understanding of the stratagy and the Ideas behind the SAC. The offense GAINS something by having a SAC, they move a runner into Scoring position. In a tie or close game this is a much more importants and crucial play than an attempted Bunt single.

When it happens it is obvious. And easily called, easier than a check swing, and it happens right infront of your face, in your vision. It will only happen on a pitch out or one that got away. As I said before in my instance the ONLY way the kid could have reached the pitch (with out laying out for it) was to be WAY out of the box. He left his FOOT print in the dirt about 6 in behind the point of home plate Toes facing the pitcher. Unless he wears a size 55E shoe, he's out of the box.

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.

[Tim C]

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,

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by Tim C

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

[mrm21711]

Originally Posted by Tim C

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,

Tee,

Has anybody ever called you a straw man before?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mrm21711

Tee,

Has anybody ever called you a straw man before?

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