Batter out of box

[LLPA13UmpDan]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

"I've got more important things to look for, like the pitch. Go back to the dugout."

You let whiny coaches tell you how to officiate?

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.

[mcrowder]

Somewhere over 1500 games - 0 calls of this kind for me as well.

For those of you that seem to think this is some kind of flaw in an umpire that he's not calling this, let me ask you two questions:

1) at the moment that you see the foot contacting the ground outside the box, where is the pitch? I cannot believe any peripheral vision nonsense, as this is about 45 degrees apart, and one or the other would be in your extreme peripheral vision unless you were actually looking at NEITHER the ball or the foot. Isn't it more important for you to know where the pitch is than the foot?

2) Truly, except for some extremely bizarre circumstance (I don't know, say a slap hitter taking 4 steps toward the pitcher before hitting it), is there any advantage gained by the batter's foot being marginally outside that box?

Note that I am not saying we should intentionally ignore a rule - what I'm saying is that A) it's impossible to do your duties and also see this violation, and B) if you're going to miss one or the other, isn't it better to miss the one for which there is no advantage gained?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by LLPA13UmpDan

But I dont know how you guys stand behind the plate, but i can see the pitch and the batters feet too.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

Steve, are you paranoid or insecure? I didn't make any reference to what level you work other than to relate what you have said. I know you only from your posts. If you have been truthful, I know what you want me to know.

I said our experiences have been different. That is a true statement. That is a universal statement. Only you have experienced your life. Again, this is not a statement about the level of ball anybody works. My experience is different than my partners in the same work we work.

I have never experienced the blatant situations you describe. Never. I also never said that this makes me a better umpire. I said it makes our experiences different.

Get a grip, Steve. Not every disgareement, or difference in experience is a personal affront to you.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

What was your training from those pro school grads and MiLB umpires, with respect to calling illegal batting (batted ball with one foot out of the box)? Every clinic I've attended or heard about has training very similar to what several guys here are saying - foot out of the box is simply not a priority for the plate umpire.

And that's what they, and I, are trying to convey to those on the board who are looking for sound advice on what this rule means and how it should be enforced. Your strained hypothetical seems aimed only at forcing Tee et. al. to admit that yeah, OK, in that case you would have to call it. But that's an exercise in futility. Tee's maxims are carved in stone; I thought you knew that. Haven't you been around for one of his IIITBTSB threads?

Your hypothetical is distracting from the message the greenhorn (and some others who aren't so green) should be getting from this thread, and it is a message that is supported by professional trainers, and I bet you'll even agree with that. They say, consistently, the same things Tee and Rich are saying:

If you're properly tracking the pitch, then you can't be watching the batters feet. Call the pitch, forget the feet. Discreetly lose the front and inside lines, if they're there, and you can probably avoid having to deal with a whiney coach who picked up the same myth about how illegal batting should be enforced.

It's not about always having to be right; it's about being right, at least on the important points. And in this thread, I think you're right in your head but that's lost because you're racing to a how many umpires can dance on the head of a pin argument, needlessly. Needlessly, that is, unless you need to argue.

[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]

I've been following this thread of discussion, and I've got a question.

Having (re)read J/R and JEA on the question, this strikes me as a legitimate rule which can, in certain situations, have a material impact on the "balance of the game" between offense and defense. Namely, during an IBB, a pitch-out with runners attempting to advance, or a batter (especially LH) attempting to drag bunt for a basehit. So, I'm suggesting that this rule means what it says, and, at least in some situations, really should be called, especially if the violation is "blatant" rather than "borderline".

Now, a number of the distinguished umpires have suggested that they simply would not be able to see this happen, because they are focused on calling the pitch. OK, let's just "buy that" for the time being.

What about if you're a BU in a two-man crew? Wouldn't seem that hard to see if it were blatant and occurred in one of the three situations I mentioned.

What say you?

JM

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

What about if you're a BU in a two-man crew? Wouldn't seem that hard to see if it were blatant and occurred in one of the three situations I mentioned.

What say you?

JM

As a coach who could be on either side of this call, do you really want me, from 105' away, to exercise my opinion if a foot is grounded at the time of a hit when I am concentrating on the swing and the ball? Really?

[UmpJM]

Garth,

If it's obvious/blatant and a situation where the offense gains a material advantage (as in the three situations described earlier), I think I WOULD want you to call it were I the defensive manager. Were I the offensive manager in the same situation, I wouldn't WANT you to call it, but you certainly wouldn't hear a peep out of me if you did.

JM

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Garth,

If it's obvious/blatant and a situation where the offense gains a material advantage (as in the three situations described earlier), I think I WOULD want you to call it were I the defensive manager. Were I the offensive manager in the same situation, I wouldn't WANT you to call it, but you certainly wouldn't hear a peep out of me if you did.

JM

Oh, good. So I only need to take my focus off my job when someone thinks that another call is obvious or blatant. Now we have a rule with attempted enforcement, sometimes. Who decides what is obvious or batant? So what happens when a coach thinks it's obvious or blatant and I don't?

I can see it now. Batter squares to bunt and, in the opinion of a coach, is blatantly out of the box. He, checks his swing.

PU: "Did he go?" BU: "Beats the F*@# out of me, but I think his foot was out of the box."


Just the fact that the other side of this issue has to try so hard to come up with a situation to support their position should tell you something.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by PWL

Why do you call the batter out on a check swing? He needs to make contact to have an illegally batted ball.

PWL,

I don't believe Garth did (call the batter out).

I do believe you missed his point.

JM